Put Your Arrow On
Scripture Reference;
Wait Two Seconds,
Scripture Appears!
ALWAYS Read Bible!









Comprehensive Bible Encyclopedia™
By The Cambridge Theological Seminary™
Where The Word of God Is: "STILL...INERRANT!"




Comprehensive Bible Encyclopedia

All Entries for LETTER "I"



Understanding Future According to "HIS WORD",
Understanding History Providentially, as "HIS-STORY!"
And Today, From Where We've Been, To Where "HE'S LEADING!"


FACT: Wikipedia is the "World's Most-Referenced Resource!"
FACT: We Recognize Wikipedia's Great Success


"CHRISTIPEDIA™ Recommendation!

Use Ameripedia, Conservapedia, Theopedia, Biblipedia, Islamipedia;
Scriptipedia, Judaeopedia, Medipedia, Christipedia, Musicipedia, etc;
We plead for support to Biblical Christian Researchers, Scholars;

"CHRISTIPEDIA™" is a “Trademark” Of NewtonStein Academy,
Of Cambridge Theological Seminary™, American Bible Church;


Web’s Largest and Most,

Comprehensive, Christian Website!


(Nearly 500,000 Pages!)
The Web

God's Eternal Guarantee!

"Heaven and Earth Shall Pass Away;
But GOD'S WORDS Shall NOT Pass Away! (Matthew 5:18) "
--Jesus the Messiah, AD-33


    NewtonStein Statement On Holy Scriptures;

    The ‘Lens’ Through Which All Knowledge Is Understood;


    "IF" there exists any such thing as 'The Word of God'; [and ALL evidence proves such does exist:]

    "THEN" by inherent definition - it must be:

      Holy, Inspired, Inerrant, Intrepid, Infallible, Infinitive, Invincible, Indestructible, Inexhaustible, Inalienable, Immutable, Implacable, Impossible-to-Improve: Eternal and Indubitable NEVER FAILING and ALL CONQUERING!

      DEDUCTING from the simple fact - that God equates His Word with Himself:

        "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, . . ." John 1:1 (and other Scriptures),
    Thus 'GOD'S WORD' can have no lesser standard than stated above;


      As true in history, archeology, geography, Earth science, medical science, nutrition, gerontology, agriculture, botany, astronomy, physics, chemistry, climatology, government, law, psychology, sociology - and every subject it touches - as in Theology, Divinity and Doctrine:

    And "IF IT BE NOT" - true in all subjects mentioned above; and And "IF IT BE NOT"

      Holy, Inspired, Inerrant, Intrepid, Infallible, Infinitive, Invincible, Indestructible, Inexhaustible, Inalienable, Immutable, Implacable, Impossible-to-Improve: Eternal and Indubitable in EVERY FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE:
    Whatever else it may be, it cannot be ‘The Incomparable Word’ of the Great Creator God!


    Do You Qualify for
    An Honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Cambridge Theological Seminary?
    If you believe God's Word as Stated Above:
    (CLICK! For a Free Evaluation!)

    Please Visit Top Webpages


    [1] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "GREAT COMMISSION MANDATE!” Some Sobering Questions; (Very Brief!)

    [2] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – "God’s Goals” v. “Satan’s Goals” – WHO WINS? (Very Brief!)

    [3] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Greatest PLAN of Evangelization DO THE MATH, Part-1 (Very Brief!)

    [4] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –Jesus said: “I WILL Build MY Church!”
    (But Did He Really Mean It?)

    [5] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Alarming Church News! USA! (Brief)

    [6] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christ’s Commission: Does it Mean “Global Domination?”

    [7] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Can You Face The Truth? Part-1 (MESSAGE)

    [8] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Can You Face The Truth? Part-2 (MESSAGE)

    [9] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Jesus and Paul on the “End-of-the-World” by-NewtonStein

    [10] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - Conservative Activists: "Who's Who in Christian Conservative Politics?

    [11] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Is Our Modern Church Ignorant of Christ’s Purpose?

    [12] "RAPTURE-READY™" – Why Jesus did not come back in 2009! (Do you Know?)

    [13] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Preachers’ Greatest Sin: (Are You guilty?)

    [14] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christ Warns: A “Five-Fold-Question!”

    [15] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – OPEN LETTER to Our Fellow Laborers

    [16] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Are All Denominations Wrong? Mostly?

    [17] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Who Will save Christianity?

    [18] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – A Workable Plan that would-Truly Revive Christianity!

    [19] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "American Christianity Rides The Titanic!

    [20] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Founding Fathers’ Kingdom, Now Dominion!

    [21] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Great Falling Away Prophesied by Apostle Paul!

    [22] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Biblical End of World, Basic Terms and Concepts

    [23] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christianity Is Dying In Western Civilization: WHY?

    [24] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christian Myths! Do You Believe Them?

    [25] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Church Growth Goals Priority Page

    [26] "RAPTURE-READY™" – Modern Christianity Is A Mess!

    [27] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – The “Anti-Christ Home Page

    [28] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – TOP-TEN Messages To Maximize Your Ministry

    [29] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Calling All Christians Unite, Christ Commands!

    [30] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Christianity Is Confusing and Getting WORSE! WHY?

    [31] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Every-Minister A Hero

    [32] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Legal Abortion: Is It Good for Christians?

    [33] " CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Southern Baptists Dying: WHY?

    [34] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Satan’s TOP-TEN Greatest-Lies! Do You Believe Any?

    [35] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –Truth Test-3 Questions For Christians

    [36] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Evangelicals Call for Government School Exodus!

    [37] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Hall of Faith Christian Activist Ministers, 2nd-half 20th Century "

    [38] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –The Early Christian-Church Outlaws Homosexuality!


    [40] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Our GOD-GIVEN Rights, Guaranteed in the Bible: Called “Civil” and “Human” Rights

    [41] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Rush Limbaugh Quotes" on Christ and Christianity!

    [42] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"

    [43] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "GREAT COMMISSION MANDATE!" Some Sobering Questions;

    [44] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Hall of Faith Christian Activist Ministers, 2nd-half 20th Century "

    [45] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" –The Early Christian-Church Outlaws Homosexuality!


    [47] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" – Our GOD-GIVEN Rights, Guaranteed in the Bible: Called “Civil” and “Human” Rights

    [48] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "Rush Limbaugh Quotes" on Christ and Christianity!

    [49] “CHRISTIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"

    [50] “AMERIPEDIA™" - George Washington Used 30-THEOLOGICAL TERMS, 3000 Times!





    Haeckel's Imaginary Drawings: 100 Years of Error

    The 40-Year Piltdown Hoax!

    The 'Nebraska Man' becomes a 'Pig's Tooth!'

    10 Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World!

    Global Warming Hoax (Hundreds of Articles!)






    Comprehensive Bible Encyclopedia™
    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia™


    By Cambridge Theological Seminary;

    Key Word - Color Coded Edition;

    Approx 12,000 Entries;
    Approx 20,000 Web-Pages;
    Approx 100,000 Scriptures;

    LETTER "I"

    All Commentary from INSPIRED-INERRANT View of God's Word!

    NewtonStein combines the best Bible Scholars of Yester-year,



    Simply Move Your "ARROW" over any Scripture Reference

    Scripture will appear in TWO VERSIONS, KJV & LITERAL;

    Do You Qualify for
    An Honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Cambridge Theological Seminary?
    If you believe God's Word as Stated Above:
    (Click for a Free Evaluation)



    Will You Take "THE BIBLE PLEDGE?"

    (Christians Sending a "Message" to ALL Elected Officials!)

    Many Thousands Already Have: And GOD is "Keeping Track!"!

    (Are you Afraid? Ashamed? Apathetic? Anti-Christ? Or Against God's Authority?)


        "The BIBLE is the WORD of GOD!


          *HOLY and UNCHANGING!

          *HIGHEST AUTHORITY on Earth!

        As I UNDERSTAND the BIBLE,

          >> I will NEVER 'GO' against, 'VOTE' against, or 'SPEAK' Against,

          >> The WORD of GOD,

          >> So Help me GOD!


        Please "CLICK" the following to Affirm your Commitment as a CHRISTIAN AMERICAN to the Word of God upon the Earth!

      This Christian American BELIEVES in the WORD OF GOD!


    Many Fine Bible Scholars seem unaware,
    Of Christ's Great Parable covering the whole Church Age,
    From His Sowing First Seed and His Great End-Time Harvest of Souls!
    To Final Judgment of the Unsaved and their Damnation;
    To Christ’s Presence and Eternal Kingdom!

    (See Greatest Parable on End of Times!)
    Christ’s Greatest Parable on End of Times: Brief Overview





    By Webster-NewtonStein;

    With Cambridge Theological Seminary™, AD-2000;

    Translation Axiom: God's Word! "INSPIRED-INERRANT!"




    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Concise COMMENTARY)

    (See Cambridge Concise Bible CONCORDANCE)

    (See Cambridge Concise Bible DICTIONARY)

    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Bible DICTIONARY)

    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Bible ENCYCLOPEDIA)

    (See Cambridge Comprehensive Bible COMMENTARY)


    ** Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, The Whole NEW TESTAMENT

    [1] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, HOMEPAGE and INDEX

    [2] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, INTRO and PREFACE

    [3] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, GENESIS - DEUTERONOMY

    [4] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, JOSHUA To ESTHER

    [5] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, JOB To SONG of SOLOMON

    [6] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, THE PSALMS

    [7] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, ISAIAH To JEREMIAH

    [8] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, EZEKIEL To MALACHI

    [9] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, MATTHEW To ACTS

    [10] Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, ROMANS To THE-REVELATION

    ** Cambridge Bible Commentary Concise, The Whole OLD TESTAMENT



    Self-Confessed List: GAY & PRO-GAY Ministers!

    AMERIPEDIA: George Washington on HOMOSEXUALITY




      Deuter-canonical Books are included as references, and less often, the Pseudo-pigraphia (extra-biblical New Testament Era writings - such as the Epistle of Barnabas - used for over 300 years by the early Church.

      Though these are 'NOT' Inerrant Scripture, they are very important as geographical and historical references, and helping to understand how particular Hebrew and Greek words were used.

      Since the Deuter-canonical Books were part of the Jewish Bible that Jesus and Paul used, they have great value for understanding the era between the Covenants, and all things Jewish.

      Many will be surprised to know they were in the Geneva Bible of Calvin and Knox - and the Puritan Pilgrims - and included in the King James for over 275 years . . .

      . . . and left out in later versions - ONLY to make the Bible MORE PROFITABLE, by selling at the usual price, while being much smaller to print!

      No wonder Paul said the "love of money is the root of all evil!"

      Further know, that that these books are rejected by most Bible Preachers today, BECAUSE the Jews of Jesus' Day rejected them for the Jewish Canon at the Council of Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem.

      This seems reasonable enough, and though these Scribes and Lawyers SHOULD have had superior knowledge in ALL THINGS JEWISH . . . in their Jewish wisdom, THEY ALSO REJECTED JESUS AS THE MESSIAH!!!

      TheDeuter-canonical Books are very "Kingdom of God" and "Messianic" Oriented, thus the Jews sis NOT want any writings confirming that Jesus WAS the Jewish Messiah.

      The wise "Students-north-Scholars" will know them, as they provide light on New Testament Scripture that are NOT understood otherwise;

    Quick Example:

    In Luke 3:36 YOUR Bible reads as follows:
        "Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noe (Noah), which was the son of Lamech;"

      This ancestor of Jesus named "Cainan, son of Arphaxad: where is he in YOUR Bible; (Check Genesis 11:13, and other genealogies).

      This dilemma - which the WORLD calls a great contradiction in the linage of Jesus as the Christ - can ONLY be solved by the Bible Jesus used, which included the Deuter-canonical Books.

      Do you suppose Jesus knew more about the "Correct Books of the Bible than modern "lukewarm" Denominations?


    How To Use This Page

    ** To SEARCH for any word, subject or Scripture on this website, use the GOLD-BOX SITE SEARCH near top of page: over 600,000 pages available from Cambridge Theological Seminary Archives;

    ** To SEARCH for anyword, subject or Scripture on this SINGULAR-WEB-PAGE you are now on, (which may be from 100-3,000 regular notebook sized pages);

      [1] Go to the TOP TOOLBAR of your Monitor and find EDIT

      [3] Click EDIT and menu drops down: "Click FIND

      [3] Type in word, Scripture or whatever you are looking for;

      [4] Then Click "MATCH CASE" if you need it;

      [5] Then Click "NEXT" or "PREVIOUS" to search as much as you desire!



      Consider the Hebrew Language:

      Hebrew is "The Perfect Language" - in the original form - as the Hebrew Language has evolved from perfection:

        >> God taught, or programmed, Adam and Eve perfect Hebrew;

        >> over a thousand years it eroded into informal Hebrew, as formal British-English eroded into the American dialect;

        >> over hundreds of more years it became a "dead Hebrew", meaning it is no longer spoken by any nation of people;

        >> eventually evolving into into the derivative Aramaic, which was commonly spoken in the days of Jesus;

        >> finally evolving into that "modern Hebrew" spoken in Israel in Post-AD-2000).

      The linguistics of the Hebrew Language as designed and taught by God to Adam and Eve (or perhaps "programmed" - either way does not affect the evidence of the Godhead) gives us massive and mighty "Eternal Evidence", daily clues and reminders of the Existence and Transcendence of the Almighty Godhead:

        >> God the Spirit - who is Spirit; manifest as Spirit of Ghost (that is Presence without corporeal body or manifestation such as Christ after His Resurrection);

        >> God the Father - willing to give His Son to save the World John 3:16-17;

        >> God the Son - willing to give His life to save the World! John 12:47;

      God decided to continually reveal the "THREE-FOLD-NATURE-OF-HIS-GODHEAD" by making EVERY Hebrew "root word" have THREE-CONSONANTS!"

        > NEVER 2 letters;

        > NEVER 4, 5, 6, or more;

        > BUT ALWAYS 3 letters!

        > And ONLY 3 and THREE alone!


      Likewise, the "Language of Life" - called by some "The Protein Language" - also designed and programmed by God to be the language of all living substance from lions to dandelions to from babies to buttercups top butterflies!

      The Protein Language is the language of Genetics, of Cells, of plants and animals and all that exists: the Code of Life;

      The PROTEIN LANGUAGE consists of "CODONS".

      This Language of all Life is also made of THREE LETTER WORDS, and each letter of these TRINITARIAN CODONS, is the life-giving code for an amino acid, creating the genetic structure of all that is LIFE!

      Thus every word that your body parts (cells, organs, glands and tissues, etc.,) write to each other, and every word your body reads in communication from another body part, these are ALL THREE LETTER WORDS!

      All of the intelligence your body has, all it knows and all it communicates - in every bodily function possible - is given in THREE LETTER WORDS!

        > NEVER 2 letters;

        > NEVER 4, 5, 6, or more;

        > ALWAYS 3 letters!

        > ONLY 3 and THREE alone!

      Can we possibly miss this, asks NewtonStein? (Not if we can count as far as 1, 2, 3!!!)

    Even the Word "G-O-D" in English . . . is Three Letters!

      Why is "GOD" in English significant?

      For the simple reason that today, in the POST-AD-2,000 word, very few scores of thousands speak Biblical Hebrew with the THREE-LETTER-ROOT-WORD structure.

      Comparatively, scores of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS SPEAK English!

        >> ENGLISH, is an Official Language in well over 100 nations of the World!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Major Language of Science, Globally!

        >> ENGLISH, is an Official - and the Major - Language of , the United Nations!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Official Language of The Internet!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Major Language of Serious Publishing - even in Japan and Germany!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Official Language of Global Airlines and Airports!

        >> ENGLISH, is The Official Language of OF the World!

        ** THUS more people will hear the Gospel in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        ** THUS more people will read the Gospel in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        ** THUS more people will own a Bible in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        ** THUS more people will get saved from learning TRUTH in ENGLISH than any other Language!

        FACT! SINCE God knew of the ENGLISH as the Global Language before the Foundation of the World!

        FACT! SINCE God in His Goodness has ALWAYS given Signs to Those Who Believe, from Moses and Israel, to Samson, to The Virgin Birth as a sign (Isa 7:14) to the Swaddling Clothes as a sign, to the Signs of the times in Matthew 24:4-24, Mark 13:5-20 and Luke 17:31-41 and 21:10-25;

        FACT! SINCE God originally made His name a "Three-Letter-Root-Word in Hebrew - "JAH" (Psalm 68:4)

        FACT! ONCE AGAIN God made His Name a THREE LETTER WORD in ENGLISH, the Global Language of the most populated era of Earth!

      So remember this every time "GOD!" is heard, read, said, etc., teach this to others, and help your family and friends see the "SIGNS along the WAY!"

    Seeing God in Linguistics, in General;

      In linguistics, there are many, many more, that PROVE God is the Designer of (a)All language, (b)alphabet, (c)Hebrew, (d) that Hebrew is the parent language of all others, (e)word structure, (f)actual words unique to Hebrew that pertain to God . . .


      . . . BECAUSE they had no God with eternal Attributes!

      Emmanuel is the same word in every language, and no language has a word it can be translated into, because it means GOD DWELLING IN HIS PEOPLE . . . and no people had "this experience apart from the People of the One True GOD JAH, thus "Emmannuel remains the same word in all languages!

      Likewise "Halleluah" - which is a Hebrew compound word "Hallelu-JAH" - and is a Command to "PRAISE JAH!"

      "Amen!" and Hosanna are also neat, unique words and there are literally hundreds more!

      The scoffing world asks: "Where is evidence for God!?" to which we answer:






    All Commentary from INSPIRED-INERRANT View of God's Word!

    Letter "I"


    Letter "I"

    I, I AM!
      "I AM THAT I AM!" See (NAMES of God), I WILL BE. See GOD, NAMES OF.

    IACIMUS, I-as i-mus;
      See ALCIMTS.

    IACUBUS, i-ak fi-bus
      1 Esdras 9:48, "Akkub" in Neh (or Jer 8:7.

    IADINUS, i-ad i-nus
      1 Esdras 9:48, AV Adinus) : Same as Lamentations of Jer 8 7.

    IBHAR, ib hiir
      yibhhar, "He [God] chooses"; in S, B, EfBedp, Ebcdr, in Oh, B, Badp, liadr, A, lefSadp, Ii-badr): One of David's sons, born at Jerus; son of a wife and not of a concubine (1 Ch 30; 2 S 5 15); otherwise unknown. His name in all three lists follows Solomon s. In Peshitta , "Juchabar."

    IBIS, I' bis'
      In Isa 34:11, yanxhoph, which is rendered "owl," apparently indicates the sacred ibis (Ibis rclu/iosa). The LXX gives tibia and Vulg ibis; RV, "bittern." See OWL.

    IBLEAM, ib le-am, yibWaw);
      A town in the territory of Issachar which was assigned to Manasseh (Josh 17 11). This tribe, however, failed to expel the inhabitants, so the Canaanites continued to dwell in that land, (Judges 1:27).

      It was on the route by which Ahaziah fled from Jehu. He was overtaken and mortally wounded "at the ascent of Gur, which is by Ibleani" (2 K 9 27). The name appears as Bileam in 1 Ch 6 70; and it probably corresponds to Belmen of Jth.

      It is now represented by the ruin of Vaich on the W. of the valley through which the road to the south runs, about half a mile from Jenln. In 2 K 15 10, when; it is said that Zechariah the son of Jero boam was slain by Shallum "before the people," this last phrase, which is awkward in the Heb, should be amended to read "in Bileam."

      Possibly "Gath-rimmon" in Josh 21:25 is a clerical error for "Ibleani."

    IBNEIAH, ib-ne ya, yihhH uah,
      ("Jah buildeth up"): A Benjamite, son of Jeroham (I Ch 9 8).

      IBNIJAH, ib-nl ja (rP::p , yib/mlydh, or H^ , ijil>lin ijdh, "Jeh buildeth up"): A Benjamite, father of Reuel (1 Ch 9 8).

      IBRI, ib rl Pl^, VW//-7, "a Hebrew"): A Merarite Levite, son of Jaa/iah (1 Ch 24 27).

      IBSAM, ib sam PTEG"! , yibhsdin, "fragrant," AV Jibsamj: Descendant of Issachar, family of Tolah (1 Ch 7 2).

      IBZAN, ib zan Ci?2S , ibfi^an") : The l()th judge of Israel. His city is given as Bethlehem (whether of Judah or Zebulun is not slated). He judged Israel 7 years, and when he died he was buried in his native place. The only personal details given about him in the Bib. narrative are that he had 30 sons and a like number of daughters. He sent all of his sons "abroad" for wives and brought hus bands from "abroad" for all his daughters. The exact meaning of lia-hfu;, "abroad," is mere matter of speculation, but the great social importance of the man and, possibly, alliances among tribes, are suggested in the brief narrative (Jgs 12 8-10). Jewish tradition identifies Ibzan with Bon/ of Bethlehem-Judah (Talm, lidhha , lialhra , 91). ELLA DAVIS ISAACS

      ICE, Is C"0j? , k< rah): Ice is almost unknown in Pal and Syria except on the highest mountains. At moderate heights of less than 4,000 ft. a little ice may form during the night in winter, but the warm rays of the sun melt it the next day. A great quan tity of snow is packed away in caves in the moun tains during the winter, and is thus preserved for use in the summer months. The word is found in the Bible in three places when 1 it describes God s power. "Out of whose womb came the ice? And the .... frost" (Job 38 29); "By the breath of God ice is given" (37 10); "He casteth forth his ice like morsels" (Ps 147 17).

      Figurative: I ntrue friends are compared to streams "which are black by reason of the ice" (Job 6 10). ALFRED II. JOY

      ICHABOD, ik a-bod, I ka-bod ("linp ^S, 1-ktia- bfiodli, "inglorious"; B, ovial fiap\\\\afiuQ, oiin i bar- rltahoth, A, oval x a P<^, onal clialidlh, "Arifios, Atiinos): Son of Phinehas, Eli s son, slain at the battle of Aphek when the ark was taken. Ichabod was born after his father s death. His mother gave him this name on her death-bed to indicate that the "glory [had] departed from Israel" (1 S 4 19 ff). He was thus important as a symbol, though little is recorded of him as an individual. His nephew Ahijah was one of those who tarried with Saul and the six hundred at Gibeah just before Jonathan s brave attack upon the Philis (1 S 14 2f). HENHV WALLACE

      ICONIUM, i-kd ni-um ( IKOVIOV, Ikon ion, also ElKoviov, Kikotiion, on inscriptions): Iconium was

      visited by St. Paul on his first and on his second missionary journey (Acts 13 51 IT; 16 2 IT), and



      I, I Am Idolatry

      if the "South Galatian theory" he correct, probably also on his third journey. His sufferings there are referred to in 2 Tim 3 11.

      The topographical position of Iconium is clearly indicated in Acts, and the evidence of Acts has been

      confirmed by recent research. \\\\\\\\ as 1. Topo- Iconium in Phrygia or in Lye-aonia, graphical and in what sense can it be said to have Position belonged to one ethnical division or the

      other? The majority of our ancient, authorities (e.g. Cicero, Strabo, Pliny), writing from the point of view of Horn provincial adminis tration, give Iconium to Lycaonia, of which geog raphy makes it the natural capital. But Xenophon, who marched with Cyrus expedition through Phry gia into Lycaonia, calls Iconium the last city of Phrygia.. The writer of Acts 14 makes the same statement when he represents St. Paul and St. Barnabas as fleeing from Iconium to the cities of Lycaonia implying that the border of Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra, IS miles to the S. Other ancient authorities who knew the local conditions well speak of Iconium as Phrygian until far into the Rom imperial period. At the neighboring city of Lystra (Arts 14 11), the native s used the "speech of Lycaonia." Two in scriptions in the Phrygian language found at Iconium in 1910 prove that the Phrygian language was in use there for 2 centuries after St. Paul s visits, and afford confirmation of the interesting topographical detail in Acts (see Jour. II M. tititd., 1911, 189).

      In the apostolic period, Iconium was one of the chief cities in the southern part of the Rom province

      CJalatia, and it probably belonged to

      2. In Apos- the "Phrygian region" mentioned in tolic Acts 16 (k The emperor Claudius Period conferred on it the title Claudiconium,

      which appears on coins of the city and on inscriptions, and was formerly taken as a proof that Claudius raised (lie city to the rank of a Rom colon in. It. was Hadrian who raised the city to colonial rank; this is proved by its new title, Co- Ionia Aflia Hadriana Iconiensium, and by a re cently discovered inscription, which belongs to the reign of Hadrian, and which mentions the first diiuinrir who was appointed in the new colonin. Iconium was still a Hellenic city, but with a strong pro-Rom bias (as proved by its title "Claudian") when St . Paul visited it .

      About 29o AD, an enlarged province, Pisidia, was formed, with Antiocli as capital, and Iconium

      as a sort of secondary metropolis."

      3. Later The By/ant ine arrangement, familial- History to us in the Nolitioc EpixcoiutlnuiK,

      under which Iconium was the capital of a province Lycaonia, dates from about 372 AD. Iconium, the modern Konia, has always been the main trading center of the Lycaoniaii Plain. Trade attracted .lews to the ancient Phrygio-Hellenic city (Acts 14 1), as it attracts Creeks and Armenians to the modern Turkish town.

      St. Paul s experiences at Iconium

      4. St. form part of the theme of the semi- Thekla historical legend of St. Thekla, on

      which see Professor Ramsay s Church in the Roman Empire, 380 ff.

      LITKKATI KK. Ramsay, Comm. on Paul s Ep to the dal, 214(1; Cities of St. Paul. :U7tr. To the lit. referred to in the notes to the latter book (pp. 44S tri add Ath. \\\\fitth.. 1905, 324 n"; H<-rur <!< Philoloaie 1912 48 if; Jour. IIMeitic Studies, 1911, IS.SIr.

      , \\\\V. M. CALDEH

      IDALAH, id a-la, i-dfi la (n55TP , yitUi tilah): A town in the territory of Zebulun, named with Shimron and Beth-lehem (Josh 19 15). The Talm identifies it with Htiryeh (Talm Jems on M e gh., I, 1). This, Conder thinks, may be represented by the modern Khirbct d-IInwarn to the S. of licit Lnhm.

      IDBASH, id bash (TZJ|Tp , ///>////,//, "honey - sweet "[?!): A man of Judah, one of the sons of the father of Etam (1 Ch 4 3; LXX "sons of Etam").

      IDDO, id o:

      (1) CHS, id/Id [?TjX, ddliadli, to be strong"], "hap," "happy" [?|, Ezr 8 17): The "chief at the place Casiphia," who provided Ezra with Levites and Nethinim, the head of the Levitical body or school, said to be one of the Nethinim or temple slaves, but perhaps an "and" has slipped out, and it should read: "his brethren and the Nethinim." 1 Esd 8 45.4(5 has "Loddeus [AV "Saddens"], the captain who was in the place of the treasury," keseph meaning silver. LXX has "in the place of the silver [ti> dpyvpiy TOV TOTTOV, en argurio toil tdpou] .... to his brethren and to the treasurers."

      (2) (VT, yiddo, "beloved," or "loving," 1 Ch 27 21): Son of Zechariah, and captain of the half- tribe of Manasseh in CJilead, under David.

      (^) OT, yiddu, "beloved," or "loving," Ezr 10 43): One of those who had taken foreign wives. Another reading is Jaddai, AV "Jadau." In 1 Esd 9 35 "Edos" (AV "Edes").

      (4) (-? , *iddo , "timely," 1 K 4 14): Father of Abinadab, Solomon s commissary in Mahanaim in Gile-ael.

      (5) (IT), yiddo, "beloved," or "loving," 1 Ch 6 21): A Gershomite Levite, son of Joah, called Adaiah in ver 41; ancestor of Asaph.

      (>) 0"??> ySdo [K ihlbh Hr?, ye\\\\n\\\\, or Y17, iddd, "decked," "adorned"): Seer (hozch) and prophet (n&bhi), the Chronicler s "source" for the reign of Solomon (2 Ch 9 29): "The visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Ne- bat" ; and for the reign of Rehoboam (2 Ch 12 15): "The histories of Iddo [Tl> , iddo\\\\ the seer, after the manner of [or, "in reckoning"] genealogies"; and for 1 he reign of Abijah (2 Ch 13 22): "The commen tary [niidhntsli] of the prophet Iddo" ("H2 , *iddo). He may have been the prophet who denounced Jeroboam (1 K 13), who is called by Jos and Jerome Jadon, or Jaddo. Jerome makes Iddo and Oded the same.

      (7) 0~y, *iddo, "timely," Zee 1 1): Grand father (father, according to Ezra) of the prophet Zechariah. See also Zee; 1 7; Ezr 51; 6 14

      (srny, >wo ). in i Esd e i, "Addo."

      (S) (tifciy, <iddo , "de-e-ke-d," "adorned," Neh 12 4.1(>) : A priest who went up with Zerubbabel (ver 4) ; one of the priestly chins which went up (ver 16); perhaps same as (7).


      IDLE, i d l, IDLENESS, I d 1-nes: Both words, adj. and noun, render different Heb words (from b?y, <;<% "to be lazy,"nsn, ruphah, "to relax," and EJ3TT, shakat, "to be quiet"). According to the Yahwistic, narrative Pharaoh s retort to the com plaints of the Israelites was a charge of indolence (Ex 5 8.17). It was a favorite thought of Heb wisdom practical philosophy of life that indo lence inevitably led to poverty and want (Prov 19 15; Eccl 10 IS). The "virtuous woman" was one who would not eat the "bread of idleness" (Prov 31 27). In Ezk 16 49 for AV "abundance of idleness," RV has "prosperous ease." In t lie- NT "ielle" gene-rally renelers the- Gr word dp76s, ary6s,lh. "inactive," "use-le-ss" (Alt 20 3. (5). In Lk 24 11 "ielle talk" corresponds to one Grword which means "empty gossip" or "nonsensical talk."

      T. LEWIS

      IDOLATRY, i-dol a-tri (D^FI, Praphlm, "hemse- holel ielols," "ielolatry" ; ctSwAoXarpeia, cidolola-

      Idolatry Illyricum



      trchi}: There is ever in the human mind a craving for visible forms to express religious conceptions, and tliis tendency does not disappear with the acceptance, or even with the constant recognition, of pure spiritual truths (see IMACKS). Idolatry oriuiinally meant the worship of idols, or t he wor ship of false gods by means of idols, but came to mean among the OT Hebrews any worship of false gods, whether by images or ot herwise, and finally (lie worship of Jeh through visible symbols (llos 8 5.6; 10 5>; and ultimately in the NT idolatry came to mean, Tiot only llie giving to any creature or human creat ion t he honor or devot ion which be longed to God alone, but the giving to any human desire a precedence over ( .oil s will (1 Cor 10 14; Cal 5 20; Col 3 5; 1 Pet 4 3). The neighboring- gods of Phoenicia, Canaan, Moal) Baal, Melkart, Astarte, Chemosh, Moloch, et< were particularly attractive to .Jems, while the old Sem calf-worship seriously affected the stale religion of the Northern Kingdom (see GOI.DKN CALF). As early as the Assyr an, Minb periods (M h and Till cents. BC), various deities from the Tigris and Euphrates had intruded themselves the worship of Tammuz becoming a little later the most popular and seductive of all (Ezk 8 14) while the worship of the sun, moon, stars and signs of the Zodiac became so intensely I M-ciirU in that these were introduced even into the temple itself (2 K 17 16; 21 3-7; 23 4.12; Jer 19 13; Ezk 8 1C>; Am 5 26).

      The special enticements to idolatry as offered by these various cults were found in their deiticat ion of natural forces and their appeal to primitive human desires, esp. the sexual; also through associations produced by intermarriage and through the appeal to patriotism, when the help of some cruel deity was sought, in time of war. Baal and Astarte wor ship, which was esp. attractive, was closely asso ciated with fornicat ion and drunkenness (Am 2 7.S; cf 1 K 14 23 ! ), and also appealed greatly to magic and soothsaying (e.g. ISM, 2 6; 3 2; 8 1 .)).

      Sacrifices to the idols were offered by fire (Hos 4 13); libations were poured out (Isa 57 6; Jer 7 IS); the first -fruits of the earth and tithes were pre sented (llos 2 S); tables of food were set before them (Isa 65 11); the worshippers kissed the idols or threw them kisses (1 K 19 IS; llos 13 2; .Job 31 27); stretched out their hands in adoration (Isa 44 20); knelt or prostrated themselves before them and sometimes danced about the altar, gash ing themselves with knives (1 K 18 2(i.2S; for a fuller summary see Eli).

      Even earlier than the Bab exile the Hob prophets taught, that, Jeh was not only superior to all other gods, but reigned alone as Clod, other deities being nonentities (Lev 19 4; Isa 2 S.1S.20; 19 1.3; 31 7; 44 ( ,l 20). The severe satire of this period proves that the former fear of living demons supposed to inhabit the idols had disappeared. These prophets also taught that the temple, ark and sacrifices were not essent ial to true spiritual worship (e.g. Jer 3 16; Am 5 21-2")). These prophecies produced a strong reaction against the previously popular idol- worship, though later indications of this worship are not infrequent (Ezk 14 1-S; Isa 42 17). The Maccabean epoch placed national heroism plainly on the side of the one (iod, Jeh ; and although Cr and Egyp idols wore worshipped in Gaza and As- caloti and other half-heathen communities clear down to the 5th or 6th cent, of the Christian era, yet in orthodox centers like Jerus these were despised and repudiated utterly from the 2d cent. BC on ward. See also GOLDKX CALF; CODS; IMA<,KS; TERAPHIM.

      Knizw, diil li-n Itou /h (:? yols); T.. R. Farnell, Krohition of Itilit/iini, l .H).>; ISaildissitl, Xtiittiai znr xi-mitisi-ln-ii Kili- i/ioiisi/i-xrliirliti-; Baetll^cn, l)<:r (lutt Ixrurlx u. die (Hitter <l,r Il,-i,l<-,t, 1SSS.


      IDUEL, id fi-el ( ISomiXos, Idantlux): 1 Ksd 8 43, EVm "AKIKL" (q.v.).

      IDUMAEA, id-n-me a, IDUMAEANS, id-u-me - anz. See EDOM.

      IEDDIAS, yed-i as, I-od-I as, AV Eddias ( leSSCas, leddias) . One who agreed to put away his foreign wife (1 Esd 9 26j; called also "Je/oias."

      IEZER, !-e zer, IEZERITES, I-e zor-Its HjrpX , 7Y:r/-, Xu 26 30j : Contracted from AIHKZKK (Josh 17 2, etc; (q.v.).

      IGAL, I gal ( "X." 1 , yiyli dl, "lie [Cod] redeems"; LXX variously I-ydX, It/til, TadX, (ladl, Iur\\\\\\\\, Idfl):

      (1) One of the twelve spies sent by Moses from the wilderness of Paran; son of Joseph, tribe of Issn- char (Xu 13 7).

      (2) One of David s heroes, son of Nathan of Zobah (2 S 23 36). In 1 Ch 11 3S he is "Joel [bSTP, yoTl], the brother of Nathan."

      (3) Son of Shemaiah of the royal house of David, descendant of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3 22, AV "Igeal").

      IGDALIAH, ig-da-lT a (^rp" , yit/li "Jeh is great ") : Ancestor of certain persons who had a "chamber" in the temple in Jeremiah s time (Jer 35 4).

      IGEAL, I ge-al, I je-al ( "XJi , yu/fi dl, lie [i.e. Cod] re<le(Miis"): A remote descendant of David (1 Ch 3 22, RV "Igal"j.

      IGNORANCE, ig no-rans (HWIp , fsh- ghdijhdh; a-yvoia, di/nnid): Ignorance 1 " is the 1r of sli ijhu- <jhdh, "wandering," "going astrav" (Lev 4 2, etc, "if a soul sin through ignorance," RV unwittingly," m "through error"; 5 15; Nu 15 24 ff; cf 35 11; Josh 20 3ff; IM-C! 5 (J; 10 5, "an error"). In the Law xli <jlidyhah means "innocent error," such as had to be taken with consideration in judgment (see passages referred to). "Ignorance" is also expressed by the negative lo with ydillni*, "to know" (Isa 56 10; 63 Iti; Ps 73 22); also by bi-bh ll iln alh, lit. "in want of knowledge" (Dt 19^4; cf 4 12; Josh 20 5, tr 1 "unawares," "unwittingly").

      In the NT the words are (ujnoia, "absence of knowledge" (Acts 3 17; 17 30; Eph 4 IS; 1 Pet 1 14); (ujnocmn, "error" (lie 9 7, RVm "(ir igno rances"); agnosia, "ignorance" (1 Pet 2 15), "no knowledge" (1 Cor 15 34 RV); uynoed, "to be with out knowledge," "ignorant" (Horn 1 13; 10 3; 11 25, etc), "not knowing" (Rom 2 4, etc), "understood not" (Mk 9 32, etc), "ignorantly" (Acts 17 23,11V "in ignorance"; 1 Tim 1 13); idiots, tr 1 "igno rant" (Acts 4 13), "unlearned" (1 Cor 14 16, RVm "him that is without gifts," and so in vs 23.24), "rude" (2 Cor 11 6); agrdmmatos, once only in connection with ulidtex (Acts 4 13, "unlearned and ignorant men"); (tymmnHitox corresponds to mod ern "illiterate" (cf Jn 7 15; Acts 26 24); iiliotcs originally denoted "the private man" as distin guished from those with a knowledge of affairs, and took on the idea of contempt and scorn. In Philo it denoted the whole congregation of Israel as distinguished from the priests (De Vita Mosis, III. 29). With Paul (1 Cor 14 16.23.24) it seems to denote "plain believers as distinguished from those with special spiritual gifts." In Acts 4 13 it may refer to the want of Jewish learning; certainly it does not mean ignorant in the modern sense.

      Paul in Rom 1 IS. 32 attributes the pre-Christian



      Idolatry Illyricum

      ignorance of God to "the ungodliness and un righteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness" (but m has, with AV, "hold the truth, cf 1 Cor 7 30, Gr"); many, however (Alford, De Wette, Meyer and others), tr "hold back the truth." A wilful ignorance is also referred to in Eph 4 17 f; 2 Pet 3 5. But there is also a less blameworthy ignorance. Paul at Athens spoke of "times of ignorance" which God had "overlooked" (Acts 17 30); Paul says of himself that he "obtained mercy, because [he] did it [against Christ] ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim 1 13); Peter said to the Jews (Acts 3 17) that they and their rulers rejected Christ "in ignorance" (cf 1 Cor 2 8); and Jesus Himself prayed for those who crucified Him : "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"; (Lk 23 34) ; in He 5 2 the necessary qualification of a high priest is that he "can bear gently with the ignorant and erring" those who sin in igno rance or go astray (cf 9 7, "blood, which heoffereth for himself, and for the errors of the people," m "Gr ignorances"). Growing light, however, brings with it increasing responsibility, and the "ignorance" that may be "overlooked" at one stage of the his tory of men and nations may be blameworthy and even criminal at another. AY. L. WALKER

      IIM, I im (E^?, *iyim): Same as IYIM (q.v.). IJE-ABARIM, I-je-ab a-rini. See IYE-ABARIM.

      IJON, I jon ( T7, *iyon; LXX in K has Aiv, Ain, or Naiv, Xain; in Ch I<i ( 16; Alwv, A ion}: A town in the territory of Naphtali, first mentioned in connection with the invasion of Ben-liadad, in the reign of Baasha. It was cap tured along with Dan and Abel-beth-maacah (1 K 15 20; 2 Ch 16 4). It shared with these cities a similar fate at the hands of Tiglath-pileser in the reign of Pekah (2 K 15 29). The name survives in that, of Mcrj A*yun, "meadow of springs," a rich, oval-shaped plain to the N.\\\\Y. of Tell el Kddy, when? the Litany turns sharply westward to the sea. The ancient city may be represented by Tell DUtlnn, an important site to the N. of the plain.

      W. EWIXG

      IKKESH, ik esh (tDpy, VJ-A-fs/i, "crooked"): A Tekoite, father of Ira, one of David s "thirty" (2 S 23 20; 1 Ch 11 28; 27 9).

      ILAI, T la-I, I ll p^iy , !///): A mighty man of David (1 Ch 11 29); called Zalmon in 2 S 23 28.

      ILIADUN, i-H a-dun, il i-ad-un ( EXiaSotiv, Elia- doun, 1 Esd 5 08; AV Eleadun) : Possibly corres ponding to Henadad in E/r 3 9.

      ILL, il, ILL-FAVORED, il-fa verd. See EVIL- FAVOR EDXESR.

      ILLUMINATION, i-lil-mi-iia shun: He 10 32 AV, only, "the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated |RV "enlightened"), ye endured a great fight of afflictions." The vb. is <coTtfw, photlzo, rendered in 6 4 by "enlightened" and in both pas sages (and not elsewhere in the NT) being used to describe complete conversion. The vb., indeed, is used in such a technical way that Syr VSS render by "baptized," and it is not perhaps impossible that the author of He had baptism definitely in mind. (In the early church baptism is frequently described as "illumination," e.g. Justin, ApoL, i.61.) But this probably would go too far; the most that can be said is that he means the state of mind of a full Christian and not that of a catechumen (cf also Bar 4 2 AV; Sir 25 11).


      ILLUSTRIOUS, i-lus tri-us, THE (6avp.a.<n6<s, thaumastds) : A title of rank and merit attached to the name of Bartacus, the father of Apame (1 Esd 4 29, AV "the admirable). Instead of "the illus trious" we should possibly read "colonel" (Ant, XI, iii, 5; Eli, s.v.). See BARTACUS; APAME.

      ILLYRICUM, i-lir i-kum ( IXXvpiKov, Illari- kon): A province of the Rom Empire, lying E. and N.E. of the Adriatic Sea. In his Ep. to the Rom Paul emphasizes the extent of his missionary activities in the assertion that "from Jerus, and round about even unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ" (15 19). An examination of this statement involves three ques tions: What is the force of the preposition "even unto" (fJ-^XP L , mechriyt What meaning is borne by the word Illyricum? and, At what period of his missionary career did Paul reach the limit hen: spoken of?

      In Gr, as in Eng., the preposition "unto" may

      either be exclusive or inclusive. In other words,

      Paul may mean that he has preached

      1. Force of throughout Macedonia as far as the "even unto" lllyrian frontier, or his words may

      involve a journey within Illyricum itself, extending perhaps to Dvrrhaehium (mod. Durazzo) on the Adriatic seaboard, which, though belonging politically to Macedonia, lay in "Gr Illyria." But since no word is said in the Acts of any extension of Paul s travels beyond the 1 confines of Macedonia, and since the phrase, "I have fully preached," precludes a reference to a hurried or cursory tour in Illyricum, we should probably take the word "unto" in its exclusive sense, and under stand that Paul claims to have evangelized Mace donia as far as the frontier of Illyricum.

      What, then, does the word "Illyricum" denote?

      It is sometimes used, like the Gr terms lllyris

      and Illyria, to signify a vast area lying

      2. Meaning between the Danube on the N. and of "Illyri- Macedonia and Thrace on the S., ex- cum" tending from the Adriatic and the Alps

      to the Black Sea, and inhabited by a number of warlike 1 and semi-civili/ed tribes known to the Greeks under the general title of Illyrians (Appian, /////r . 1; Suetonius, Tihn-inn, 10); it thus comprised the provinces of Illyricum (in the nar rower sense), Pannonia and Moesia, which for cer tain financial and military purposes formed a single administrative area, together witli a strip of coast land between Dalmatia and Epirus and, at a later date, Dacia. Appian (Illyr. 0) even extends the term to include Raetia and Noricum, but in this he appears to be in error. But Illyricum has also a narrower and more 1 precise meaning, denoting a single Roman province, which varied in extent with the advance of the Roman conquest but was finally organized in 10 AD by the emperor Augustus. At first it bore the name xi/i/iT/or /irorincia lUijricnin or simply Illyricum; later it came to be known as Dal matia (Tac. Annals, iv.. r )j Jos, Ii,J , II, xvi; Dio Cassius, xlix.30, etc). In accordance with Paul s habitual usage of such terms, together with the fact that he employs a Gr form which is a transliteration of the Lat Illyricum but does not occur in any other extant Gr writer, and the fact that he is here writing to the church at Rome, we may conclude that in Rom 15 19 Illyricum bears its more re st ricted meaning.

      The Romans waged two lllyrian wars: in 229-228 BO and in 219 BC, but no province? was formed until 107, when, after the fall of the Macedonian 3 Rela- power, Illyria received its provincial con

      stitution (Livy, xlv.2(>). At this time 11011 it extended from the Drilo (mod. Drin)

      Rome to Dalmatia, which was gradually subju

      gated by Rom arms. In 59 BO Julius Caesar received as his province Illyricum and (Jaiil, and




      later Octavian and his generals, Asinius Pollio and Stati- lius I aurus, waned war there with such success that in 27 BO, at the part it ion of t he provinces bet ween August us and the Senate, lllyricum was regarded as wholly pacified and was assigned to the latter. Renewed disturbances led, however, to its transference to the emperor in I 1 BO. Two years later t lie pro\\\\ ince was extended to t he 1 )anilbe. but. i n . A I), at the close of the Jd Pannonian \\\\Viir, it was divided into two separate provinces, Pannonia and lllyricum (Dalniatia). The latter remained an imperial province, administered by a consular /<</ " Aui/uati liro iinnlori residing at Salonae (mod. S)>nlnt<>), and two legions were stationed there, at Delminium and at Bur- nuin. One of these was removed by Nero, the other by Vespasian, and thenceforward the province was garri soned only by auxiliary troops. It fell into three judicial circuits (eonventux), that of Scardona comprising Li- burnia, the northern portion of the province, while those of Salonae and Narona made up the district of Dalmatia in the narrower sense. The land was rugged and moun tainous, and civilization progressed but slowly; the Ro mans, however, organized "> Horn colonies within the province- and a considerable number of municipia.

      The extension of Paul s preaching to the Illyrian frontier must he assigned to his 3d missionary journey, i.e. to his 2d visit to Mace- 4. Paul s donia. His movements during the 1st Relation to visit (Acts 16 1217 15) are too fully lllyricum recorded to admit of our attributing it to that period, but the account in Acts 20 2 of his second tour is not only very brief, but the words, "when he had gone through those parts," suggest an extensive tour through the province, occupying, according to Ramsay, the summer and autumn of 50 AD. See also DALMATIA.

      LITERATURE. A. M. Poinsignon, Quiil pracripue apud Rotiiniiox nduxiiitf Diiirlfliniii trmpora Illi/ricum fuerit (Paris, 1S4(>); Zippe, DierBmische Herrschaft in Ilium n bis auf Autiustux (Leipzig, 1S77); H. Oons, La province romaine <!, l)nl i/inl ie (Paris, 18S2); T. Mommsen, <"//,. Ill, pp. 279 ff; T. Mommsen et J. Marquardt, Manuel

      dt S aiitiquitffi romninia (Fr. T), IX, 171 if.

      M. N. Ton

      IMAGE, im aj (2?1J , gclcm; tlKiov, cikon): Its usage falls under 3 main heads. (1) "Image" as object of idolatrous worship (tr s about a dozen words, including TCE Q, massekhah, "molten image" [Dt 9 12, etc]; rQSZlD, w<u;cchhdh, in AVtr 1 "image" or "pillar," in RV always "pillar" [Ex 23 24, etc]; ^ZZ , pcscl, "graven image" [Ex 20 4, etc]; Qclnn, "image" [2 K 11 IS, etc]; cikon, "image" [e.g. Rev 14 0]); (2) of man as made in the image of God; (3) of Christ as the image of God. Here we are concerned with the last two usages. For "image" in connection with idolatrous practices, see IDOLATRY; IMAGES; PILLAR; TERAFHIM, etc.

      /. Man as Made in the Divine Image, To define man s fundamental relation to God, the priestly writer in (Jen uses two words: "image" 1. In (scion) and "likeness" (d e nmth~); once

      the OT employing both together (Gen 1 2(5; cf 6 3), but elsewhere one without tin- other, "image" only in 1 27; 90, and "likeness" only in 5 1. The priestly writer alone in the OT uses this expression to describe the nature of man, though the general meaning of the passage Gen 1 20 f is echoed in Ps 8 5-S, and the term itself re appears in Apoc (Sir 17 3; \\\\Yisd 2 23 J and in the NT (see below).

      The idea is important in relation to the Bib. doctrine of man, and has figured prominently in theological discussion. The following are some of the questions that arise:

      (1) Is there any distinction to be understood between "image" and "likeness" . Most of the Fathers, and some later theologians, attempt to distinguish between them. (a) Some have referred "image" to man s bodily form, and "likeness" to his spiritual nature (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus). (I,) Others, esp. the Alexandrian Fathers, understood by the " image" the mental and moral endow ments native to man, and by the "likeness" the Divine perfections which man can only gradually acquire by- free development and moral conflict (Olement of Alex andria and Origen), or which is conferred on man as a

      gift of grace, (r) This became the basis of the later Roman Oatholic distinction between the natural gifts of rationality and freedom (=the image), and the super natural endowments of grace which God bestowed on man after Ho had created him (the likeness = don wm super additum). The former remained after the Fall, though in an enfeebled state; the latter was lost through sin, but restored by Ohrist. The early Protestants re jected this distinction, maintaining that supernatural righteousness was part of the true nature and idea of man, i.e. was included in the "image," and not merely externally superadded. Whatever truth these distinc tions may or may not contain theologically, they cannot be exegotically inferred from Oen 1 26, where (as is now generally admitted) no real difference is intended. We have here simply a "duplication of synonyms" (Driver) for the sake of emphasis. The two terms are elsewhere used interchangeably.

      (2) What, then, is to be understood by the Di vine image? Various answers have been given. (a) Some of the Fathers (influenced by Philo) sup posed that the "image" here = the Logos (called "the image of the invisible God" in Col 1 15;, on the pattern of whom man was created. But to read the Logos doctrine into the creation narrative is to ignore the historic order of doctrinal develop ment. (/>) That it connotes physical resemblance to God (see (1), (a) above; so in the main Skinner, ICC, in loc.). It may be admitted that there is a secondary reference to the Divine dignity of the human body; but this does not touch the essence of the matter, inasmuch as God is not represented as having physical form, (c) That it consists of dominion over the creatures (Socinian view; so also Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, etc). This would involve an unwarranted narrowing of the idea. It is true that such "dominion" is closely associated with the image in Gen 1 20 (cf Ps 8 (5-S). But the "image of God" must denote pri marily man s relation to his Creator, rather than his relation to the creation. Man s lordship over Nature is not identical with the image, but is an effect of it. (d) It is best to take the term as refer ring to the whole dignity of man, in virtue of his fundamental affinity to God. It implies the pos session by man of a free, self-conscious, rational and moral personality, like unto that of God a nature capable of distinguishing right and wrong, of choosing the right and rejecting the wrong, and of ascending to the heights of spiritual attainment and communion with God. This involves a separa tion of man from the beast, and his supremacy as the culmination of the creative process.

      (3) Does the term imply man s original perfec tion, lost through sin? The old Protestant divines maintained that the first man, before the Fall, possessed original righteousness, not only in germ but in developed form, and that this Divine image was destroyed by the Fall. Exegetically considered, this is certainly not taught by the priestly writer, who makes no mention of the Fall, assumes that the image was transmitted from father to son (cf Gen 5 1 with 6 3), and naively speaks of post-diluvian men as created in the image of God (Gen 90; cf 1 Cor 11 7; Jas 3 9). Theologically considered, the idea of the perfect holiness of primitive man is based on an abstract conception of God s work in creation, which precludes the idea of development, ignores the progressive method of the Divine govern ment and the essential place of effort and growth in human character. It is more in harmony with modern conceptions () to regard man as originally endowed with the power of right choice, rather than with a complete character given from the first; and (6) to think of the Divine image (though seriously defaced) as continuing even in the sinful state, as man s inalienable capacity for goodness and his true destination. If the Divine image in man is a self- conscious, rational and ethical personality, it can not be a merely accidental or transitory attribute, but is an essential constituent of his being.




      Two features may be distinguished in the NT doctrine of the Divine image in man: (1) man s first creation in Adam, (2) his second 2. In or new creation in Christ. As to (1),

      the NT the doctrine of the OT is assumed in

      the NT. Paul makes a special appli cation of it to the question of the relation of husband and wife, which is a relation of subordination on the part of the wife, based on the fact that man alone was created immediately after the Divine image (1 Cor 11 7). Thus Paul, for the special purpose of his argument, confines the meaning of the image to man s lordly authority, though to infer that he regards this as exhausting its significance would be quite unwarranted. Man s affinity to God is im plied, though the term "image" is not used, in Paul s sermon to the Athenians (Acts 17 28 f, man the "offspring" of God). See also .las 3 9 (it is wrong to curse men, for they are "made- after the likeness of God").

      (2) More characteristic of the NT is the doctrine of the new creation. () The redeemed man is said to be in the image of God (the Father). He is "renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col 3 10), i.e. of God the Crea tor, not here of Christ or the Logos (as some) (ef Eph 4 24, "after God"). Though there is here an evident reference to Gen 1 20 f , this does not imply that the new creation in Christ is identical with the original creation, but only that the two are analogous. To Paul, the spirit ual man in Christ is on a higher level than the natural ("psychical") man as found in Adam (cf esp. 1 Cor 15 44-49), in whom the Divine image consisted (as we have seen) in potential goodness, rather than in full perfection. Redemption is infinitely more than the restoration of man s primitive state, (b) The Christian is further said to be gradually transformed into the image of the Xon of Coil. This progressive metamorphosis involves not only moral and spiritual likeness to Christ, but, also ultimately the Chris tian s future glory, including the glorified body, the "passing through a gradual assimilat ion of mind and character to an ultimate assimilation of His 56a, doxa, the absorption of the splendor of His presence" (Sanday and Headlam, Rom, 21S; see Rom 8 29; 1 Cor 15 49; 2 Cor 3 IS; and cf Phil 3 21; 1 Jn 3 2).

      //. Christ the Image of God. In X important pas sages in EV, the term "image" defines the relation of Christ to God the Father; twice in Paul: "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4 4); "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1 15); and once in He: "who being the efful gence of his glory, and the very image of his sub stance" (1 3). These statements, taken in their contexts, register the highest reach of the Christol- ogy of the Epp.

      In the two Pauline passages, the word used is eikon, which was generally the LXX rendering of ccli tn (Vulg imago); it is derived from 1. The efaw, ciko, eoiKa, coika, "to be like,"

      Terms "resemble," and means that which

      resembles an object and represents it, as a copy represents the original. In He 1 3 the word used is x a P aKT VP (charakt&r), which is found here only in the NT, and is tr d in Vulg fif/ura, AV "express image," RV "very image," RVm "im press." It is derived from xapdcrcru (chardsso), "to engrave," and has passed through the following meanings: (1) an engraving instrument (active sense); (2) the engraved stamp or mark on the instrument (passive sense) ; (3) the_ impress made by the instrument on wax or other object; (4) hence, generally, the exact image or expression of any per son or thing as corresponding to the original, the

      distinguishing feature, or traits by which a person or thing is known (hence Eng. words "character," "characteristic"). The word conveys practically the same meaning as eikon; but Westcott distin guishes them by saying that the latter "gives a complete representation, under conditions of earth, of that which it figures," while charakter "conveys representative traits only" (Westcott on He 1 3). The idea here expressed is closely akin to that of the Logos doctrine in Jn (1 1-18). Like the Logos, the Image in Paul and in He is the

      2. Meaning Son of God, and is the agent of creation as Applied as well as the medium of revelation, to Christ "What a word (logos) is to the ear,

      namely a revelation of what is within, an image is to the eye; and thus in the expression there is only a translation, as it were, of the same fact from one sense to another" (Dorner, System of Ch. D., ET, III, 178). As Image, Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of the invisible God, the objective expression of the Divine nature, the face of God turned as it were toward the world, the exact likeness of the Father in all things except being the Father. Thus we receive "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 46). He is the facsimile of God.

      Is Christ described as the Image of God in His preincarnate, His incarnate, or else His exalted

      state? It is best to say that different

      3. To What passages refer to different states, but State Does that if we take the whole trend of NT It Refer? teaching, Christ is seen to be essen tially, and in every state, the Image of

      God. (a) In He 1 3 the reference seems to be to the eternal, preincarnate Son, who is inherently and essentially the expression of the Divine substance. So Paul declares that He subsisted originally in the form of God (tv /J-oprpy Qeov vTrdpxuv, en morphfi theod hnpdrchon, Phil 2 6). (6) In Jn 1 18; 12 45; 14 9, though the term image is not used, we have the idea of the historical Jesus as a perfect reve lation of the character and glory of God. (c) In the two Pauline passages (2 Cor 4 4; Col 1 15), the reference is probably to the glorified, exalted Christ; not to His preexistent Divine nature, nor to His temporal manifestation, but to His "whole Person, in the divine-human state of His present heavenly existence" (Meyer). These passages in their cumulative impressions convey the idea that the Image is an inalienable property of His person ality, not to be limited to any stage of His existence. Does this involve identity of essence of Father and Son, as in the Homoousion formula of the Ni- ccne Creed? Not necessarily, for man

      4. Theo- also bears the image of God, even in logical his sinful state (see I above), a fact Implications which the Arians sought to turn to their

      advantage. Yet in the light of the context, we must affirm of Christ an absolutely unique kinship with God. In the Col passage, not only are vast cosmic and redemptive functions assigned to Him, but there is said to dwell in Him "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (1 19; 2 9). In He not only is the Son the final revelation of God to men, the upholder of the universe, and the very image of the Divine nature, but also the effulgence (dTravya<r/j.a, apaugasma) of God s glory, and there fore of one nature with Him as the ray is of one essence with the sun (1 1-3). The superiority of the Son is thus not merely one of function but of nature. On the other hand, the figure of the "image" certainly guards against any Sabellian identification of Father and Son, as if they were but modes of the one Person; for we cannot identify the pattern with its copy, nor speak of anyone as an image of himself. And, finally, we must not

      Image of God Images



      overlook the affinity of the Logos with man; both arc t he image of Clod, t hough t lie former in a unique sense. The Logos is at once the prototype of hu- manitv within the Godhead, and the immanent Divine principle within humanity.

      Both in Paul and in He we have an echo of the Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, and of Philo s doctrine

      of the Logos. In the Alexandrine Book 6. Relation of Wisd, written probably under Stoic to Pre- influence, Divine Wisdom is pictorially

      Christian represented as an effulgence [ii/niii- Thought </nntnii\\\\ from everlasting light, and an

      unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image \\\\cik<~i\\\\ of His goodness" (7 2(5). Philo repeatedly calls the Logos or Divine world- principle the image [i-ikdn, cli(ir<ikter] of (Jod, and also describes it as an effulgence of ( iod. But this use of current Alexandrian terminology and the superficial resemblance of ideas are no proof of conscious bor rowing on the part of the apostles. There is this fundamental distinction, that Philo s Logos is not a self-conscious personality, still less a historical indi vidual, but an allegorical hypostatizing of an ab stract idea; whereas in Paul and I le, as in John, the Divine archetype is actually realized in a historical person, Jesus Christ, the Son and Hevealer of Cod.



      IMAGERY, im fij-ri (rP3lTa , mnskith, "carved figure"): Only in E/k 8 12, "every man in his chambers of imagery," i.e. dark chambers on whose walls were pictures in relief representing all kinds of reptiles and vermin, worshipped by elders of Israel. Some maintain that the cult was of foreign origin, either Egyp (Bertholet, Connn. on, Ezk), or Bab (Redpath, Westminster Connn. on Ezk); others that it was the revival of ancient superstitions of a totemistic kind which had survived in obscure circles in Israel (W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Reli gion of tlie Semites, rev. ed, 3~)7). The word here rendered "imagery" is elsewhere in AV tr d "image" (of stone) (Lev 26 1, RV "figured stone"), "pic tures" (Nil 33 52, RV "figured stones" ; Prov 25 11, RV "network"); twice it means imagination, con ceit, i.e. a mental picture (Ps 73 20; Prov 18 11). "Imagery" occurs once in Apoc (Sir 38 27 AV, e/s 0/j.oLucrai faypafiiav, eis homoiosai zographian, RV "to preserve likeness in his portraiture").


      IMAGES, im aj-iz (0^, cr/cw; eUciv, t -ikon):

      1. Definition

      U. Origin

      :{. Karly Developments

      4. Bible References Palestinian Customs

      5. Some Technical Terms

      (1) Mawi lihCih ("pillar")

      (2) Aiherah ("grove")

      (H) Hnmmi in ("sun-image")

      6. Obscure Bible References

      (1) C.otden Calf Jeroboam s Calves

      (2) Brazen Serpent

      (3) Teraphim

      (4) Image of Jealousy

      (5) Chambers of Imagery (<>) Ki)ho(i

      LITE HAT r HE

      Images, as used here, are visible representations of supposedly supernatural or divine beings or powers. They may be (1) themselves 1. Deri- objects of worship, (2) pictures, em- nition bodiments or dwelling-places (temple,

      ark, pillar, priests) of deities wor shipped, (3) empowered instruments (amulets, charms, etc) of object or objects worshipped, (4) pictures or symbols of deities reverenced though not worshipped. These images may be shapeless blocks, or symmetrically carved figures, or objects of Nature, such as animals, sun, moon, stars, etc.

      These visible objects may sometimes be considered, esp. by the uninstructed, as deities, while by others in the small community they arc; thought of as in struments or symboli/.at ions of deity. Even when they are thought of as deities, this does not exclude a sense and apprehension of a spiritual godhead, since visible 1 corporeal beings may have invisible souls and spiritual attributes, and even the stars may be thought of as "seats of celestial spirits." An idol is usually considered as either the deity it self or his permanent tenement ; a fetish is an object which has been given a magical or divine power, either because of its having been the temporary home of the deity, or because it has been formed or handled or otherwise spiritually influenced by such deitv. The idol is generally communal, the fetish private; the idol is protective, the fetish is usually not for the common good. (See Jevons, l<li of (lot! in Early Religions, 1910.) Relics and sym bolic figures do not become "images" in the objec tionable sense until reverence changes to worship. I ntil comparatively recent times, the Hebrews seem to have offered no religious objection to "ar tistic" images, as is proved not. only from the de scription of Solomon s temple, but also from the discoveries of the highly decorated temple of Jeh at Syene dating from the (ith cent. BC, and from ruins of synagogues dating from the pre-Christian and early" Christian periods (l Eb\\\\ January, 190X; / ,>/*, December, 1 ( .M)7; E.c/iox T, January and February, 1!)()S). The Second Commandment was not an attack upon artists and sculptors but upon idolaters. Decoration by means of graven figures was not anciently condemned, though, as Jos shows, by the time of the Seleucidae all plastic art was regarded with suspicion. The brazen serpent was probably destroyed in Hezekiah s time because it had ceased to be an ancient artistic relic and had become an object of worship (see below). So the destruction of the ark and altar and temple, which for so long a time had been the means of holy worship, became at last a prophetic hope (Isa 6 7; Jer 3 6; Am 5 25; Hos 6 6; cf Zee 14 20). While the temple is not naturally thought of as an "image," it was as truly so as any Bethel. An idol was the temple in miniatun a dwelling-place of the god. When an image became the object of worship or a means by which a false god was wor shipped, it became antagonistic to the First and Second Commandments respectively.

      The learned author of the art. on "Image W r or- ship" in the EK (llth ed) disposes too easily of

      this question when he suggests that 2. Origin image-worship is "a continuance by

      adults of their childish games with dolls Idolatrous cults repose largely on make- believe."

      Compare the similar statement made from a very different standpoint by the author of Great Is Diana of the Ephexianx, <>r the Oriuinul <>f l<lnl,ttru (1095): "All Superstitions are to the People but like several sports to children, which varying in their several seasons yield them pretty entertainment," etc.

      No universal institution or custom is founded wholly on superstition. If it does not answer to some real human need, and "if its foundations are not laid broad and deep in the nature of things, it must perish" (J. G. Eraser, Psyche s Task, 1909, 103; cf Salomon Reinach, Revue des etudes grecques, 1906, 324). Image-worship is too widespread and too natural to humanity, as is proved in modern centuries as well as in the cruder earlier times, to have its basis and source in any mere external and accidental circumstances. All modern research tends to corroborate our belief that this is psycho logical rather than ecclesiastical in its origin. It is not imposed externally; it comes from within,



      Image of God Images

      and naturally accompanies the organic unfold- ment of the human animal in his struggle toward self-expression. This is now generally acknowl edged to be true of religious feeling and instinct (see esp. Rudolf Eucken, Christianity and I he New Idealism, 100!), ch i ; I. King, The Ih vdnp- ment of Religion, 1010); it ought to he counted equally true of religious expression. Neither can the origin of image-worship or even of magical rites be fully explained, as Eraser thinks, by the ordi nary laws of association. These associations only become significant because the devoted worshipper already has a body of beliefs and generalizations which make him attentive to the associations which seem to him religiously or magically important. (Jastrow, Aspects of Rel. Belief and Practice in Btibn- lonia and Assyria; cf James II. Leuba, Psy chological Origin, and \\\\alnre of Religion, 1000; Ntudy of Relit/ions, 1011). So animism must be regarded as a philosophy rather than as an original religious faith, since it is based on an "explanation of phenomena rather than an attitude of mind toward the cause of these phenomena" (KB, llth ed, art. Animism," and cf Iloi fding, Philosophy of Re ligion, 1006, 138). In whatever ways the various image-worshipping cults arose historically whether from a primitive demonology or from the apotheo sis of natural objects, or from symbolism, or a false connection of cause with effect in any case it had some human need behind it and human nature beneath it. The presence of the image testifies to faith in the supernatural being represented by the image and to a desire to keep the object of worship near. Prayer is easier when the worshipper can see his god or some sacred thing the god has honored (cf M. L abbe E. Van Drival. l)e I origine et dcx sources de I idolatrie, Paris, 1SGO).

      The first man was not born with a totem-pole in his fist, nor did the earliest historic men possess images. They lacked temple s and 3. Histor- altars and ephods and idols, as they ical Begin- lacked the fire-stick and potter s nings and wheel. Religion, which showed itself Early De- so strong in the next stage of human velopment life, must have had very firm begin nings in the prehistoric period; but what were its external expressions we do not yet certainly know, excepting in the methods of burying and caring for the dead. It seems probable that primitive historic man saw in everything that moved an active soul, and that he saw in every extraordi nary thing in earth or heaven the expression of a supernatural power. Vet reflective thinking began earlier than Tylor and all t he older scient ific ant hro- pologists supposed. Those earlier investigators were without extended chronological data, and although ingenuity was exercised in systematizing the beliefs and customs of modern savages, it was necessarily impossible always to determine in this way which were the most primitive cults. Exca vations in Babylonia, Egypt and elsewhere have enabled us for the first time to trace with some chronological certainty the religious expressions of earliest historic man. That primitive man was so stupid that he could not tell the difference between men and things, and thai therefore totemism or fetishism or a low form of animism was necessarily the first expression of religious thought is a theory which can no longer be held very buoyantly in the face of the new and striking knowledge, material and religious, which is now seen to be incorporated in some of the most ancient mylhs of mankind. (See e.g. Winckler, Die jungsten Kampfe wider den Panbabylonismus, 1907; Jerernias, The OT in the Light of the Ancient East, 2 vols, 1011.) The pan- Bab theory, which makes so much use of these texts, is not certain, but the facts upon which the theory

      depends are clear. It is a suggestive fact that among the earliest known deities or symbols of deities men tioned in the most ancient inscriptions are to be found the sun, moon, stars and other great forces of Xalure. Out of these conceptions and the mys tery of life which seems to have affected early mankind even more powerfully than ourselves sprang the earliest known religious language, the myth, which antedated by aeons our oldest written texts, since some of these myths appear fully formed in the oldest texts. Rough figures of these solar and stellar deities are found from very early times in Babylonia. So in the earliest Egyp texts the sun appears as divine and the moon as "the bull among the stars," and rough figures of the gods wen; carved in human or animal form, or these are rep resented pictorially by diadems or horns or ostrich feathers, as far back as the lid Dynasty, while even earlier than this stakes and pillars and heaps of stones are sacred. (See further, IIDB, 5th vol, 170 ff; Erman, .1 Handhool: of Kg up Rel.; Steindorf, lit I. of the Ancient Egyptians, 1905.) These rude and unshaped objects do not testify, as was once supposed, to a lower form of religious development than when sculptured images arc found. The shapeless fetish, which not long ago was generally accepted as the earliest form of image, really repre sents a more advanced stage and higher form of religious expression than the worship of a beauti fully or horribly carved image. It lias been gen erally conceded since the days of Robertson Smith that it takes at least as much imagination and reflection to see an expression of deity in imageless matter as in the carved forms. Rude objects un touched by human hand, even in the most highly developed worships, have 1 been most prized. The earliest images were probably natural objects which, because 1 of their peculiar shapes or functions, we re thought of either as divine or as made sacred by the touch of deity. Multiplied copies e>f these ob- jc ds would naturally be 1 made when worshippers increased or migrations oce urred. While image s may have been used in the most early cults, yet the highest development of image-worship has occurred among the most civilized peoples. Both deities and idols are less numerous in the early than in the 1 later days of a religion. This is true in India, Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, as all experts now agree. Idols are neit found among uncivilized peoples, such as the Bushmen, Fuegians, Eskimos, etc. (See e.g. Allen Men/ies, History of Rel., ISO.").) Image s of the 1 gods presuppose a power of discrimination that could only be- the result of reflection. The earliest idols known among the* Semites were rude stone pillars e>r unshapen blocks. These 1 , as the fe tish, we re- probably adored, not fe>r thc inse lve S, but for the 1 spirit that was supposed to be> in them or to have touched ihem. De-it ies and ielols are multiplied easily, not only by philological, geographical and social causes, but through inter tribal and international assentations. One thing absolutely proved by recent excavations has been the e-xte-nt te> which the representations of local deities have been modified by the symbolic art of surrounding nations. Babylonia, fe>r example, was influenced by the- Syro-I lit lite- religious art at least as much as by that of Egypt (William Hayes Ward, Cylinder* and Olhcr Ancient Oriental Seals, 1000; Clay, Aninrni, 1010). Even in adjacent len alitie s the same deity varied greatly in its pie-- lorial representation. Se-e PALESTINE EXPLORA TION, and Revue biblit/ue, XIV, 315-4S. With the possible exception of one reign in Egypt, during which Ikhnaton refused to allow any deities to be worshipped excepting the sun disc and himself, idolatry outside of 1 he Heb kingdom was never made a crime against the state until the days of Con-




      stantine. Theodosius (392 AD) not only placed sacrifices and divination among the ca|)ital crimes, hut placed a penalty upon anyone who entered a heat lien temple.

      The dignity of the ima^c in common thought in Bible times may be seen from the fact that man is said to have been made in ( lod s image 4. Bible (= ", V lem; cf 1 S 6 f>; Nu 33 f>2), References ;m d Christ is said to be "the image of and Pales- th<> invisible C.od" (eiKwi>, eikdn; tinian ,.f Col 1 15 with Rom 1 23). The

      Customs heathen thought of the sun and stars and idols as being images of the gods, but. the Hebrews, though .Jell s temple was image- less, thought of normal humanity as in some true sense possessing a sacred resemblance to Deity, though early Christians taught that only Christ was the Father s "image" in unique and absolute perfection. See IMACK. The ordinary words for "image" by a slight change came to mean vermin, carrion, false gods, no gods, carcases, dung, etc. Heathen gods were undoubtedly accounted real beings by the early Hebrews, and the images of these enemies of Jeh were doubtless looked upon as possessing an evil associated (?) power. In the earlier OT era, images, idols, and false gods are synonymous; but as early as the 8th cent. BC II eb prophets begin to reach the lofty conception that heathen gods are non-existent , oral least practi cally so, when compared with the ever-living Jeh, while the idols are worthless things" or "non entities" (Isa 2 8.18.20; 10 10.11; 19 1; 31 7; cf Jer 14 14; E/k 30 13; note the satiric term ellllni, as contrasted with the powerful elohlm). The many ordinary terms used by the Hebrews for an idol or image mean "copy," simulacrum, "likeness," "representation." These are often, however, so compounded as technically to express a particular form, as "graven" or "carved" image (e.g. Ex 20 4; 2 Oh 33 7) of wood or stone, i.e. one cut into shape by a tool; "molten image" (e.g. Ex 32 4; Lev 19 4), i.e. one cast out of melted metal (standing image) (Lev 26 1 AV, and see below), etc. However, a few of the OT terms and modes of worship are unusual, or have a more diffi cult technical meaning, or have been given a new interest by new discoveries, and such deserve a more extended notice.

      i~QS2T2 , iHdtfebhah: These were upright stone pillars, often mentioned in the OT, sometimes as abodes (Bethels) or symbols of deity 6. Most esp. as used by the heathen but also Important as vot ive offerings, memorial and grave Technical stones (den 28 18: 31 45; 35 14.20; Terms Josh 24 20; 1 S 7 12). The rever

      ence 4 for these stones is closely con nected with that found among all Sem peoples for obelisks (Gen 33 20; 35 7), cairns (den 28 18; Josh 4 ( )), and circles (Josh 4 3.5.20). Rough stone pillars from time immemorial were used in Sem worship (Kit t el, Hist of the Hebrews, II, 84). They were thought of primitively as dwelling- places of deity, and the stones and the spots where they stood were therefore accounted sacred. From very early times the mystery of life pressed itself upon human attention, and these stones were viewed as phallic images. These images were at first rough and undifferentiated, but became later well defined as male organs. At Tell Zdkariyah the end of one is sculptured to represent a human face. Some sort of phallicism underlies all early Sem religion, the form of which is determined by the attention paid to the date palm, to the breeding of flocks, to as trology, and to social life. This phallicism did not always represent coarse thought, but sometimes a very profound spiritual conception; cf GOLDEN

      CAI.K, and note Wiedemann s statement in 111)11,

      V, 180 that in Egypt the gods Hu, "Taste," and S u, "Perception," were created from the blood of the sun-god s phallus. These images of fertility and reproduction were naturally connected in Canaan with the worship of the Baals or "lords" of each locality, upon whose favor as possessor of the land fertility depended. They were also naturally associated .with the cult of Astarte, the female counterpart of all the Baals (see ASTAHTK). In the OT the Baalim and Asherim are almost invariably classed together, although the latter were wooden posts dedicated to a particular goddess, while "Baal" was merely a title which could be given to any male Sem deity, and sometimes even to his female associate. The nuirrrh/nHh were set up in a "high place" (q.v.), attracting reverence because of its "elevation, isolation and mystery (Vincent). Originally these pillars were not considered as idols, but were naturally erected to Jeh (den 28 18; 31 45; 35 14; Ex 24 4), and even Isaiah (19 1!)) and Hosea (3 4) approve them, though pillars dedi cated to idols must of course be destroyed (Ex 23 24; 34 13; Jer 43 13; Ezk 26 11). Only in late times or by very far-sighted law-givers were the maggebholh erected to Jeh condemned; but. after the centralization of the Jeh-worship in Jerus, these pillars were condemned, even when set up in the name of Jeh, and the older places of worship with their indiscriminate rituals and necessary heathen affiliations were also wisely discarded (Lev 26 1; Dt 16 22; see also doLDKN CALF).

      rnilj&5, axhemh: Perhaps a goddess (see ASHK- RAH), but as ordinarily used in the OT, a sacred tree or stump of a tree planted in the earth (Dt 16 21) or a pole made of wood and set up near the altar (Jgs 6 20; 1 K 16 33; Isa 17 8).

      It has been supposed that these were primarily symbols of a goddess Ashcrah or Ashtoreth (Kuenen. Baethgen), and they were certainly in primitive thought connected with the tree cult and the sacred proves so univer sally honored by the Semites (sec esp. \\\\V. K. Smith, Religion of the .SVmrtr.s, 109, 437; Stade, Gexcltirtitr, 100 If; Fraser, Golden limit/h, II, 50-117; John O Xeill, Niu/it of the GW.s, II, 57); but the tree of life is closely connected in texts and pictures with the human organ of generation, and there can be no doubt that there is a phallic meaning connected with this sacred stake or pole, as with the mm-^fbhoth described above. See references in HI) IS under "Asherah." and cf Trnnmirtionx of the Victoria Institute, XXXIX, 234; \\\\Vinckler, Keilin- xchriftliclicH Tixtliuch ziim AT. As these wooden posts from earliest times represented the ideas of fertility and were connected with the mystery of life, they naturally became the signs and symbols in many lands of the local gods and goddesses of fertility.

      Astarte was by far the most popular deity of ancient Pal. See ASHTOHKTH. The figures of Astarte from the 12th to the 9th cent. BO, as found at Gezer, have large hips, disclosing an exaggerated idea of fecundity. In close connection with the Astarte sanctuaries in Pal were found numberless bodies of little children, none over a week old, undoubtedly representing the sacrifice of the firstborn by these Canaanites (K.A.S. Macalister, Excavation of (jezer, 3 vols). These Asherim were erected at the most sacred Heb sanctuaries, at Samaria (2 K 13 6), Bethel (2 K 23 15), and even in the Temple of Jerus (2 K 23 Oj. The crowning act of King Josiah s reforma tion was to break down these images (2 K 23 14). As the astrological symbol of Baal was the sun. Astarte is often thought of as the moon-goddess, but her symbol was really Venus. She was, however, sometimes called "Queen of Heaven" (Jer 7 18; 44 17.19; but see ZA T \\\\V ,

      VI, 123-30).

      "^n , hamman, AV "images," "idols"; RV "sun- image s" (Lev 26 30; 2 On 14 5; 34 4.7; Isa 17 S; 27 9; Ezk 6 4. 6): This worship may originally have come from Babylonia, but the reverence of the sun under the name Baal-hamman had long been common in Pal before Joshua and the Israelites entered the country. These sun-images were probably obelisks or pillars connected with the worship of some local Baal. The chariot and horses of the sun, mentioned (2 K 23 11) as having an honored place at the western entrance of the




      Jcrus Temple, represented not a local but a foreign cult. In Bab temples, sacrifices were made to the sun-chariot, which seems to have had a special sig nificance in time of war (Pinches, HDB, IV, 629; see also CHARIOTS OF THE SUN).

      (1) Golden Calf and Jeroboam s Col-vat (see GOLDEN CALF).

      (2) Brazen Serpent (Nu 21 4-9; 2 K 6. Obscure 18 4). The serpent, because of its Bible st range, lightning-like power of poison-

      References ous attack, its power to shed its skin, and to paralyze its prey, has been the most universally revered of all creatures. Living serpents wore kept in Bab temples. So the cobra was the guardian of royalty in Egypt, sym bolizing the kingly power of life and death. In my thology, the serpent was not always considered a bad demon, enemy of the Great or, but oft en appears as the emblem of wisdom, esp. in connection with health- giving and life-giving gods, such as Ea, savior of man kind from the flood, and special "god of the physi cians" in Babylon;Thoth, thegod of wisdomin Egypt , who healed the eye of Horus and brought Osiris to life again; Apollo, the embodiment of physical per fection, and his son, Aesculapius, most famous giver of physical and moral health and curer of disease among the Greeks. Among the Hebrews also a seal (1.500-1000 BC) shows a worshipper before a horned serpent raised on a pole (Win. Hayes Ward). In Phoon mythology the serpent i.s also connected with wisdom and long life, and it is found on the oldest He!) seals and on late Jewish talismans (Revue bibl/ t/iu; international! , July, 190S, 3X2-94); at, Gezor, in Pal, a small brazen serpent (a cobra) was found in the "cave of oracles," and in early Christian art Jesus the Lord of Life is often repre sented standing triumphantly upon the serpent or holding it in His fist. In the Hob narrative found in Nu 21, the serpent evidently appears as a well- known symbol representing the Divine ability to cure disease, being erected before the eyes of the Israelites to encourage faith and stop the plague. It was not a totem, for the totem belongs to a single family and is never set up for the veneration of other families (Ramsay, Cities of ,SY. Paul, 39). Hezekiah destroyed it because it was receiving idolatrous worship (2 K 18 4), though there is no hint t hat such worship was ever a part of the official temple cult (Benzinger); for if this had been done, the earlier prophets could hardly have remained silent. The above explanation seems preferable to the one formerly offered that the serpent was merely a copy of the disease-bearer, as the images offered by the Philis wore copies of the ulcers that plagued them (1 S 6 4j. See further NE-


      (3.) Tcraphim p" 1 ?^^ , fraphlm). Those are usually considered household gods, but this does not necessarily include the idea that they were images of ancestors, though this is not improbable (Nowack, Hebrew Archaeology, II, 23; HDB, II, 190); that they were images of Jeh is a baseless supposition (see Kautzsch, HDB, V, 643). Some times they appear in the house (1 S 19 13.16); sometimes in sanctuaries (Jgs 17 5; 18 14); sometimes as carried by travelers and armies (Gen 31 30; Ezk 21 21). They are never directly spoken of as objects of worship (yet cf Gen 31 30), but are mentioned in connection wit h wizardry (2 K 23 24), and as a means of divination (Ezk 21 21; Zee 10 2), perhaps not necessarily inconsistent with Jeh-worship (Hos 3 4). They wore some times small and could be easily hidden (Gen 31 34) ; at other times larger and in some way resembling a human being (1 S 19 13). Jewish commentators thought the fraphlm were in early times mummi fied human heads which were represented in later

      Household God" from Gezer.

      , semd). It is not cer

      centuries by rude images (Moore, Crit. and Excg.

      Comm. on Jgs, 1895, 382; see esp. Chwolsohn, Die

      Ssabier u. der Ssabismus,

      II, 19, 150). Customs of

      divination by means of

      such heads were not un

      known. In Israel the

      fraphlm were sometimes

      certainly used in consult

      ing Jeh (Jgs 17 5; 18 14 ff),

      though their use was later

      officially condemned (2 K

      23 24). The fraphlm in

      the home doubtless corre

      spond in use to the EPHOD

      (which see) in the sanctu

      ary, and therefore these

      are frequently connected.

      Certain small rude images

      have lately been uncovered

      in Pal by Bliss, at Tdl d-

      Ilesy, and by Sellin, at

      Tell Ta annuk, which are

      supposed to be teraphim.

      (4) Image of jealousy

      tain what this statue was which was set up by the door of the inner gate of the Jerus temple (Ezk "8 3). It was no doubt some idol, perhaps the image of the Asherah (2 K 21 7; 23 6), which certainly had previously been set up in the temple and may have been there again in this day of apostasy. "Jeal ousy" is not the name of the idol, but it was prob ably called "image of jealousy" because in a peculiar manner this particular image seems to have boon drawing the people from the worship of Jeh and therefore provoking Him to jealousy.

      (5) Chambers of imagery ("in 1 2tp 52 "H~n , hailhrc iiitixkltlid). Does Ezekiel mean that in his heart every man in his chambers of imagery was an idol-worshipper, or does this refer to actual wall decorations in the Jerus Temple (Ezk 8 11.12)? Most expositors take it literally. W. R. Smith has boon followed almost if not quite universally in his supposition that a debased form of vermin- worship is described in the "creeping things and abominable beasts" (ver 10). But while this low and ignorant worship was an ancient cult, it had been banished for centuries from respectable heal hen worship, and it seems inconceivable that these; Israelites who were of the highest class could have fallen to these depths, or if they had done so that the Tammuz and sun-worship should have boon considered so much worse (vs 13.14). To the writer it seems more probable t hat the references are to Egyp or Gr mysteries which would be described by a Hebrew just as Ezekiel describes this secret chamber. It is now known that the Gr mysteries experienced a revival at exactly this era, and it w;us probably this revival which was making itself felt in Jerus, for Gr influence was at this time greatly affecting Pal (see Duruy, Hist, of Greece, II, 126-80, 374; Coborn, Comm. on Ezk and Dnl, 80-83, 280-82; and separate arts., CHAMHKRS OK IMA<;KHY; IMAGERY).

      (6) Ephod (~"XS, I pti odh). There is no doubt that this was the name of a vestment or ritual loin cloth of linen worn by common priests and temple servants and on special occasions by the king (1 S 2 18; 22 18; 2 S 6 14). The ephod of the high priest was an ornamental waist coat on the front, of which was fastened the holy breastplate con taining the pocket in which were the Viim and Thummim (Ex 28 6.30; 29 5; 39 2-5; Lev 8 28).

      There are several passages, however, which have con vinced many scholars that another ephod is mentioned which must be an image of Jeh (see EPHOD). The chief

      Imagination Immanuel



      passages relied upon arc .Igs 8 - ( >. 27, where (Jideon made an epliod with 1,700 shekels of gold and "set" this in Ophrah, where it became an object of worship. So in .Is 17 -1; 18 11 -0, Micali provides an ephod as well as an image and pillar for his sanctuary: in 1 S 21 !> the sword of (ioliath is preserved behind the ephod; while in various places the will of Jeh is ascertained, not by putting on the ephod. but bv "bringing it near" and " bearing" and "carrying" it (I S 23 < >.!; 30 7. etc). On the basis of these passages Kaut/.sch (111)11. V, (ill) concludes most, inconsistently that the ephod appears "exclusively as an image of Jeh." Driver, after an examination of each text, concludes that just in one passage (.Igs 8 -7) the term "ephod" is certainly used of the gold casing of an image, and that therefore it IHUI/ also have this meaning in other passages (IllJli, I, ~ 2~. It does not seem quite certain, however, that a cere monial vestment hea\\\\il\\\\ ornamented with gold might not have been "set" or "creeled" in a holy place where later it might become an object of worship. If this had been an idolatrous image, would llosea have deplored its loss (I IDS 3 4), and would its use not have been for bidden in some Bible passage?

      Kant /sch s view that the ephod meant primarily the garment used to clothe the Dhinc image, which after ward gave its name to the image itself, is a guess unsus- taincd by the Scriptures quoted or, 1 think, by any archaeological parallel. We conclude that there is no certain proof that this was an image of Jeh. though it was used ritualist ically in receiving the oracles of Jeh (cf Kuenen. Relit/ion of Israel, I. 100: Kittel, ll!*t of th, Hebrews, II. -IL ; Konig. l> Hauptprobleme, 59-03). See also IDOI.ATKY; CALF, (IOI.DKN.

      LITKKATT in:. Sec csp. W. K. Smith. Relit/inn of the Semites; K. 15. Tylor, I rim itir<- Culture; J. ( ,. Fra/AT, (lulilen finui/li (3 VOls); .Haethgen, Ji,itn i</i- zur si-m. Rel.-Gesch.; Kittel, Ui*t f the Hebrews; Nowack, II, l> Arch., 11; Haudissm, Studien z. sem. Rel.-Gesch. For recent excavations. L. P. Jl. Vincent, C nun tin <r<t/>rt-x l e.ri>l. r6cente, 1007; R. A. S. Macalister. Tin- Kj-rnrntinn ,,f Gezer il9l_>>; \\\\Vm.lfayes Ward, Cylinders nud Other Ancient Oriental Seals, 1909.


      IMAGINATION, i-maj-i-na shun P3T , yf ccr, r^THTL 1 , slr rlnllli; Sidvota, dianoia): "Imagina- tion" is the tr of ycccr, properly "a shaping," hence "a thought" (Gen 6 5; 8 21; Dt 31 21; 1 Ch 28 9; 29 IS). In Isa 26 3 ijtcir is tr 1 "mind" (AVm "t hought " or "imagination"), "whose mind is stayed on thee" (RVm "or imagination"); in Ps 103 14 it is "frame"; of xlfrlnlth, "obstinacy," "stubborn ness" (Dt 29 19; J.-r 3 17; 7 24; 9 14; 11 8; 13 10; 16 12; 18 12; 23 17); in Ps 81 12 AV it is, "hist," in "hardness or imaginations"; 3 t of t>nih<ls/ii l>hi t/i, "thought" or "purpose" in AV (Prov 6 18; Lam 3 (iO.Ol); once of dianoia, "mind," "understanding" (Lk 1 51); of Iw/ixHiox, "reason ing" (2 Cor 10 5); and of dtidoyixmon, "reasoning through" (Rom 1 21 AV).

      RV gives "stubbornness" in each instance where shfrlrtith is in AV tr 1 "imagination"; in Prov 6 IS ARV lias "]>ur])oses"; RV has "devices" (Lam 3 GO. 01) and "reasonings" (Rom 1 21), "imagina tion" for "conceit" (Prov 18 11), and (ERV) for "device" (Lam 3 62).

      "Imagination" is frequent in Apoo, e.g. Ecelus 22 18 (diandema)} 37 3 (inlln tnn ina, "wicked imagi nation"); 40 2 (dialoyismos, RV "expectation").

      W. L. WALKKH

      IMAGINE, i-maj in P lLTJ , hashabh; fxeXerdaj, inclctdo): The word most frequently tr d "to im agine" in the OT, only in AV and ERV, noHn ARV, is Ijdxlitibh, "to bind," "combine," "think" (Job 6 20; Ps 10 2; 21 1 1 ; 140 2; IIos 7 lf>; Nah 1 9.11; Zee 7 10; 8 17); we have also h (if/fifth in AV and ERV, but not in ARV, "to meditate," "mutter," "speak" (Ps 2 1 ; 38 12); zdmnm, "to devise" (den 11 6AV); /mnv.s/;, "to grave," "de vise" (Prov 12 20 AV); hathath, "to break in upon," to "attack unjustly" (1 s 62 3AV); mclc- tao, "to meditate" (Acts 4 2.")). W. L. WALKKK

      IMALCUE, i-mal-ku e ( Ifj.a\\\\Kov^, Imalkow; AV Simalcue): An Arabian ])i i ince to whom Alexander Balas entrusted the upbringing of his young son Antiochus. Tryphon, who had formerly been on the side of Alexander, persuaded Imalcuo to set up the

      young Antiochus (Antiochus VI) against Demetrius, who had incurred the enmity of his men of war (1 Mace 11 39.40). Antiochus confirmed Jonathan

      in t he high-priest hood and appointed him to be one of the king s friends (ver o7). In Jos (Ant, XIII, v, 1) the name is given as Alalchus.

      J. Ht TCIIISON

      IMLA, im la, IMLAH ("pE" 1 , ijimldl,, "fulness"?): Father of the prophet Micai ah (1 K 22 8.9; 2 Ch 18 7.8).

      IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, i-mak n-lat kon- sep shun, THE:

      The historic designation of the Roman Catholic

      dogma promulgated by Pope Pius IX on December

      S, 1854, in the Papal Bull entitled

      1. Defini- "I ncffuhilix Deux." The term is often tion incorrectly applied, even by those

      whose intelligence should make such an error impossible, to the VIIUJIN BIKTH UK CHRIST (q.v.).

      The central affirmation of this proclamation, which was read in St. Peter s in the presence of over

      two hundred bishops, is expressed in

      2. State- the following words: It is proclaimed ment of the "by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Dogma Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter

      and Paul and in our own authority, that the doctrine which holds the blessed Virgin Mary to have; been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful" (see Schaff, A History of the Creeds of ChriNtf ndom, II, 211, 212).

      (1) Dra-um from specifically Protestant principles. Objections to the dogma are mainly two: (ti)

      the claim to authority upon which the

      3. Objec- proclamation rests. There is every tions to the reason to believe that one of the major Dogma motives to the entire transaction was

      the wish, on the part of Pius and his advisers, to make an unmistakable assertion of absolute doctrinal authority by the Rom pontiff. To Protestants of all shades of opinion there would be unbearable offence in the wording of the decree, even if assent could be given to the doctrine it self. The whole vital issue of the Reformation is involved in the use; by an ecclesiastic of the words "in our own authority" in addition to the words "by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (h) The ten dency to Mariolatry in the entire movement. As we shall see, the ascription of Divine honors to Mary is avoided in the public statement of the dogma and in the defence of it by Roman Catholic writers, but one has but to survey the course of discussion leading up to the publication of 1S54, and subsequent to it, to discover a growing tendency to lift Mary out of the realm of human beings and to endow her with Divine attributes and functions. An extended discussion of Mariolatry lies beyond the range of this art. (see MARY); it is only neces sary to point out the obvious connections (see Roman Catholic Dictionary and church histories, sub loc.).

      (2) Drawn from Roman Catholic principles. It is far from the truth to suppose that there are no objections to this modern dogma save those which are specifically Protestant. From the viewpoint of the devout Roman Catholic, and for the sake of the prestige of the papacy, this particular dogma seems to have been unfortunately chosen.

      (a) It has no basis in Scripture. The only at tempt made to provide a Scriptural argument is



      Imagination Immanuel

      by using ;i vague and unsatisfactory lt between Alary and Eve before the Fall, to be found in the writings of certain church Fathers who did not hold the papal dogma but unconsciously provided a slender and most insecure basis for it (see infra). Most Roman Catholic writers are intelligent enough to admit that the theory of inspired tradition alone can be appealed to in support of the idea. The ordinary and only tenable argument is that the ecclesiastical promulgation and acceptance of the doctrine prove its apostolic origin (see Catholic Dictionary, sub loc.).

      (/;) It weakens the authority of the church. It would almost seem as if the doctrines of ecclesias tical authority and particularly of papal infalli bility had, in this unfortunate proclamation, reached a reductio ad absurdum for the comfort of their foes. Notice with care the historical standing of this dogma: (a) The acknowledged absence of all posi tive evidence for apostolic origin and primitive authority (see Catholic Dictionary tit supra). (/3) The abundant positive evidence that the principal Fathers of the early church did not believe in the sinlessness of Mary (sec; list of names and references given by H. C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Churi lt, sub loc.). (7) The uncertain and equivocal testimony per contra drawn from the early Fathers. They are practically confined to the following: Ephrem Syrus (Cannina, Hymn 27, strophe 8), where he says "Truly it is Thou and Thy mother only who are fair altogether. For in Thee there is no stain and in Thy mother no spot"; St. Augustine (Dc \\\\ atnra et Gratia, cap. 2(>), "Two were made simple, innocent, perfectly like each other, Alary and Eve," etc. To these may be added the words of Irenaeus: "The knot of Eve s disobedience was untied by Mary s obedience" (Catholic Dictionary, 422). In regard to these 1 three passages it may reasonably be contended that even if these state ments necessarily implied the Immaculate Con cept ion of Mary, which they certainly do not, they would still have to be estimated against the many weighty statements which may be brought forward on the other side. (5) The prolonged controversy over the doctrine. From the, earliest time when the idea of Mary s miraculous freedom from sin appears, up to the Old Catholic agreement of 1874, devout and faithful Roman Catholics have pro tested against the addition of this unscriptural dogma to the faith of the church. Bonaventura (I,oc/iH Th<(il.,\\\\ll, l)says: "All the saints who have made mention of this matter, with one mouth have asserted that the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin." With the statement of the Old Catholic agreement we may safely sum up the ecclesiastical situation, even from the viewpoint of those who hold to the doctrinal validity of tradi tion. Art. X reads: "We reject the New Rom doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as being contrary to the tra dition of the first 13 centuries, according to which Christ alone is conceived without sin."

      (3) Drairn from general considerations of Chris tian doctrine. The most serious objections to this offensive and gratuitous dogma are not at all specifically Protestant but, rather, broadly Chris tian. It is necessary at this point to assure our selves that we understand (as many Protestants evidently do not) just what is meant by the doctrine as a doctrine. According to the accepted Roman Catholic explanation, Mary, at the supposed stage of her conception when the soul was actually in fused into the body waiting for it, received the special grace of God whereby she was delivered from all stain of original sin. The point which Protestants need esp. to note is that, according to Roman Catholic ideas, this gracious act of God was performed on the basis of the foreseen merits of

      Christ s sacrifice. This tones down the offensive- ness of the doctrine in that it does not per sc imply the equality of Mary with Christ, but rather the contrary, in so far as the grace betowcd upon her was gained by anticipation from Him. Roman Catholic writers naturally emphasize this fact in recommending the doctrine to Protestant minds. None the less the offence remains. The "Immacu late Conception" necessarily implies the "immacu late life," and on the same basis of supernatural grace, else would the special miracle have occurred in vain and the fall of Adam been repeated in Mary. Hence, a full account of the doctrine would be that Mary was completely and miraculously redeemed at her conception and completely and miraculously kept from sin throughout her whole life. Apart from all questions as to the rightful place of Alary in Christian thought, this idea involves utter doc trinal confusion. It means that Alary never be came a true human being and never lived a true human life. Redemption by a miraculous process begun at conception and carried on throughout the life is an utter impossibility, for the Holy Spirit does not work impersonally, and miraculous holiness which is holiness of a purely Divine character, with out a free 1 , cooperating human factor, is no human holiness at all. This dogma reads Alary out of the human family, reduces her to an image and makes her life a phantasm. Moreover, the parallels which are adduced in its support are not true parallels at all.

      Our Lord s sinlessness was not mechanically guaranteed by His miraculous conception (see Vnuii.v BIRTH) but was His own achievement through the Holy Spirit granted to Him and per sonally appropriated. The Hallowing of Children at the Font (see Catholic Dictionary, 470), the sanctifying of those "separated from the womb" (Gal 1 15) to God s service, does not imply the miraculous guarantee of artificial sinlessness, but such a gracious influence as enables the subject freely cooperating to obtain victory over sin as a controlling principle. Actual sin and need of for giveness is not praetermitted by such special grace.

      We can only say, in conclusion, that every reason, which usually operates in a Christian mind to insure rejection of a false teaching, ought to preclude the possibility of accepting this peculiar dogma which is Script urally baseless, historically unjustified and doctrinally unsound.

      LITKKATTTRE. The best simple and reasonably fair- minded discussion of this dogma from the Roman Catholic viewpoint is to be found in the Cutlmlir Dic- tiininri/ already mentioned, when- wide references will be found. For the Protestant view consult any authori tative church history, esp. that of Professor H. (\\\\ Sheldon where copious references to Patristic lit. will be found.


      IMMANUEL, i-man fi-el pS ?:T2? , <immanu el) : The name occurs but 3 t, twice in the OT (Isa 7 14; 8 8), and once in the NT (Alt 1 23). It is a Heb word signifying "God is with us." The form "Emmanuel" appears in LXX ( E^ai/ou^X, Em- manoutl).

      In 735 BC Ahaz was king of Judah. The king dom of Israel was already tributary to Assyria

      (2 K 15 19.20). Pekah, king of Is- 1. Isaiah rael, a bold and ambitious usurper, Rebukes and Rezin, king of Syria, formed an Ahaz alliance, the dual object of which was,

      first, to organize a resistance against Assyria, and second, to force; Ahaz to cooperate in the ir designs against the e-ommon tyrant. In the event of Ahaz refusal, they planneel to depose him, and to set the son of Tabeel, a choice of the>ir own, upon the throne of David. To this end they wage-d war against Judah, advancing as far as Jerus itself, but without complete success (Isa 7 1). Ahaz, a

      Immanuel Immortal



      weak kin^, mid now panic-stricken, determined to invoke the aid of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria (2 K 16 7). This he actually did at a later stage in the war (6 9; 15 29). Such a course would in volve the loss of national independence and the payment, of a heavy tribute. At this period of crisis, Isaiah, gathering his disciples around him (Isa 8 10), is told to deliver a message to the king. Aha/, though making a show of resistance against the coalition, is in reality neither depending upon the help of Jeh nor upon the courage of his people. Isaiah, in an effort to calm his fears and prevent the fatal alliance with Assyria, offers him a sign. This method is specially characteristic of this prophet. Fearing to commit himself to the policy of Divine dependence, but with a pretense at religious scruples, "Neither will I tempt Jeh," the king refuses (Isa 7 12). The prophet then chides him bitterly for his lack of faith, which, he says, not only wearies men, but Clod also (7 13).

      He then proceeds to give him a sign from (Jod Himself, the sign of "Immanuel" (7 14). The inter pret at ion of this sign is not clear, even

      2. The apart from its NT application to Sign of Christ. The Heb word tr 1 "virgin" "Imman- in EV means, more correctly, "bride," uel" in I he ( )E sense of one who is about

      to become a wife, or is still a young wife. Ps 68 25 EV gives "damsels."

      Isaiah predicts that a young bride shall conceive and bear a son. The miracle of virgin-conception, therefore, is not implied. The use of the definite article before "virgin" (/la-^il/ndh) does not of it self indicate that the prophet had any particular young woman in his mind, as the IIeb idiom often uses the definite article indefinitely. The fact that two other children of the prophet, like Hosea s, bore prophetic, and mysterious names, invites the conjecture that the bride referred to was his own wife. The hypothesis of some critics that a woman of the harem of Ahaz became the mother of Heze- kiah, and thai he was the Immanuel of the prophet s thought is not feasible. Ilezekiah was at least 9 years of age when the prophecy was given (2 K 16 2).

      Immanuel, in the prophetic economy, evidently stands on the same level with Shear-jashub (7 3) as the embodiment of a great idea, to which Isaiah again appeals in Isa 8 8 (see ISAIAH, VII).

      The question as to whether the sign given to Ahaz

      was favorable or not presents many difficulties.

      Was it a promise of good or a threat of

      3. Was It a judgment? It is evident that the Promise or prophet had first intended an omen of a Threat? deliverance and blessing (7 4.7). Did

      the king s lack of faith alter the nature of the sign? Ver 9, "If ye will not believe," etc, implies that it might have done so. The omission of ver 10, and esp. the words "whose two kings thou abhorrest," greatly simplifies this theory, as "the land," singular, would more naturally refer to Judah than to Syria and Ephraim collectively. The omen would then become an easily interpreted threat, referring to the overthrow of Judah rather than that of her enemies. Immanuel should eat curdled milk and honey (ver 15), devastation re ducing the land from an agricultural to a pastoral one. The obscure nature of the passage as it stands suggests strongly that it has suffered from interpolation. The contrary theory that the sign was a promise and not a prediction of disaster, has much to commend il, though it necessitates greater freedom with the text . The name "Immanuel" im plies the faith of the young mother of the child in the early deliverance of her country, and a rebuke to the lack of that quality in Ahaz. It is certain also that Isaiah looked for the destruction of Syria

      and Ephraim, and that, subsequent to the Assyr invasion, salvation should come to Judah through the remnant that had been faithful (11 11). The fact that the prophet later gave; the name of Maher- shalal-hash-baz to his new-born son, a name of good omen to his country, further strengthens this posi tion. The omission of vs 15.17 would make the sign a prophecy of the failure of the coalition. It is plain, whichever theory be accepted, that something must be eliminated from the passage to insure a consistent, reading.

      The question now presents itself as to what was the relation of Immanuel to the Messianic prophe cies. Should the emphasis be laid

      4. Its Re- upon "a virgin," the son, or the name lation to itself? For traditional interpretation the Mes- the sign lay in the virgin birth, but sianic Hope the uncertainty of implied virginity

      in the Ileb noun makes this interpre tation improbable. The identification of the young mother as Zion personified, and of the "son" as the fut. ure generation, is suggested by Whitehouse and other scholars. But there is no evidence that the term \\\\ihndh was used at that time for personifi cation. The third alternative makes Immanuel a Messiah in the wider use of the term, as antici pated by Isaiah and his contemporaries. Then- can be little doubt but that there existed in Judah the Messianic hope of a national saviour (2 S 7 12). Isaiah is expecting the arrival of one whose character and work shall entitle him to the great names of 9 0. In him should dwell all the fulness of (iod. II," was to be "of the stem of Jesse," the bringer of the Golden Age. The house of David is now beset by enemies, and its reigning repre sentative is weak in faith. The prophet therefore announces the immediate coming of the deliverer. If he had intended the virgin-conception of Christ in the distant future, the sign of "Immanuel" would have possessed no immediate significance, nor would it have been an omen to Ahaz. With regard to the Messianic idea, Mic 5 3 ("until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth") is of impor tance as indicating the prevalent thought of the time. Recent evidence shows that even in Babylonia and Egypt there existed expectations of a divinely born and wonderful saviour. To this popular tradition the prophet probably appealed, his hearers being easily able to appreciate the force of oracular lan guage that is to us obscure. There is much to con firm the view, therefore, that the prophecy is Messianic.

      The use of the word as it relates to the virgin

      birth of Christ and the incarnation cannot be dealt

      with here (see PERSON OF CHRIST).

      5. The These facts, however, may be noted. Virgin The LXX (which has parlhcnos, Birth "virgin") and the Alexandrian Jews

      interpreted the passage as referring to the virgin birth and the Messianic ministry. This interpretation does not seem to have been sufficiently prominent to explain the rise of the idea of miraculous virgin conception and the large place- it has occupied in Christological thought. See VIRGIN BIRTH. ARTHUR WALWYN EVANS

      IMMER, im er (TSS , immer ):

      (1) A priest of David s time (1 Ch 24 14), whose descendants are mentioned in Ezr 2 37; 10 20; Neh 3 29; 7 40; 11 i:i.

      (2) A priest of Jeremiah s time (Jer 20 1).

      (3) A place in Babylonia (Ezr 2 59; Neh 7 01).

      IMMORTAL, i-mor tal, IMMORTALITY, im-or- tal i-ti (aOavcuria, athanaaia, 1 Cor 15 53; 1 Tim 6 10, d<j>6apo-ia, <ii>hllutrn i<i, lit. "incorrupt ion," Rom 27; 1 Cor 15; 2 Tim 1 10, a4>0apTos, dphthartos,



      Immanue] Immortal

      lit. "incorruptible," Rom 1 23; 1 Cor 15 52; 1 Tim

      1 17):

      1. Preliminary Need of Definition and Distinction

      2. Biblical Conception


      1. Its Origin

      2. Philosophical Arguments

      (1) The Soul Spiritual

      Soul not Inherently Indestructible

      (2) Capacities of Human Nature

      (3) The Moral Argument


      1. Starting-Point Man s Relation to (iod Man s Nature

      2. Sin and Death

      3. (J race and Redemption The True Immortality Deliverance from Sheol

      4. Later Jewish Thought III. THE CHRISTIAN HOPE

      1. Immortality through Christ

      (1) Survival of the Soul

      (2) I nion with Christ in I nseen World

      (3) The Resurrection

      (4) The Wicked Also Raised (.">) Kternal Life

      2. Contrasts


      111 hardly any subject is it more necessary to be careful in the definition of terms and clear dis tinction of ideas, esp. where the Bib.

      1. Prelimi- doctrine is concerned, than in this of nary "immortality." By "immortality" is Need of frequently meant simply the survival Definition of the soul, or spiritual part of man, and Dis- after bodily death. It is the assertion tinction of the fact that death does not end all.

      The sotd survives. This is commonly what is meant when we speak of a future life," "a future state," "a hereafter." Not, however, to dwell on the fact that many peoples have no clear conception of an immaterial "soul" in the modern sense (the Egyptians, e.g. distinguished several parts, the Ka, the Ba, etc, which survived death; often the surviving self is simply a ghostly resem blance; of the earthly self, nourished with food, offerings, etc), there is the more serious considera tion that the slate into which the surviving part is supposed to enter at death is anything but a state which can be described as "life," or worth} to be dignified with the name "immortality." It is a state peculiar to "death" (see DKATII); in most cases, shadowy, inert, feeble, dependent, joyless; a state to be dreaded and shrunk from, not one to be hoped for. If, on the other hand, as in the hope of immortality among the nobler heathen, it is con ceived of, as for some, a state of happiness the clog of the body being shaken off this yields the idea, which has passed into so much of our modern think ing, of an "immortality of the soul," of an imperish- ableness of the spiritual part, sometimes supposed to extend backward as well as forward; an inherent indestructibility.

      It will be seen as we advance, that the Bib. view is different from all of these. The soul, indeed, sur vives the body; but this disembodied

      2. Biblical state is never viewed as one of corn- Conception plete "life." For the Bible "immor tality" is not merely the survival of the

      soul, the passing into "Sheol" or "Hades." This is not, in itself considered, "life" or happiness. The "immortality" the Bible contemplates is an immortality of the whole person body and soul together. It implies, therefore, deliverance from the state of death. It is not a condition simply of future existence, however prolonged, but a state of blessedness, due to redemption and the; possession of the "eternal life" in the soul; it includes resur rection and perfected life in both soul and body. The subject must now be considered more particu larly in its different aspects.

      /. The Natural Belief. In some sort the belief in the survival of the spirit or self at death is a

      practically universal phenomenon. To what is it traceable? A favorite hypothesis with anthro pologists is that it has its origin in 1- Its dreams or visions suggesting the con-

      Origin tinned existence of the dead (cf H.

      Spencer, EcclefS. Instit., chs i, xiv). Before, however, a dream can suggest the survival of the sotd, there must be the idea of the sotd, and of this there seems a simpler explanation in the con sciousness which even the savage possesses of some thing within him that thinks," feels and wills, in distinction from his bodily organs. At death this thinking, feeling something disappears, while the body remains. What more natural than to sup pose that it persists in some other state apart from the body? (Cf Max Miiller, Ant/irop. Kdiyion, 281.) Dreams, etc, may help this conviction, but need not create it. It is only as we assume such a deeper root for the belief that we can account for its uni versality and persistence. Even this, however, while an instinctive presumption, can hardly be called a proof of survival after death, and it does not yield an idea of "immortality" in any worthy sense. It is at most, as already said, a ghostly redupli cation of the earthly life that is thus far reached.

      (1) The soul spiriliil. The more philosophical arguments that are adduced for the soul s immor tality (or survival) are not all of equal

      2. Phil- weight. The argument based on the osophical metaphysical essence of the soul (see Arguments Plato s Phaeilo) is not in these; days felt to be satisfying. On the other hand, it can be maintained against the materialist on irrefragable grounds that the sotd, or thinking spirit, in man is immaterial in Nature, and, where this is granted, there is, or can be, no proof that death, or physical dissolution, destroys this con scious spirit. The 1 presumption is powerfully the other way. Cicero of old argued that death need not even be the suspension of its powers (cf Tuxc. Disp. i.20); Butler reasons the matter from analogy (Anal., 1, ch i); modern scientists like J. S. Mill (T/irre Essays, 201) and Professor Huxley (Life am/ tellers, I, 217 ff; cf William James, Ingersoll Lirlure) concede that immortality cannot be <lis- proved. The denial one hears from various sides more frequently than formerly is therefore not warranted. Still possibility is not certainty, and there is nothing as yet to show that even if the soul survives death, its new state of existence has in it, anything desirable.

      It was hinted that one use which the Greeks made of the metaphysical argument was to prove the indestructibility of the soul its immortality in the sense of having no beginning and no end. This is not the Christian doctrine. The soul has no such inherent indestructibility. It is dependent on ( Iod, as everything else is, for its continued existence 1 . Diel He withelraw His sustaining power, it would cease to exist. That it ele>e-s continue to exist is not doubted, but this must be argued on other grounds.

      (2) Capacities of hinnan nature. A much more apprehensible argument. for immortality more strictly, of a future state e>f existence is elrawn from the rich capacities and possibilities of human nature, for which the- earthly life affords so brief and inadequate a sphere of e xe>rcise. It is the characteristic of spirit that it, has in it an element of infinituele, and aspires to the infinite. The best the; world can give can never satisfy it. If, has in it, the possibility of endless progress, anel ever higher satisfaction. It was this ee>nside>ratie>n which le>d Kant, with all his theoretie-al skepticism, te> give; immortality a place among his "doctrinal beliefs" (see his Critique of Pure Reason, Bohn s tr, 500-91), anel moved J. S. Mill to speak of it as the only hope

      Immortal Impediment



      which gave adequate scope 1<> the human faculties and feelings, "(lie loftier aspirations being no longer kept down by a sense of the insignificance of human, life by the disastrous feeling of not. \\\\vorth while " (T/iree EXMIIJS, 24 .)). Yet when these arguments are calmly weighed, they amount to no more than a proof that man is cotiNtitxlcd for immortality; they do not afford a guarantee that this destiny might not be forfeited, or if they yield such a guarantee for the good, they hardly d o so for the wicked. The belief, in their case, must depend on other con siderations.

      ( .)) The morn] /irijuinenl. It is, as Kant also felt, when we enter the moral sphere that immortality, or the continued existence of the soul, becomes a practical certainty 1o the earnest, mind. "With moral personality is bound up t he idea of moral law and moral responsibility; this, in turn, necessitates the thought, of the world as a moral system, and of Cod as moral Huler. The world, as we know it, is certainly a scene of moral administration -of pro bation, of discipline 1 , of reward and penalty -but as obviously a scene of i>ic<>n//>l< fe moral adminis tration. The tangled condition^ of ^things in this life can satisfy no one s sense of justice. Goodness is left to suffer; wickedness outwardly triumphs. The evil-doer s own conscience proclaims him answerable, and points to future judgment. There is need for a final red ification of what is wrong here. Hut while 1 a future state sen-ins thus cahVel for, this eloes not of itself secure 1 eternal existence for the wicked, nor would such existence be "immortality" in the positive se-nse. In view of the mystery of sin, the 1 lamp of irason grows dim. For further light we must look to revelat ion.

      //. The Biblical Doctrinethe OT. The Bib.

      view of immortality starts from man s relation to

      Clod. Man, as made in the image

      1. Starting- of God (Gen 1 27), is fit tee 1 for the Point knenvle-elge of God, for fe-llem ship with Man s Him. This implies that man is more Relation than an animal; that he has a life to God which transcends time. In it already

      lies the pledge of immortality if man is obedient.

      Ainu s nature. With this corresponds the ac count given of man s creation and original state. Man is a being composed of body and soul; both are integral parts of his personality. He was created for life, not for mortality. The warning, "In the day that them eatest thereof thou shalt surely die 1 " (Ge-n 2 17), implies that if man e-on- tinued obeelient he wemld live. But this is not an immortality of the soul only. It is a life in the body (cf Gen 3 22). Its type is such cases as Enoch and Elijah (Gen 5 24; 2 K2 11.12; cf Ps 49 hi; 73 24).

      The frustration of this original destiny of man

      comes through sin. Sin entails death (see DEATH).

      Death in its physical aspect is a sepa-

      2. Sin and ration of send and body a breaking Death up of the unity of man s personality.

      In one senise, therefore, it is the de>- strnction of the immortality which was man s original destiny. It does not, however, imply the extinction of the soul. That survives, but not in a state that can be called life." It passes into Sheol the 1 sad, gloeimy abode of the dead, in which there is ne> joy, act ivity, knowledge e>f the 1 affairs of earl h, or (in the vie-w of Nature) remembrance of Ge>d, or praise of His goodness (em this subject, and the Heb belief in the future state 1 generally, see: ESCHA- TOLoeiY OF TIIK OT; DKATH; SIIKOL). This is not future "life 1 " not "immortality."

      It is the part of grace and reelemption to restore immortality in the true sense. Had the worlel bee>n left to develop in sin, no further hope could have

      e-emie 1 te> it. The picture of Shee>I would have

      bee-ome ever elarker as the idea of retribution grew

      stremger; it coulel never become

      3. Grace bright er. But Gexl s grace inter- and Re- ve-ne-el: "Deliver him from going down demption to the pit, I have femnd a ransom" the True (Jeib 33 24). Geid s mercy breaks in Immortality em the hopelessness of man s lot. He

      gives te) man His promises; makes His covenant with man; aelmits man te> His fellowship (Gen 3 ir ); 44; 5 24; 6 8.0; 12 1-3; 15, etc). In this fellowship the soul was raise el again to its true life even em earth. But this held in it also a hope fe>r the future 1 . The promises places! in the forefront as tokens of Gexl s favetrs were indeed predominatingly 1<-mpe>ral pmmises for this life but within these; (the 1 kernel within the shell) was the supreme pe>sse-ssiem e>f God Himself (Ps 4 Of; 16 2). This he-Id in it the hope of redemption and the principle of eve-ry geiod.

      Deliverance from X//<-<>l. Here we reach the core of the OT he>pc of imnmrtality. Such fellenvship as the believer had with God could not be 1 le>st, even in Sheol; beyemd that was deliverance; from Sheol. In their highest memients it was this hope that sustained patriarchs, psalmists, pre>phets, in the ir outlook on the 1 future. Dembt might cloud their minels; there might be seasons of darkness and even elespair; but it was impossible in moments of stremg faith to be-licve that God would ever really ele-sert them. The eternal Goel was their dwelling-place; be neath them we>re everlasting arms (Dt 33 27; cf Ps 90 1). The ir hope of immortality, there-fore, was, in principle, the hope not merely of an immor tality of the soul," but likewise of resurrection of complete deliverance from Sheol. Thus it is clearly in the impassioneel outburst of Job (19 2o-27; cf 14 13 ff), anel in many of the psalms. The hope always clothes itself in the fe>rm of cemipleMe de-liv- erance from Sheol. Thus in Ps 17 14 f, the wicked have their portiem "in this life-," but, "As fe>r me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake 1 , with thy likeness" (ARV "with beholding thy fe>rm"); and in Ps 49 14f, the wicked are "appointed as afloe-k for Sheol," but "God will reeleem my semi from the power of Sheol; for he will receive me 1 " (same expression as that regareling Enoch, Gen 6 24; cf Ps 73 24). It will be remembeml that when Jesus expounded the declaration, "I am the; Gexl of Abraham," etc, it was as a plcelge of resurrection (Mt 22 31 f). The idea comes to final expression in the declaration in Dnl of a resurrection of the just and unjust (12 2). For further development and illustration see Es-


      Later Jewish thought carried out these ideas

      of the OT to further issues. A blessed future for

      the righteous was nenv accepted, and

      4. Later was definitely connected with the ielea Jewish of resurrection. The wicked remained Thought in Sheol, now conceived of as a place

      of retribution. The Gentiles, too, shared this doom. See ESCHATOLOGY.

      ///. The Christian Hope. In full consonance with what is revealed in part in the OT is the hope

      of immortality discovered in the NT. 1. Immor- The ring of this joyful hope is heard tality in every part of the aposte)lic writings.

      through "Blessed be the God and Father of our Christ Lord Jesus Christ," says Pete>r, "who

      accoreling to his great mere-y begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the deael, unto an inheritance incor ruptible*, and unelefileel, and that faeleth not away, reserved in heave n for you" (1 Pet 1 3f). Paul declares, "Our Saviour Christ Jesus, who .... brought life and immortality [incorruption] to



      Immortal Impediment

      light through the gospel" (2 Tim 1 10). In Horn 2 7 he had spoken of those who "by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorrup- tion, eternal life." This immortality, it is seen, is part of the eternal life bestowed through Jesus on believers. It is guaranteed by Christ s own resurrec tion and life in glory. The nature of this hope of the gospel may now be further analyzed.

      (1) Surriritl of the soul. The soul survives the body. A future state for both righteous and wicked is plainly declared by Jesus Himself. "He that be- lieveth on me," He said to Martha, "though lie die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and be- lieveth on me shall never die 1 " (Jn 11 25 f). To His disciples He said, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" (Jn 14 3) . Cf His words to the peni t ent t hief : "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Lk 23 43). The survival of both righteous and wicked is implied in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16 19-31). Ho in many other places (e.g. Mt 5 29 f; 10 2S; 11 21-24; 12 41, etc). The same is the leaching of the epp. The doctrine of a future judgment depends on and presupposes this truth (Rom 2 5-11; 2 Cor 6 10, etc).

      (2) Union with Christ in -unseen world. Death for the redeemed, though a result of sin, does not destroy the soul s relation to Ciod and to Christ. The eternal life implanted in the soul in time blos soms in its fruition into the life and blessedness of eternity (Rom 8 10 f; Phil 1 21; Col 1 27). The soul is, indeed, in an incomplete state till the resur rection. It "waits for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Rom 8 23). But its state, though incomplete, is still a happy one. Hades has lost its gloom, and is for it a "Paradise" (Lk 23 43). It dwells in a chamber of the Father s house (Jn 14 2f; 17 24). It is to be, even in the unclothed state ("absent from the body"), "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5 8). It is for it an object of desire to be "with Christ" in that state after death (Phil 1 21). The pictures in Rev, though highly figurative, indicate a condition of great blessedness (Rev 7 9-17).

      (3) The resurrection. The fulness of the blessed ness of immortality implies the resurrection. The resurrection is a cardinal article of Christ s teaching (Mt 22 29-32; Jn 5 25-29; 11 23-20). He Him self is the Lord of life, and life-giver in the resur rection (Jn 6 21.25.26; 11 25, "I am the resurrec tion, and the life"). The resurrection of believers is secured by His own resurrection. Jesus died; He rose again (see RESURRECTION). His resur rection carries with it the certainty of the resur rection of all His people. This is the great theme of 1 Cor 15. As Christ lives, they shall live also (Jn 14 19). The believers who are alive at His Parousia shall be changed (1 Cor 15 51; 1 Thess 4 17) ; those who are dead shall be raised first of all (1 Thess 4 1G). The resurrection body shall be a body like to Christ s own (Phil 3 21) incor ruptible, glorious, powerful, spiritual, immortal (1 Cor 15 42ff.53f). This is not to be confused with sameness of material particles (vs 37 f), yet there is the connection of a vital bond between the old body and the new. This is the hope of the be liever, without which his redemption would not be complete.

      (4) The wicked also raised. The wicked also are raised, not, however, to glory, but for judgment (Jn 5 29; Acts 24 15; Rev 20 12-15). The same truth is implied in all passages on the last judgment. Excluded from the blessedness of the righteous, their state is described by both Jesus and His apostles as one of uttermost tribulation and an guish (e.g. Mt 25 40; Mk 9 43-50; Rom 2 Sf).

      This is not "immortality" or "life," though the con tinued existence of the soul is implied in it (see PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING; HELL; RETRIBU TION) .

      (5) Eternal life. The condition of the blessed in their state of immortality is one of unspeakable felicity of both soul and body forever. There are, indeed, degrees of glory this is carefully and con sistently taught (Mt 25 14 IT; Lk 19 12 ff; 1 Cor 3 10-15; 15 41; Phil 3 10-14; 2 Tim 4 7 f ; 1 Jn

      2 2S) but the condition as a whole is one of perfect satisfaction, holiness and blessedness (cf Mt 13 43; 25 34; Rom 2 7.10; Rev 22 3 ff, etc). The bless edness of this eternal state includes such elements as the following: (1) restoration to Clod s image and likeness to Christ (1 Cor 15 49; 2 Cor 3 IS; Eph 4 24; Col 3 10; 1 Jn 3 2); (2) perfect holi ness in the possession of Cod s Spirit (2 Cor 7 1; Phil 1 0; Rev 21 27; 22 4.11); (3) the unveiled vision of Cod s glory (Rev 22 4; cf Ps 17 15); (4) freedom from all sorrow, pain and death (Rev 21 3f); (5) power of unwearied service (Rev 22 3).

      The contrast between the Bib. view of immor tality and that of heathenism and of the schools will now be obvious. It is not mere 2. Contrasts future existence; not a bare, abstract immortality of the soul; it is the result of redemption and of renewal by Cod s spirit; it embraces the whole personality, soul and body; itis not shared by the unholy; it includes the perfec tion of rational, moral and spiritual blessedness, in an environment suitable to such glorified existence. As such it is the supreme pri/e after which every believer is called to strive (Phil 3 13 f).

      LITERATI-RE. Inr/rrxiiH Lrr/t/rcn on I tntnortiiUti/, by Professor William Jumes. Professor Osier, etc; Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality; Orr, Christian \\\\ ii-iv of d,, I mid tin- \\\\\\\\~itrlil, I. eels iv. v, with App. to v; works specified in art. on ESCHATOLOGY.


      IMMUTABILITY, i-mu-ta-bil i-ti, IMMUTA BLE, i-mu ta-b l (anerdOeTos, ainctalhctox): Occurs in He 6 17.18 of the unchangeableness of the Di vine counsel. It is the perfection of Jeh that He changes not in character, will, purpose, aim (Mai

      3 0; so of Christ, He 13 8). See FAITHFULNESS; UNCHANGEABLE.

      IMNA, im na ("" Asher (1 Ch 7 35).

      1 ? , uiinnu ): A descendant of

      IMNAH, im na (rCQ^ , yimndfi):

      (1) Eldest son of Asher (C.en 46 17, AV "Jim- nah"; Nu 26 44, AV "Jimna"; 1 Ch 7 30).

      (2) A Levite of Hc/ckiah s time (2 Ch 31 14).

      IMNITES, im nits ("^"C" 1 , yhntn): Descendants of LMXAH (q.v. [1]) (Nu 26 44, AV "Jimnites").

      IMPART, im-part ([ATa8i8co|Ai, metadidomi, "to share"): "They .... imparted [AV "added"] nothing to me" (Gal 2 (5); that is, did not propose any correction or addition to my teaching. "That I may impart unto you some spiritual gift" (Rom 1 11) expresses the apostle s hope that the Rom be lievers may increase in faith and love through his teaching and influence.

      "To impart unto you .... our own souls" (1 Thess 2 S) meant, to spend their utmost strength and to expose their lives in their service.

      IMPEDIMENT, im-ped i-menl : Found in Mk 7 32, "had an impediment in his speech," as a tr of /xo7t Xo.Xos, mogilalos, comp. of ^6705, mogos, "toil" and XaXos, lalos, "speech," i.e. one who speaks with difficulty. In the LNX the word is used as a tr of CSX, ittem, "dumb" (Isa 35 G).

      Implead Imputation



      IMPLEAD, im-plee! (Acts 19 3X A\\\\", "Let them impleael one another"): "Impleael" means "to sue at law," hence RV "Let them accuse one another." Court days are kept, let them prosecute the. suit in court and not settle matters in riot. tyicaXeii , 1 ijhdldn, means "to call in," "to call to account."

      IMPORTABLE, im-pelr ta-b l (Suo-pdo-raKTos, dusbdslaktos) . An obsolete word, meaning "unbear able" (Lat iin, "not," fturtahilix, "bearable") found in Pr Man, "Thine angry threatening [RV "the anger of thy threatening"] toward sinners is im portable"; cf Rheims version, Mt 23 4, "heavy burdens and importable"; Chaucer ("Clerk s Tale" C.T.), "For it were importable though they wolde."

      IMPORTUNITY, im-por-tu ni-ti: Occurs only in Lk 11 S, where it is the rendering of dvaiSeia, ana ulcin (WH, avaioia, tinaidia). This (ir word implies an element of impudent insistence rising to the point of shamelessness which the Eng. word "importunity" fails to express, thus weakening the argument of the parable, which is that if by shame less insistence a favor may be won, even from one unwilling and ungracious, still more 1 surely will God answer the earnest prayer of His people. God s willingness to give exceeds our ability to ask. The parable teaches by way of contrast, not by parallel. DAVID FOSTER ESTES


      IMPOSSIBLE, im-pos i-b l (vb. dSwartw, adu- natco; adj dSvvaros, adunntos): "To be impossi ble" is the tr of dduitatco, "to be powerless," "im potent" (Mt 17 20; Lk 1 37, RV "void of power"); adunatos, "powerless," etc, is tr 1 "impossible" (Mt 19 2(5; Mk 10 27; Lk 18 27; He 6 4.1S; 11 0; "impossible" in He 6 4 is in RV transferred to ver 6); nncinh-ktdx, "not to be received" or "accepted," is also tr 1 "impossible" (Lk 17 1). In several of these passages it is affirmed that "nothing is impos sible with God," but, of course 1 , this means nothing that is consistent with the Divine nature, e.g. (as He 6 18) it is not possible for God to lie. So, when it is said that nothing is impossible to faith, the same limitation applies and also that of the mind or will of God for us. But much more is possible to a strong faith than a weak faith realizes, or even believes. W. L. WALKER

      IMPOTENT, im po-tent (do-etvtw, asthcneo, dSvvaros, adunatos): The vb. signifies "to be with out strength," and derivatives of it are used inJn 6 3.7 A V and Acts 4 9 to characterize the paralyzed man at Bethesda and the cripple at the Temple gate. For the same condition of the Lystra lame man the word adunatos is used, which is synonymous. In these 1 cases it is the* weakness of disease. In this sense the word is useel by Shakespeare (Lore s Lahnr Lost, V, ii, 864; Hamlet, I, ii, 29). The impotent folk referred to in the Epistle of Jeremy (Bar 6 2S) were- those weak and feeble from age and want; cf "impotent anel snail-paced beggary" (Richard III , IV, iii, 53). ALEX. MACALISTEK

      IMPRISONMENT, im-pri/"n-ment. See- Prx- ISHMENTS; PRISON.

      IMPURITY, im-pu ri-ti. Se>e; UNCLEANNESS. IMPUTATION, im-pii-t a/shun :

      I . M K A N I N C A N D Us E OF T H K TERM


      Original Sin, Atone incnt, .Justification III. THK ScKii TUHAi. BASIS OF THKSK DOCTKINES 1. Imputation of Adam s Sin to His Posterity

      -. Imputation of the Sins of His People to Christ :i. Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to

      His People LITERATURE

      /. Meaning and Use of the Term. The 1 worel "imputation," according to the Scriptural usage, denotes an attributing of something to a persem, or a charging of one with anything, e>r a setting e>f something te> erne s account . This t ake-s place somo- times in a judie ial manner, se> that the thing im puted becennes a ground of reward e>r punishment. The word is used in AV a number e>f time s to trans late the Ih b vb. hnxhahh and the Gr vb. Intfizoinui. These words, he>th e>f which e>ccur freejuently in Scripture, and which in a number e>f instances mean simply "to think," expre-ss the above 1 idea. That this is the e ase is e-le-ar also from the othe-r Eng. weirds use d in AV te> translate these Ileb and Gr wemls, as, fe>r example , "to e-ount," "to re ckon," "te> este-e in." Thus hrixhdhli is tr 1 in AV by the vb. "to impute" (Lev 7 IS; 17 4; 2 S 19 19); by the vb. "te) reckem" (2 S 4 2); by "to e-otmt" as some thing (Lev 25 31 EVj. The vb. in 1 S 22 1.1 is H" 1 !? 1 , stm. Similarly, loyizoutdi is tr 1 by the- vb. "to impute" (Rom 4 6. S.I 1 .22.23. 24; 2 Cor 5 19; Jas 2 23); by the vb. "to e-emnt" (Item 2 26; 4 3.oj; "to account" (Gal 3 6j ; and by the; vb. "to reck on" (Rom 4 4.9.10).- In RV the word used to reneler Iwjizoniai is the vb. "te) reckem."

      These synonyms of the 1 vb. "1e> impute" bring out the ide>a e>f reckoning or charging to one- s ac- e-emnt. It makes no dii fe-rence 1 , so far as the meaning e>f imputation is cone-e-rned, who it is that imputes, whetluT man (1 S 22 15) or Clod (Ps 32 2); it makes no elifference what is imputed, whether a ge>e>el elen el for reward (Ps 106 30 f) or a bad deed for punishment (Lev 17 4); and it makes no differ ence whe ther that which is imputed is something which is personally one> s own prior to the imputa tion, as in the case above cited, where his own gooel elee d was imputeel 1e> Phinehas (Ps 106 30 fj, or something which is ne>t personally one- s own prior to the imputation, as where Paul asks that a debt not personally his own be e hargeel to him (Philern ve-r 18). In all these case s the act of imputation is simply the charging of one with something. It, denotevs just what we mean by our orelinary use of the term. It does not change the inward state 1 or charaeter of the person to whom something is im puted. When, fe>r example, we say that we impute bad motive s to anyone , we elo not mean that we make such a erne bad; and just so in the Scripture the phrase "to impute iniquity" eleies ne>t mean to make one personally bael, but simply to lay iniquity to his charge. He iice when God is said "to impute sin" to anyone, the meaning is that God ace-emnts such a one to be a sinner, anel consequently guilty and liable to punishment. Similarly, the non- imputation of sin means simply not to lay it to one s charge as a ground of punishment (Ps 32 2). In the same? manner, whe-n Geid is said "to impute righteousness" to a person, the meaning is that He judicially accounts sue^h a one te) be 1 righteous and entitled to all the rewards of a righteous person (Rom 4 6.11).

      //. The Threefold Use of the Term in Theology. Three acts of imputation are give ii special prorni- ne nce in the 1 Scripture, and are implicated in the Scriptural doctrine s of Original Sin, Atonement anel Justification, though ne)t usually e xpre sse el by the words hashabh anel logizomai. Because, how ever, of its "forensic" en- "judicial" meaning, and possibly through its use in the Yulg to translate logizomai in Rom 4 8, the term "imputation" has been used in theology in a threefold sense to elemote the 1 judicial acts of Ge>el by which the guilt of Adam s sin is imputeel to his posterity; by which the sing



      Implead Imputation

      of Christ s people are imputed to Him; and by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. The act of imputation is precisely the same in each case. It- is not meant that Adam s sin was personally the sin of his descendants, but that it was set to their account, so that they share its guilt and penalty. It is not meant that Christ shares personally in the sins of men, but that the guilt of His people s sin was set to his account, so that He bore its penalty. It is not meant that Christ 8 people are made personally holy or inwardly right eous by the imputation of His righteousness to them, but that His righteousness is set to their ac count, so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.

      These doctrines have had a place in the theology of the Christian church from the earliest Christian cents., though the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ was first fully and clearly stated at the time of and following the Reformation. The first two of these doctrines have been the pos session of the entire Christian church, while the third one of them is affirmed by both the Reformed and Lutheran branches of Protestantism.

      ///. The Scriptural Basis of These Doctrines. - These three doctrines have a basis in the Scripture, and underlie the Scripture doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement, and Justification.

      The doc.trine of the imputation of Adam s sin to his posterity is implied in the account of the Fall in (Jen 2 and 3, taken in connection 1. Imputa- with the subsequent history of the tion of human race as recorded in Gen and

      Adam s Sin in the rest of the OT. Many ancient to His and modern interpreters regard this

      Posterity narrative" as an allegorical, mythical or symbolical representation in his torical form, either of a psychological fact, i.e. of something which takes place in every individual, or of certain general truths concerning sin. By some, following Kant, it has been held to depict an advance of the race in culture or ethical knowledge (Reuss; against which view cf Budde, Clemen); by others it has been regarded as a sym bolical representation of certain truths concerning sin (Oehler, Schult/); by others it has been regarded as historical (Delitzsch). This latter view is the one which accords with the narrative itself. It is evidently intended as historical by its author, and is so regarded by the NT writers. It is, moreover, introduced to explain, not an advance of the race, but the entrance of sin into the world, and the con nection of certain penal evils with sin. It does this by showing how these evils came upon Adam as a punishment for his disobedience, and the sub sequent history shows that his posterity were sub jected to the same evils. It is true that the threat of punishment to Adam in case of disobedience was made to him alone, and that the penalties threat ened an; said to have come only upon him and Eve (Gen 3 16-19). Nevertheless, it is clear from the account of the subsequent history of the race that it actually shared in the punishments inflicted upon Adam, and that this was in consequence of his sin. This implies that in Gen 2 16 f are contained the terms of a covenant in which Adam acted as the representative of the race. If, therefore, the race shares in the penalty of Adam s sin, it must also share in his guilt or the judicial obligation to suffer punishment. And this is precisely what the the ology of the entire Christian church has meant by saying that the guilt of Adam s sin was imputed to his posterity. This is in accordance with God s method of dealing with men in other recorded in stances (Gen 19 15; Ex 20 5; Dt 1 37; 3 26); and the assertion of the principle of personal re sponsibility by Ezekiel and Jeremiah against an

      abuse of the principle of representative responsi bility implies a recognition of the latter (Ezk 18 2.4; 33 12; Jer 31 29).

      The universality of sin and death is not brought into connection with the Fall of Adam by the other ( )T writers. This is done, however, by Paul. In 1 Cor 15 21 f, Paul says that the death of all men has its cause in the man Adam in the same way in which the resurrection from the dead has its cause in the man Christ. The death of all men, accord ingly, is not brought about by their personal sins, but has come upon all through the disobedience of Adam. Upon what ground this takes place, Paul states in the passage Rom 5 12-21. He intro duces the subject of Adam s relation to the race to illustrate his doctrine of the justification of sinners on the ground of a righteousness which is not per sonally their own. In order to do this he takes the truth, well known to his readers, that all men are under condemnation on account of Adam s sin. The comparison is between Adam and Christ, and the specific point of tin; comparison is imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Hence in ver 12 Paul does not mean simply to affirm that as Adam sinned and consequently died, so men sin and die. Nor can he mean to say that just as God established a precedent in Adam s case that death should follow sin, so He acts upon this precedent in the case of all men because all sin, the real ground of the reign of death being the fact that all sin, and the formal ground being this precedent (B. Weiss); nor that the real ground is this precedent and the subordi nate ground the fact that all sin (Hiinefeld). Neither can Paul intend to say that all men are sub ject to death because they derive a corrupt nature from Adam (Fritzsche) ; nor that men are con demned to die because all have sinned (Pfleiderer). Paul s purpose is to illustrate his doctrine of tin; way in which men are delivered from sin and death by the way in which they are brought into con demnation. The main thought of the passage is that, just as men are condemned on account of the imputation to them of the guilt of Adam s sin, so they are justified on account of the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ. Paul says that it was by one man that sin and death entered into the world, and it was by one man that death passed to all men, because all were implicated in the guilt of that one man s sin (ver 12). In proof of this the apostle cites the fact that death as a punishment was reigning during a period in which the only possible judicial ground of this fact must have been the imputation of the guilt of that one man s sin (vs 13.14). Hence there is a precise parallel between Adam and Christ. Just as men are condemned on account of Adam s disobedience, so they are justified on account of the obedience of Christ (vs 18.19). The thought of the passage is imputed sin and imputed righteousness as the ground of condemnation and of justification respectively.

      That our sins are imputed to Christ is not ex pressly stated in the Scripture, but is implied in those

      passages which affirm that Christ "bore 2. The our sins," and that our iniquities were

      Imputation "laid upon him" by Jeh. To bear of the Sins inquity or sin, though it may some- of His times mean to bear it away or remove

      People to it, is an expression often applied in Christ Scripture to persons charged with guilt

      and subjected to the punishment of their own sin (Lev 5 17; 7 18; 19 8; 22 9). That the Heb vb. nasd has this meaning is also indicated by its being interchanged with the vb. dl>h(d, which means "to bear as a burden" and is used to denote the bearing of the punishment of sin (Isa 53 11). In the OT sacrificial system, which according to the NT is typical of the sacrifice of




      Christ, tlif imposition of hands on the head of the victim signified t ho substitution of il for t he of lender and the transfer of his guilt to it. This idea is brought out clearly in the case of the two goats on the great Day of Atonement (Lev 16). When, therefore, the Servant of ,Ieh in Isa 53 is said "to bear iniquity (ver 11), or that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him "(ver 5), or that ".Jeh hath laid [lit. "caused to fall"] on him the iniquity of us all (ver (>), the idea expressed is that Christ bore the punishment of our sin vicariously, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The thought of the prophecy is, as l)elit/sch says, that of vicarious punishment, which implies the idea of the imputa tion of the guilt of our sins to Christ .

      The same idea underlies these expressions when they occur in the NT. \\\\Yhen Peter wishes to hold up Christ as an example of patience in suffering, In takes up the thought of Isa, and adduces the fact that Christ, "his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree" (1 Pet 2 121). The context indi cates that Peter had the prophecy of Isa 53 in mind, so that his meaning is, not that Christ carried our sins even up to the cross, but that in His death on the cross Christ bore the punishment of our sin, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The same thought is expressed by the writer of the Kp. to the He, when 1 t he contrast between the first and second advents of Christ is made to hinge upon the fact that in the first He came to be sacrificed as a sin- bearer, burdened with the guilt of the sin of others, whereas in His second coming He will appear with out this burden of imputed or vicarious guilt (He 9 28). Paul also gives expression to the same thought when he says that Christ was "made to be sin on our behalf" (2 Cor 5 21), and that He became "a curse for us" (Cal 3 13). In the former passage the idea of substitution, although not ex pressed by the preposition /m/>er which indicates that Christ s work was for our benefit, is neverthe less clearly implied in the thought that Christ, whose sinlessness is emphasized in the ver, is made sin, and that we sinners become righteous in Him. Paul means that Christ was made to bear the penalty of our sin and that its guilt was imputed to Him in precisely the same way in which we sinners become the righteousness of God in Him, i.e. by the imputation of His righteousness to us. The same thought is expressed in Cal 3 13, where the statement that Christ was made a curse for us means that He was made to endure the curse or penalty of the broken law. In all these passages the under lying thought is that the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ.

      The righteousness upon the ground of which God justifies the ungodly is, according to Paul, witnessed to in the OT (Horn 3 21). 3. The Im- In order to obtain the blessedness putation of which comes from a right relation to the Right- Cod, the pardon or non-imputation of eousness of sin is necessary, and this takes place Christ to through the "covering" of sin (Ps 32 His People 1.2). The nature of this covering by the vicarious bearing of the penalty of sin is made clear in Isa 53. It is, moreover, the teaching of the OT that the righteousness which God demands is not to be found among men (Ps 130 3; 143 2; Isa 64 0). Accordingly, the proph ets speak of a righteousness which is not from man s works, but which is said to be in Jeh or to come from Him to His people (Isa 32 10 f; 45 23 IT; 54 17; 58 S; 61 3; Jer 51 10; Hos 10 12). This idea finds its clearest expression in connection with the work of the Messiah in Jer 33 16, where Jerus is called "Jeh our righteousness" because of the coming of the Messianic king, and in Jer 23 G where the same name is given to the Messiah to express

      His significance for Israel. Although the idea of the imputation of righteousness is not explicitly asserted in these passages, the idea is not merely that the righteousness spoken of is recognized by Jeh (Cremerj, but, that it conies from Him, so that .leli, through the work of the Messiah, is the source; of His people s righteousness.

      This idea is taken up by Paul, who makes explicit the way in which this righteousness comes to sin ners, and who puts the idea of imputed righteous ness at, the basis of his doctrine of Justification. By the light eousness of Christ Paul means Christ s legal status, or the merit acquired by all that lie did in satisfying the demands of (Sod s law, includ ing what has been called His active and passive obedience. Notwithstanding the fact that most of the modern expositors of Paul s doctrine have denied that he teaches the imputation of Christ s obedience, this doctrine has a basis in the apostle s teaching. Justification leads to life and final glori fication (Rom 5 IS; 8 30) , and Paul always con ceives the obtaining of life as dependent on ihe ful filment, of the law. If, therefore, Christ secures life for us, it can only be in accordance with this prin ciple. Accordingly, the apostle emphasizes the element of obedience in the death of Christ, and places this act of obedience at the basis of the sinner s justification (Rom 5 IS). lie also repre sents the obedience of the cross as the culminating point of a life of obedience on Christ s part (Phil

      2 8). Moreover, Paul affirms that our redemption from all the demands of the law is secured by the fact that Christ was born under law (Cal 4 4). This cannot be restricted to the fact that Christ was under the curse of the law, for He was born under law and the result of this is that we are free from all of its demands. This doctrine is also im plied in the apostle s teaching that Justification is absolutely gracious, taken in connection with the fact that it leads to a complete salvation.

      The importance in Paul s thought of the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer can be seen from the fact that the ques tion how righteousness was to be obtained occupied a central place in his religious consciousness, both before and after his conversion. The apostle s conversion by the appearance of the risen Christ determined his conception of the true way of ob taining righteousness, since the resurrection of Christ meant for Paul the condemnation of his entire past search for righteousness bv works of the law.

      That the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer does lie at the basis of Paul s doctrine of Justification can be further seen from the fact that Justification is absolutely free and unmerited so far as the sinner is concerned (Rom

      3 24; 5 15; Gal 5 4; Tit 3 7); its object being one who is ungodly (Rom 45); so that it is not by works (Rom 3 20 .28; Gal 2 1G; 3 11; 5 4; Phil 3 9); and yet that it is not a mere pardon of sin, but is a strictly "forensic" or judicial judgment, freeing the sinner from all the claims of the law, and granting him the right to eternal life. This last truth is plain because God s retributive righteous ness lies at the basis of Paul s doctrine of Justifi cation (Rom 2); is manifested in it (Rom 3 25 f); because Christ s expiatory work is its ground (Rom 3 25); and because our redemption from the curse of the law rests upon Christ s having borne it for us, and our redemption from all the demands of the law depends upon their fulfilment by Christ (Gal 3 13; 44). Hence the gracious character of Jus tification, according to Paul, does not consist in its being merely a gracious pardon without any judi cial basis (Ritschl); or in God s acceptance of a subjective righteousness produced by Him in the



      sinner (Tobac); or in the acceptance of faith in stead of a perfect righteousness (Cremer). The gracious character of Justification consists for Paul in the fact that the righteousness on the ground of which Clod justifies the ungodly is a righteous ness which is graciously provided by God, and which Paul contrasts with his own righteousness which conies from law works (Phil 3 9). The sinner, therefore, is pardoned and accepted as a righteous person, not on account of anything in himself, but only on account of what Christ has done for him, which means that the merits of Christ s suffering and obedience arc; imputed to the sinner as the ground of his justification.

      This truth is explicitly affirmed by Paul, who speaks of God s imputing righteousness without works, and of righteousness being imputed (Rom 4 6.11). The idea of the imputation of righteous ness here is made clear by the context. The one who is declared righteous is said to be "ungodly" (4 5). Hence he is righteous only by God s impu tation of righteousness to him. This is also clear from the contrast between imputation according to grace and according to debt (4 4). He who seeks righteousness by works would be, justified as a reward for his works, in antithesis to which, impu tation according to grace would be the charging one with a righteousness which he does not possess. Accordingly, at the basis of Justification there is a reckoning to the sinner of an objective righteous ness. This same idea is also implied and asserted by Paul in the parallel which he draws between Adam and Christ (Rom 6 18 f). The apostle savs that just as men are condemned on account of a sin not their own, so they are justified on account of a righteousness which is not their own. The idea of imputed sin and imputed righteousness, as was said, is the precise point of the parallelism between con demnation in Adam and justification in Christ. This is also the idea which underlies the apostle s contrast of the Old and New Covenants (2 Cor 3 9). The New Covenant is described as a "ministry of righteousness," and contrasted with the Old Covenant which is described as a "ministry of con demnation." If, therefore, this last expression does not denote a subjective condition of men under the old dispensation, but their relation to God as objects of His condemnation, righteousness must denote the opposite of this relation to the law, and must depend on God s judicial acquittal. The same truth is expressed by Paul more concretely by say ing that Christ, has been "made unto us righteous ness from God" (1 Cor 1 30). Here the concrete mode of expression is chosen because Paul speaks also of Christ being our sanctification and redemp tion, so that an expression had to be chosen which would cover all of these ideas. One of the clearest statements concerning this objective righteousness is Phil 3 9. The apostle here affirms that the righteousness which the believer in Christ obtains is directly opposite to his own righteousness. This latter comes from works of the law, whereas t In former comes from God and through faith in Christ . It is, therefore, objective to man, comes to him from God, is connected with the work of Christ, and is mediated by faith in Christ. _ The idea clearly stated in this last passage of a righteousness which is objective to the sinner and which comes to him from God, i.e. the idea of a new legal standing given to the believer by God, explains the meaning, in most cases, of the Pauline phrase "righteousness of God." This phrase is used by Paul 9 t: Rom 1 17; 3 5.21f.25f; 10 3 (twice); 2 Cor 6 21. It denotes the Divine attribute of righteousness in Rom 3 5.25f. The customary exegesis was to regard the other instances as de noting the righteousness of a sinner which comes

      to him from God, in accordance with Phil 3 9. More recently Haering, following Kolbing in general, has interpreted all these instances as denoting God s justifying action. But this interpretation is most strained in 2 Cor 5 21, where we are said to be come the righteousness of God," and in Rom 10 3-6, where the righteousness of God is identified with the righteousness which comes from faith, this latter being contrasted with man s own inward righteousness. That a righteousness of man which he receives from God is here referred to, is confirmed by the fact that the reason given for the error of the Jews in seeking a righteousness from law works is the fact that the work of Christ has made an end of this method of obtaining righteousness (Rom 10 4). This righteousness, therefore, is one, of which man is the possessor. The phrase, however, cannot mean a righteousness which is valid in God s sight (Luther), although this thought is elsewhere ex pressed by Paul (Rom 3 20; Gal 3 11). It means a righteousness which conies from God and of which He is the author. This is not, however, by making man inwardly righteous, since all the above passages show the purely objective character of this right eousness. It is the righteousness of Phil 3 9; the righteousness which God imputes to the believer in Christ. Thus we "become the righteousness of God" in precisely the same sense in which Christ was "made to be sin" (2 Cor 6 21). Since Christ was made sin by having the guilt of our sin im puted to Him so that He bore its penalty, Paul must mean that we "become the righteousness of God" in this same objective sense through the impu tation to us of the righteousness of Christ. In the same way, in Rom 10 3, the contrast between God s righteousness and the Jew s righteousness by works of the, law shows that in each case righteousness denotes a legal status which comes from God by imputation. It is this same imputed righteousness which makes the gospel the power of God unto sal vation (Rom 1 17), which has been revealed by the law and the prophets, which is received by faith in Christ by whose expiatory death God s retrib utive righteousness has been made manifest (Rom 3, and which is represented by Peter as the object of Christian faith (2 Pet 1 1) .

      In two passages Paul affirms that Abraham be lieved God and "it was imputed to him for right eousness" (Rom 4 3 AY; Gal 3 6). The old Arminian theologians, and SOUK; modern exegetes (II. Cremer) assert that Paul means that Abraham s faith was accepted by God instead of a perfect righteousness as the meritorious ground of his justi fication. This, however, cannot be the apostle s meaning. It is diametrically opposed to the context, where Paul introduces the case of Abraham for the; very purpose of proving that he was justified with out any merit on his part; it is opposed to Paul s idea of the nature of faith which involves the renun ciation of all claim to merit, and is a simple resting on Christ from whom all its saving efficacy is de rived; and this interpretation is also opposed to Paul s doctrine of the absolutely gracious character of Justification. The apostle in these passages wishes to illustrate from the case of Abraham the gracious character of Justification, and quotes the untech- nical language of Gen 15 6. His meaning is simply that Abraham was justified as a believer in God, and not as one who sought righteousness by works. See SIN; ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION.

      LITERATURE. Besides tilts Comm., see works on OT Theology by JMllmaim, Davidson, Oehler, Schultz; and on NT Theology by H. Holtzmann, J5. Weiss, Schmidt; also Chemnitz, De. Vornlmlo Imputationis, Lor. Tln ol., 1594, 11, :52(itr; J. Martin, The Imputation of Adam s Sin, 1834,20-46; Clemen, Die Chrixtlicliv Lctire von der Sunde, I, 1897, 151-79; Diet/sell, A, lam unit Christus, 1S71; Hiincfeld, Rom S 12-21, 1S95; Crawford, The Doctrine of the llolij Scripture Respecting the Atonement 2 ,

      Imrah Infinite



      1S7f>, :<:> 4f>, iss !)(). Cf also the appropriate sections in the works on tin- Scripture doctrine of Justification, and esp on Paul s doct rine of Justification, e.g. Owen, Justification, 1st Ain. e<l. isf, :UO; Kilschl, l)i<> Cliritt- licln- l.i lir, r<i,, ,!,,- /; <>, litl rrtn/iinu inn! VemahnuHa, H-. ISS J ;i():4 :U; liohl. Vim /<; Krchtfcrtiauna tlurr/i dm Ulaul f/i IS .IO. 11") - :!: Nos^en. ftrhriflbi-iceix fiir i/ic craniii l RechfertiyunuKlelire, I .KM. UT- .)f>; Pflcidercr, Die I aidiniache Keclitfertiuuna, Z\\\\VT (Hilgenfcld her- UUSK ) IS72, If, I -JOO; l aulini*m, KT, I. 171 sf,; with which compare I lleiderer s later view of Paul s teach ings 2(1 fd, is .io. 17s s .i; c. Schwarz, Juxtitia I mpu- tataf IS .tl; 11. ( remer. I aulinixche Keclitfertiaungxlehre*, I .HX) H2 . 1 .); Tobac. /. iirublime ,1, In justification dans Saint runt. I .Kts, -JOd-ii"). <>n Paul s doctrine of the righteousness of Clod, of the many monographs the follow ing may he mentioned: l- ricke, !>>r Pauiinische Grund- tn-uriff <t<T Sucaiovvvri 6eov, ,-riirtfrt iiuf drum/ I), ftom. /// ~ / ~ ; o 1SSS; Kolbing, Studien zur Paulinische The oloyie, TSK. lS .r>, 7 -. > 1 ; llarinK, Ancaiooruvij tftou.


      IMRAH, ini rn (rn^" 1 , ijimrdlt): A descendant of Asher (1 Ch 7 36).

      IMRI, im ri rTEX, i

      (1) A Judahite (1 Ch 9 4).

      (2) Father (if Zacrur \\\\vho helped to rebuild the walls of Jems under Nehemiah (Neh 3 2).

      IN: A principal thing to notice about this prep., which in AV represents about 16 Heb and as many Gr words and preps., is that, in hundreds of cases (esp. in the OT, but frequently also in the NT) in RV the rendering is changed to more exact forms ( "to," "unto," by," "upon," "at," "with," "among," "for," "throughout," etc; cf e.g. Gen 6 16; 13 S; 17 7.0.1-!; 18 1 ; Ex 8 17; Lev 1 9, etc); while, nearly as often, "in" is substituted for divergent forms of AV (e.g. Gen 2 14; 17 11; 31 54; 40 7; 49 17; Ex 8 14.24; Lev 3 17; 4 2, etc). The chief Gr prep, ev, at, is frequently adhered to as "in" in R V where AV has other forms ("with," "among," etc; cf "in" for "with" in John s baptism, Mt 3 11, and P; "in the tombs" for "among the tombs," Mk 5 3). In 2 Thess 2 2, "shaken in mind" in AV is more correctly rendered in RV "shaken from [<tpo\\\\ your mind." There are numerous such instructive changes.


      IN THE LORD (ev Kvpico, en Kuno): A favorite Pauline expression, denoting that intimate union and fellowship of the Christian with the Lord Jesus Christ, which supplies the basis of all Chris tian relations and conduct, and the distinctive ele ment in which the Christian life has its specific character. Cf the synonymous Pauline phrases, "in Christ," "in Christ Jesus," and the Johanmne expressions, "being in Christ," "abiding in Christ." "In the Lord" denotes: (1) the motive, quality, or character of a Christian duty or virtue, as based on union with Christ, e.g. "Free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor 7 39), i e provided the marriage be consistent with the Christian life. Cf 1 Cor 15 5S; Phil 3 1; 4 1.2. 4.10; Eph 6 1.10; Col 3 IS, etc; (2) the ground of Christian unity, fellowship, and brotherly salu tation, e.g. Rom 16 2.S.22; 1 Cor 16 19; Col 4 7; (3) it is often practically synonymous with "Chris tian" (noun or adj.), "as Christians" or "as a Christian," e.g. "Salute them of the household of Narcissus, that are in the Lord," i.e. that are Christians (Rom 16 11); "I .... the prisoner in the Lord," i.e. the Christian prisoner (Eph 4 1); cf Rom 16 13; 1 Cor 9 1.2; Eph 6 21 ("faith ful minister in the Lord" = faithful Christian min ister); Col 4 17 (see Grimm-Thayer, Lex. of NT, tv, en, I, 6). D. Mi ALT, EDWARDS

      INCANTATION, in-kan-ta shun. See MAGIC.

      INCARNATION, in-kar-na shun. See PERSON OF CHRIST.

      INCENSE, in sens ("nT3p>, k r turah; in Jer 44 21, -!Ep,; in Mafl ll, 1Up t , kutnr, "In every place incense shall be offered unto my name"; the word ni"Q5, l r bfiunah, tr 1 "incense" in several passages in Isa and Jer in AV, is properly "frankin cense," and is so rendered in RV): The offering of incense, or burning of aromatic substances, is common in the religious ceremonies of nearly all nations (Egyptians,. Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, etc), and it is natural to find it holding a prominent place in the tabernacle and temple- worship of Israel. The newer critical theory that incense was a late importation into the religion of Israel, and that the altar of incense described in Ex 30 1 IT is a post-exilian invention, rests on pre suppositions which arc not hen: admitted, and is in contradiction to the express notices of the altar of incense in 1 K 6 20.22; 7 4S; 9 25; cf 2 Ch 4 19 (see discussion of the subject by Delitzsch in Luthardt s Zcitxc/irift, 1SSO, 113 ff). In the de nunciation of Eli in 1 S 2 27 if, the burning of incense is mentioned as one of the functions of the priesthood (ver 28). The "smoke" that filled the temple in Isaiah s vision (Isa 6 4) may be pre sumed to be the smoke of incense. The word k tordh itself properly denotes "smoke." For the altar of incense see art. on that subject, and TABER- NACLK and TEMPLE. The incense used in the tab ernacle service called "sweet incense" (k turi lh ha-samrnlm, Ex 25 6, etc) was compounded ac cording to a definite prescription of the perfumes, stacte, onycha, galbanum and pure frankincense (Ex 30 34 f), and incense not so compounded was rejected as "strange incense" (k torah zurdh, 30 9). In the offering of incense, burning coals from the altar of burnt offering were borne in a censer and put upon the altar of incense (the "golden altar" before the oracle), then the fragrant incense was sprinkled on the fire (cf Lk 1 9f). Ample details of the rabbinical rules about incense may be seen in the art. "Incense," in DB. See CENSER.

      Figuratively, incense was symbolical of ascending prayer. The multitude were praying while Zach- arias offered incense (Lk 1 10, Ov^ia.^, Ihumiama), and in Rev 5 S; 8 3 f , the incense in the heavenly temple is connected and even identified (5 8) with "the prayers of the saints." JAMES ORR

      INCEST, in sest. Sec CRIMES.

      INCONTINENCY, in-kon ti-nen-si (dKpao-ia, akrasia, "without control"): In 1 Cor 7 f>, it evi dently refers to lack of control in a particular matter, and signifies unchastity. In Mt 23 25, the Gr word is tr d in both AV and ARV by "excess."

      INCORRUPTION, in-ko-rup shun (a<j>0apo-ta, aphtliarsia): Occurs in 1 Cor 15, of the resurrection body, and is twice used in RV for AV "immortality" (Rom 2 7; 2 Tim 1 10m). See IMMORTALITY.

      INCREASE, in kres (noun), in-kres (vb.): Em ployed in the Eng. Bible both as vb. and as noun, and in both cases to represent a number of different words in the original. As a vb. it is used in the ordinary sense of the term. As a noun it is usually used of plant life, or of the herds and flocks, to denote the fruitage or the offspring; more rarely of money, to denote the interest. As examples of the different terms tr d by this word, students who read Heb or Gr may compare Dt 7 22; Prov 16 21; Job 10 16 AV- 12 23; Nu 18 30; Dt 7 13; Ezk 22 12 in the OT, and Jn 3 30; 1 Cor 36; Col 2 19; Eph 4 16 in the NT.




      Imrah Infinite

      INDIA, in di-a 0~n , hoddii; f] TvSiKT), he Indik&) : The name occurs in canonical Scripture only in Est 1 1 ; 8 9, of the country which marked the eastern boundary of the territory of Ahasuerus. The Heb word conies from the name of the Indus, Hondu, and denotes, not the peninsula of Hindu stan, but the country drained by that great river. This is the meaning also in 1 Esd 32; Ad Est 3 2; 16 1. Many have thought that this country is intended by Havilah in Gen 2 11 and that the Indus is the Pishon. The drivers of the elephants (1 Mace 6 37) were doubtless natives of this land. The name in 1 Mace 8 9 is certainly an error. India never formed part of the dominions of An- tiochus the Great. It may possibly be a clerical error for "Ionia," as Media is possibly a mistake for Mysia. If the Israelites in early times had no direct relations with India, many characteristic Indian products seem to have found their way into Pales tinian markets by way of the Arabian and Syrian trade routes, or by means of the Red Sea fleets (1 K 10 11.15; Ezk 27 15 ff, etc). Among these may be noted "horns of ivory and ebony," "cassia and calamus," almug (sandalwood), apes and pea cocks. W. EWING

      INDIGNITIES, in-dig ni-tiz. See PUNISHMENTS.

      INDITE, in-dlt/: AV Ps 45 1, "My heart is in diting a good matter"; RV "My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter," is in harmony with TZJrn , rdhash, "to bubble up"; cf LXX ^-/jpe^aro, exereuxato, "to pour out." "Indite" in Eng. is becoming obsolete. It may mean "to dictate," _"tp invite," "to compose." In the latter meaning it is used in the above passage.


      INFANT, in fant, BAPTISM. See BAPTISM. INFANTICIDE, in-fan ti-sld. Sec CHIMKS.

      INFIDEL, in fi-del (amo-ros, ripistos, "unbe lieving," "incredulous"): AV has this word twice: "What part hath he that belicveth with an infidel?" (2 Cor 6 15); "If any provide not for his own, .... is worse than an infidel" (1 Tim 5 8). In both passage s ERV and ARV have "unbeliever" in harmony with numerous other instances of the use of the CJr (i]>istos. The word nowhere corresponds to the modern conception of an infidel, one who denies the existence of God, or repudiates the Chris tian faith; but always signifies one who has not be come a believer in Christ. It was formerly so used in Eng., and some of the older VSS have it in other passages, besides these two. It is not found in the OT, but "infidelity" (incredulity) occurs in 2 Esd 7 44 [1141. WILLIAM OWEN CARVER

      INFINITE, in fin-it, INFINITUDE, in-fin i-tud: The word "infinite" occurs 3 t only in the text of

      AV (Job 22 5; Ps 147 5; Nah 3 9) 1. Scripture and once in m (Xah 2 9). In Ps 147 Use 5, "His understanding is infinite," it

      represents the Heb "lECtt "pX , en mispar, "no number"; in the other passages the Heb 7p. V$ , en kec, (Job 22 5, of iniquities) and HSp. "pS , en keceh (Nah 3 9, of strength of Ethio pia and Egypt; AVm 2 9, of "spoil"), meaning "no end." RV, therefore, renders in Job 22 5, "Neither is there any end to thine iniquities," and drops the marginal reference in Nah 2 9.

      Ps 147 5 is thus the only passage in which the term is directly applied to God. It there correctly

      conveys the idea of absence of all limitation. There is nothing beyond the compass of God s understand ing; or, positively, His understanding

      2. Applica- embraces everything there is to know, tion to God Past, present and future; all things pos sible and actual; the inmost thoughts

      arid purposes of man, as well as his outward actions, lie bare to God s knowledge (He 4 13; see OM NISCIENCE).

      While, however, the term is not found, the truth

      that God is infinite, not only in His understanding,

      but in His being and all His perfec-

      3. Infinity tions, natural and moral, is one that Universally pervades all Scripture. It could not Implied be otherwise, if God was unoriginated,

      exalted above all limits of time, space and creaturehood, and dependent only on Himself. The Bib. writers, certainly, are far from thinking in metaphysical categories, or using such terms as "self-existence/ "absoluteness/ "unconditioned," yet the ideas for which these terms stand were all of them attributed in their conceptions to God. They did not, e.g. conceive of God as having been born, or as having a beginning, as the Bab and Gr gods had, but thought of Him as the ever-existing One (Ps 90 1.2), and free Creator and Disposer of all t hat exists. This means that God has self-existence, and for the same reason that He is not bound by His own creation. He; must be thought of as raised above all creaturely limits, that is, as infinite.

      The anthropomorphisms of the Bible, indeed, are

      often exceedingly naive, as when Jeh is said to "go

      down" to see what is being done (Gen

      4. Anthro- 11 5.7; 18 21), or to "repent" of His pomor- actions (Gen 6 (>); but these repre- phisms sentations stand in contexts which

      show that the authors knew God to be unlimited in time, space, knowledge and power (cf Gen 6 7, God, Creator of all; 11 8.9, universal Ruler; 18 25, universal Judge; Nu 23 19, inca pable of repentance, etc). Like anthropomorphisms are found in Dt and the Prophets, where it is not doubted that the higher conceptions existed. In this infinity of God is implied His unsearchdbleness (Job 11 7; Ps 145 3; Rom 11 33); conversely, the latter attribute implies His infinity.

      This infinitude of God is displayed in all His attributes in His eternity, omnipresence, omnis cience, omnipotence, etc on which see

      5. Infinity the separate arts. As regards the SL Perfection proper conception of infinity, one has Not a chiefly to guard against figuring it Quantity under too quant itat ire an aspect.

      Quantitative boundlessness is the nat ural symbol we employ to represent infinity, yet reflection will convince us that it is inadequate as applied to a spiritual magnitude. Infinitude in power, e.g. is not an infinite quantity of power, but the potentiality in God of accomplishing without limit everything that is possible to power. It is a perfection, not a quantity. Still more is this appar ent in moral attributes like love, righteousness, truth, holiness. These attributes are not quanti ties (a quantity can never be truly infinite), but perfections; the infinity is qualitative, consisting in the absence of all defect or limitation in degree, not in amount.

      The recollection of the fact now stated will free

      the mind from most of the perplexities that have

      been raised by metaphysical writers

      6. Errors as to the abstract possibility of the Based on coexistence of infinite; attributes in Quantita- God (thus e.g. Mansel); the recon- tive Con- cilability of God s infinity with His ceptions Personality, or with the existence of

      a finite world ; the power of the human mind to conceive infinity, etc. How, it is asked,

      Infirmity Ink-horn



      can the idea of infinity pet into our finite minds? It might. :>s well be asked how the mind can take in the idea of the sun s distance of some <)() millions of miles from the earth, when the skull that holds the brain is only a few cubic inches in capacity. The idea of a mile is not a mile big, nor is the idea ol infinity too large to be tliinii/ht of by the mind of man. The essence of the power of thought is its capacity for the universal, and it cannot ivst till it has apprehended the most universal idea ot all-- - the infinite. JAMES OUR

      INFIRMITY, in-fur mi-ti ("^ , dan-alt, ~^n , Mlaft, ~^ri"Q, tnafjaldh; do-0eveia, astltcneia): This word is used either in the- sing, or pi. (the latter only in the NT) and with somewhat varying sig nification. (1) As sickness or bodily disease (.In 6 5; Mt. 8 17; Lk 5 15; 8 2; 1 Tim 5 23). In the last instance the affections seem to have been dyspeptic, the discomfort, of which might be re lieved by alcohol, although the disease would not be cured thereby. It is probable that this condition of body produced a certain slackness in Timothy s work against which Paul several times cautions him. In Lk 7 21 RV has "diseases," which is a better rendering of the Or ttoson, used here, than the AV "infirmities." (2) Imperfections or weaknesses of body (Horn 6 1 .); 2 Cor 11 30 AV; 12 5.<).10 AV- Cfal 4 13). (3) Moral or spiritual weaknesses and defects (Ps 77 10; Rom 8 2(>; 15 1; He 4 15; 62; 7 28). In this sense it is often used by the classic Eng. writers, as in Milton s "the last. infirmity of noble minds"; cf Caesar, IV, iii, 8(5. The infirmity which a man of resolution can keep under by his will (Prov 18 14) may be either moral or physical. In Lk 13 11 the woman s physical infirmity is ascribed to the influence of an evil spirit.


      INFLAME, in-flam , ENFLAME, en-flam (p^ , daluk): "To inflame" in the meaning "to excite passion" is found in Isa 5 11, "till wine, inflame them." In some AV passages (e.g. Isa 57 5j we find "enflaming" with the same meaning; cf A\\\\ Sus ver 8 and Sir 28 10 AV (RV "inflame").

      INFLAMMATION, in-fla-mfi shun (Fl)^, dal- leketh; pt-yos, rhigos): Only in Dt 28 22, was^con- sidered by Jewish writers as "burning fever," by LXX as a form of ague. Both this and typhoid fever are now, and probably were, among the commonest of the diseases of Pal. See FKVKU. In Lev 13 2S AV has "inflammation" as the rendering of fare- bhcth, which LXX reads charaktir, and for which the proper Eng. equivalent is "scar," as in RV.

      INFLUENCES, in floo-ens-iz (His"" 1 ? , ma- \\\\idhanndth): This word occurs only in Job 38 31 AV, "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades?" RV "the cluster of the Pleiades," m "or chain, or sweet influences"; Delitzsch, Dillmann and others render "fetters," that which binds the group together; "influences," if correct, would refer to the seasons, which were believed to be regu lated, so far, by the PLEIADES (q.v.). In \\\\Visd 7 25, it is said of Wisdom that she is "a pure influence [aporrhoia, RV "effluence"] flowing from the glory of the Almighty." W. L. WALKER


      INHABIT, in-hab it, INHABITANT, in-hab it- ant pET, yashabh, "to sit," "remain, "dwell," "inhabit/ "J5TZJ , sliakhcn, "to settle down," "tabernacle," "dwell"; KaroiK^co, katoikto, "to settle," "dwell"): See DWELL. The vb. "to in

      habit," now used only transitively, had once an intransitive 1 meaning as well. Cf Cowper, Ulney II ij/niis, XIV,

      So in 1 Cli 5 . AV, "And eastward he inhabited unto the entering in of the wilderness" (b"t RV "dwelt"). We have the obsolete inhabiters for "inhabitants" in Rev 8 13 AV (but RV "them that dwell") ami Rev 12 12 AV (but omitted in RV). The rare inhabitress (fern.) is found only in Jer 10 17 in; "the church called the inhabitress of the gardens" (Bishop Richardson .


      INHERITANCE, in-her i-tans (nbq2 , rtaltalah, "something inherited," "occupancy," "heirloom," "estate," "portion"): The word is used in its widest application in the OT Scriptures, referring not only to an estate received by a child from its parents, but also to the land received by the children of Israel as a gift from Jeh. And in the figurative and poet i- cal sense, the expression is applied to the kingdom of Cod as represented in the consecrated lives of His followers. In a similar sense, the Psalmist is represented as speaking of the Lord as the portion of his inheritance . In addition to the above word, the King James Version 1r 3 as inheritance, "Tl ^TO, inurdxliali, "a possession," "heritage" (Dt 33 4; E/k 33 24); HIST?, ifrushslmh, "something occu pied," "a patrimony," "possession" (Jgs 21 17); F?n, lielek, "smoothness," "allotment" (Ps 16 5); K\\\\, kleronomt o, "to inherit" (Mt 5 5, etc); K\\\\rjpoi>6iJ.os, kleroHomns, "heir" _ (Mt 21 38, etc); K\\\\t]povo/j.La, kleronotn ia, "heirship," "patrimony, "possession"; or KXiypos, kleros, "an acquisition," "portion," "heritage," from /c\\\\r?p6w, klerno, "to assign," "to allot," "to obtain an inheritance" (Mt 21 3S; Lk 12 13; Acts 7 5; 20 32; 26 IS; Cal 3 IS; Eph 1 11.14.1S; 5 5; Col 1 12; 3 24; He 1 4; 9 lo; 11 8; 1 Pet 1 4).

      The Pent distinguishes clearly between real and personal property, the fundamental idea regarding the former being the thought that the land is God s, given by Him to His children, the people of Israel, and hence cannot be alienated (Lev 25 23.28). In order that there might not be any respecter of persons in the division, the lot was to determine the specific piece to be owned by each family head (Xu 26 52-5(5; 33 54). In case, through necessity of circumstances, a homestead was sold, the title could pass only temporarily; for in the year of Jubilee every homestead must again return to the original owner or heir (Lev 25 25-34). Real estate given to the priesthood must be appraised, and could be redeemed by the payment of the ap praised valuation, thus preventing the transfer of real property even in this ease (Lev 27 14-25). Inheritance was controlled by the following regu lations: (1) The firstborn son inherited a double portion of all the father s possession (Dt 21 15-17); (2) the daughters were entitled to an inheritance, provided there were no sons in the family (Nu 27 8); (3) in case there were no direct heirs, the brothers or more distant kinsmen were recognized (vs 9-11) ; in no case should an estate pass from one tribe to another. The above points were made the subject of statutory law at the instance of the daughters of Zelophehad, the entire case being clearly set forth in Xu 27, 36.


      INIQUITY, in-ik wi-ti ("1< , *awon; dvop-Ca, anomia): In the OT of the 11 words tr d "iniquity," by far the most common and important is auwi (about 215 t). Etymologic-ally, it is customary to explain it as meaning lit. "crookedness," "per-



      Infirmity Ink-horn

      verseness," i.e. evil regarded as that which is not straight or upright, moral distortion (from Hir , *-iinr<lli, "to bend," "make crooked," "pervert"). Driver, however (following Lagarde), maintains that two roots, distinct in Aral)., have been confused in Hob, one = "to bend," "pervert" (as above), and the other = "to err," "go astray"; thut w( is derived from the latter, and consequently ex presses the idea of error, deviation from the right path, rather than that of perversion (Driver, Notes on Sam, 135 n.) Whichever etymology is adopted, in actual usage it has three meanings which almost imperceptibly pass into each other: (1) iniquity, (2) guilt of iniquity, (3) punishment of iniquity. Primarily, it denotes "not an action, but the char acter of an action" (Oehler), and is so distinguished from "sin" (hattd th). Hence; we have the expres sion "the iniquity of my sin" (Ps 32 5). Thus the meaning glides into that of "guilt," which might often take the place of "iniquity" as the tr of *awon ((Jen 15 16; _ Ex 34 7; Jer 2 22, etc). From "guilt" it again passes into the meaning of "punish ment of guilt," just as Lat piacnlnin may denote both guilt and its punishment. The transition is all the easier in Heb because of the Heb sense of the in timate relation of sin and suffering, e. g. Gen 4 13, "My punishment is greater than 1 can bear"; which is obviously to be preferred to AVm, R\\\\ in "Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven," for Cain is not so much expressing sorrow for his sin, as com plaining of the severity of his punishment; cf 2 K 7 9 (RV "punishment," RYm "iniquity";; Isa

      5 18 (where for "iniquity" we might have "punish ment of iniquity," as in Lev 26 41.43, etc); Isa 40 2 ("iniquity," RVm "punishment"). The phrase "bear iniquity" is a standing expression for bearing its consequences, i.e. its penalty; generally of the sinner bearing the results of his own iniquity (Lev 17 16; 20 17. 19; Nu 14 34; Ezk 44 10, etc), but sometimes of one bearing the iniquity of another vicariously, and so taking it away (e.g. Ezk 4 4f; 18 19 f). Of special interest m tin- latter sense are the sufferings of the Servant of Jeh, who shall "bear the iniquities" of the people (Isa 53 1 1 ; cf ver 6).

      Other words frequently tr 1 "iniquity" are: "^ , awcn., lit. "worthlessness," "vanity," hence "naughtiness," "mischief" (47 t in AY, esp. in tin- phrase "workers of iniquity," Job 4 S; Ps 5 5;

      6 8; Prov 10 29, etc); f awel and airlah, lit. "per- verseness" (Dt 32 4; Job 6 29 AV, etc).

      In the NT "iniquity" stands for anomia=prop., "the condition of one without law," "lawlessness" (so tr 1 in 1 Jn 3 4, elsewhere "iniquity," e.g. Mt

      7 23), a word which frequently stood for \\\\ln-on in LXX; and uttik nt, lit. "unrighteousness" (e.g. Lk 13 27). D. MIALI, EDWARDS

      INJOIN, in-join . See ENJOIN.

      INJURIOUS, in-joo ri-us, in-ju ri-us (vppto-TTJs, hubristts, "insolent"): In former usage, the word was strongly expressive of insult- as well as hurtful- ness. So in 1 Tim 1 13. In Rom 1 30 the same adj. is tr d "insolent" (AV "despiteful").

      INJURY, in ju-ri, in joo-ri. See CRIMKS.

      INK, ink (VH, d e yo, from root meaning "slowly flowing," BOB, 188; fi.eX.av, tnelun, "black"): Any fluid substance used with pen or brush to form written characters. In this sense ink is mentioned once in the Heb Bible (Jer 36 2) and 3 t in the Gr NT (2 Cor_3 3; 2 Jn ver 12; 3 Jn ver 13), and it is implied in all references to writing on papyrus or on leather. The inference from the "blotting out" of Ex 32 33 and Nu 5 23 that the Heb ink

      was a lamp-black and gum, or some other dry ink, is confirmed by the general usage of antiquity, by t lie later Jewish prejudice against other inks (OTJC, 71 n.) and by a Jewish receipt referring to ink- tablets (Drach, "Notice sur 1 encre des Hebrenx," Ann. pliilos. chret., 42, 45, 353). The question is, however, now being put on a wholly new basis by the study of the Elephantine Jewish documents (Meyer, Pnpyrnnfund-, 1912, 15, 21), ami above all of the Harvard Ostraca from Samaria which give actual specimens of the ink in Pal in the time of Ahab (Harvard Theol. Rtricw, Jan. 1911, 136-43). It is likely, however, that during the long period of Bible history various inks were used. The official copy of the law in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphia was, according to Jos (Ant, XII, ii, 11), written in gold, and the vermilion and red paints and dyes men- tioned in Jer 22 14; Ezk 23 14, and Wisd 13 14 (mil Id kai phukci) were probably used also for writing books or coloring incised inscriptions. See literature under WHITINI;; esp. Krauss, Talm, Arch. 3, 14S-53; Gardthausen, Gr Pal, 1911, 1, 202-17, and his bibliographical references passim.


      INK-HORN, ink horn 0HD J? = TO J3 , kc ? cth = kixrth, /y/;#, 903): This term "iiikhorn" occurs 3 t in Ezk 9 (,vs 2.3.11), in the phrase "writer s inkhorn upon his loins" (or "by his side"). The word is more exactly "implement case," or "writing-case"

      (a) Ink-Wells and Pen-Case with Ink-Well.

      (calaniarium alrami iiiarinm, them calamaria, theca lihraria, (/raphiaria). This may have been the Egyp palette (Budge, Mummy, 350-52) seen so often in the monuments of all periods, or the later form of pen-case with ink-well attached, which is a modified form adapted for ink carried in fluid form. The Egyp palette was carried characteristically over the shoulder or under the arm, neither of which methods is strictly "upon the loins." The manner of carrying, therefore, was doubt less in the girdle, as in modern oriental usage; (Benzingcr, Heb Archacol., 185). A good example of the pen-case and ink well writing-case (given also in Garucci, Darem-

      (6) Scribe s Palette.

      berg-Saglio, Gardthausen, etc) is given from the original in Birt, Die Bnchrollt indcr Kunst, 220, and is reproduced (a) in this article, together with (6) an Egyp palette-. Whether the form of Ezekiel s case approached the palette or the ink-well type prob ably depends on the question of whether dry ink or fluid ink was used in Ezekiel s time (see INK). Compare Hieronymus ad loc., and for literature,

      Inn Innocents



      sec \\\\\\\\ KI,I\\\\<;, and esp. Gardthauscn, (!r I al, Hill, 1, 193-94. E. C. RICHARDSON

      INN ("p"p , indldn; iravSo^eiov, pandocheion, KO.-

      Ta.\\\\v(Aa, katdluma): The Hob word mulon means

      lit. ;i "night resting-place," ;uul might,

      1. Earliest bo applied to any spot where caravans Night Rest- (don 42 27; 43 21 AY), individuals ing-Places (Ex 4 24; Jor 9 2), or even armies

      (Josh 4 3.S; 2 K 19 23; Isa 10 29) encamped for the night. In the slightly altered form ni lilnd/i, the same word is used of a night- watchman s lodge in a garden (Isa 1 8; 24 20, AV "cottage"). The word in itself does not imply the presence of any building, and in the case of caravans and travelers was doubtless originally, as very often at the present day, only a convenient level bit of ground near some spring, where baggage might be unloaded, animals watered and tethered, and men rest on the bare ground. Nothing in the OT suggests the occupancy of a house in such oases. The nearest approach to such an idea occurs in Jer 41 17 in, where geruth kinihdm is tr 1 "the lodging- plaec of Chimham," but the text is very doubtful and probably refers rather to sheepfolds. We can not say when buildings were first used, but the need of shelter for caravans traveling in winter, and of protection in dangerous times and districts, would load to their introduction at an early period in the history of trade.

      It is noteworthy that all the indisputable desig nations of "inn" come in with the C.Jr period. Jos

      (Ant, XV, y, 1; BJ, 1, xxi, 7) speaks

      2. Public of "public inns" under the name of Inns kataf/of/al, while in the Aram. Jewish

      writings we meet with ushplza , from Lat hospitium, and akhxanyd from the Gr xcnia; the NT designation pandoc/tc/on has passed into the Aram, pundheka and the Arab, fund itk. All these are used of public inns, and they all correspond to the modern "khan" or "caravanserai." These are to be found on the great trade routes all over the East. In their most elaborate form they have almost the strength of a fortress. They consist of a groat quadrangle into which admission is gained through a broad, strong gateway. The quad rangle is inclosed on all sides by a 2-story building, the windows in the case of the lower story opening only to the interior. The upper story is reached by stairways, and has a gangway all around, giving access to the practically bare rooms which are at the disposal of travelers.

      Interior of Vizir Khun, Aleppo.

      There is usually a well of good water in the center of the quadrangle, and travelers as a rule bring their own food and often that of their 3. Their animals (Jgs 19 19) with them. There Evil Name are no fixed payments, and on depar ture, the arranging of haqq el-khan gen erally means a disagreeable dispute, as the inn keepers are invariably untruthful, dishonest and

      oppressive. They have ever been regarded as of infamous character. The Rom laws in many places recognize this. In Mish, Y e bhdmolh, xvi.7 the word of an innkeeper was doubted, and Mish, *Abbodhah Zdrdh, ii.4 places them in the lowest scale of deg radation. The NT is quite clear in speaking of "Rahab the harlot" (He 11 31; Jus 2 25). The Tg designates her an "innkeeper," while Rashi tr 8 zonah as "a seller of kinds of food," a mean ing the word will bear. Kimhi, however, accepts both meanings. This evil repute of public inns, together with the Sern spirit of hospitality, led the Jews and the early Christiana to prefer to recommend the keeping of open house for the en tertainment of strangers. In the Jewish Morning Prayers, even in our day, such action is linked with great promises, and the NT repeatedly (He 13 2; 1 Pet, 49; 3 Jn vor 5) commends hospi tality. It is remarkable that both the Talm (Xhab 127(i) and the NT (He 13 2) emote the same passage (( Ion 18 3) in recommending it.

      The best-known khans in Pal are Khan Jitbb- Yusuf, N. of the Lake of Galileo, Khan ct-Tujjar, under the shadow of Tabor, Khan el-Lubban (of Jgs 21 19), and Khan Iladrur, midway between Jems and Jericho. This last certainly occupies the site of the inn referred to in Lk 10 34, and it is not without interest that we read in Mish, Y e bhamoth, xvi.7, of another sick man being left at that same inn. See illustration, p. 64.

      The Gr word kalahima, though implying a "loos ing" for the night, seems rather to be connected with the idea of hospitality in a private

      4. Guest house than in a public inn. Luke Chambers with his usual care distinguishes be tween this and pandocheion, and his

      use of the vb. kalaluo (Lk 9 12; 19 7) makes his meaning clear. In the LNX, indeed, mdlon is sometimes ti^ kataluma, and it appears in 1 S 9 22 for lishkah, AV "parlour." It is the word used of the "upper room" where the Last Supper was held (Mk 14 14; Lk 22 11, "guest-chamber"), and of the place of reception in Bethlehem where Joseph and Mary failed to find quarters (Lk 2 7). It thus corresponds to the spare or upper room in a private house or in a village, i.e. to the manzil adjoining the house of the sheikh, whore travelers received hos pitality and where no payment was expected, except a trifle to the caretaker. In Jerus such payments wore made by leaving behind the_ earthenware vessels that had been used, and the skins of the ani mals that had boon slaughtered (Yomd 12a).

      Judging from the word used, and the conditions

      implied, we are led to believe that Joseph and Mary

      had at first expected reception in the

      5. Birth upper room or manzil at the house of of Christ the sheikh of Bethlehem, probably a

      friend and member of the house of David; that in this they were disappointed, and had to content themselves with the next best, the elevated platform alongside the interior of the stable, and on which those having the care of the animals generally slept. It being now the season when they were in the fields (Lk 2 8), the stable would be empty and clean. There then the Lord Jesus was born and laid in the safest and most con venient place, the nearest empty manger alongside of this elevated platform. Humble though the cir cumstances were, the family were preserved from all the annoyance and evil associations of a public khan, and all the demands of delicacy and privacy were duly met. W. M. CHRISTIK


      INNOCENCE, in 6-sens, INNOCENCY, in o- sen-si, INNOCENT, in 6-sent (^31, zdkhu, "pgS ,



      Inn Innocents

      nikkayon, CSH , hinnam, EH, haph, ^pj , naki; dOwos, athoos): AV and ARV have innocency in Gen 20 5; Ps 26 6; 73 13; Dnl 6 22; Hos 8 5. In Dnl the Heb is zakhu, and the innocence ex pressed is the absence of the guilt of disloyalty to God. In all the other places the Heb is nikkdyon, and the innocence expressed is the absence of pollu tion, Hos having reference to the pollution of idol atry, and the other passages presenting the cleansing under the figure of washing hands. AV has in nocent not fewer than 40 t. In one place (1 K 2 31) the Heb is hinnam, meaning "undeserved," or "without cause," and, accordingly, ARV, in stead of "innocent blood .... shed," has "blood .... shed without cause." In another place (Job 33 9) the Heb is haph, meaning "scraped," or "polished," therefore "clean," and refers to moral purity. In all the other places the Heb is naki, or its cognates, and the idea is doubtless the absence of pollution. In more than half the passages "in nocent" is connected with blood, as "blood of the innocent," or simply "innocent blood." In some places there is the idea of the Divine acquittal, or forgiveness, as in Job 9 28: "I know that thou wilt not hold me innocent" (cf Job 10 14, where the the same Heb word is used). The NT has "inno cent" twice in connection with blood "innocent blood," and "innocent of the blood" (Mt 27 4.24).


      INNOCENTS, in 6-sents, MASSACRE, mas a- ker, OF THE:


      1. Focus of Narrative Residence at Nazareth

      2. Corollaries from Above Facts

      3. Marks of Historicity

      7. Meaning and History of the Term. The con ventional, ecclesiastical name given to the slaughter by HEROD I (q.v.) of children two years old and under in Bethlehem and its environs at the time of the birth of Christ (Mt 2 16). The accepted title for this event may be traced through Augustine to Cyprian.

      Irenaeus (d. 202 AD) calls these children "mar tyrs," and in a very beautiful passage interprets the tragedy which ended their brief lives as a gra cious and tender "sending before" into His kingdom by the Lord Himself.

      Cyprian (d. 258 AD) says: "That it might be manifest that they who are slain for Christ s sake are innocent, innocent infancy was put to death for his name s sake" (Ep. lv.6).

      Augustine (b. 354 AD), following Cyprian, speaks of the children, formally, as "the Innocents" (Comm. on Ps 43 5).

      The ecclesiastical treatment of the incident is remarkable because of the exaggeration which was indulged in as to the extent of the massacre and the number of victims. At an early date the Gr church canonized 14,000, and afterward, by a curious mis interpretation of Rev 14 1.3, the number was increased to 144,000.

      According to Milman the liturgy of the Church of England retains a reminiscence of this ancient error in the use of Rev 14 on Holy Innocents Day (see History of Christianity, I, 107, n. e). This exaggeration, of which there is no hint in the NT, is worthy of note because the most serious general argument against the historicity of the narrative is drawn from the silence of Jos. As in all probability there could not have been more than twenty chil dren involved (cf Farrar, Life of Christ, I, 45, n.), the incident could not have bulked very largely in the series of horrors perpetrated or planned by Herod in the last months of his life (see Farrar, The Herods, 144 f).

      //. Analysis of Narrative with Special Reference to Motive. In estimating the value of such a nar rative from the viewpoint of historicity, the first and most important step is to gauge the motive. Why was the story told? This question is not always easy to answer, but in the present instance there is a very simple and effective test at hand.

      In Mt s infancy section (chs 1 and 2) there are five quotations from the OT which are set into the nar rative of events. These five quotations 1. Focus of represent the cardinal and outstanding Narrative points of interest. The quotations are Residence placed thus: (1) at the Virgin Birth at Nazareth (1 23) ; (2) at the birth at Bethlehem (2 6) ; (3) at the visit to Egypt (2 15) ; (4) at the murder of the children (2 18); (5) at the Nazareth residence (2 23). It will be noticed at once as peculiar and significant that no quotation is attached to the visit of the Magi. This omission is the more noteworthy because in Nu 24 7; Ps 72 15; Isa 60 6, and numerous references to the in gathering of the Gentiles there are such beautiful and appropriate passages to link with the visit of the strangers from the far East. This peculiar omis sion, on the part of a writer so deeply interested in prophecy and its fulfilment and so keen to seize upon appropriate and suggestive harmonies, in a section constructed with a view to such harmonies, can be explained only on the ground that the visit of the Magi did not, in the writer s view of events, occupy a critical point of especial interest. Their visit is told, not for its own sake, but because of its connection with the murder of the children and the journey to Egypt. The murder of the children is of interest because it discloses the character of Herod and the perils surrounding the newborn Messiah. It also explains the visit to Egypt and the sub sequent resilience at Nazareth. The latter is evi dent ly the objective point, because it is given a place by itself and marked by a quotation. Moreover, the one evidence of overstrain in the narrative is in the ambiguous and obscure statement by which the OT is brought into relationship with the Nazareth residence. The center of interest in the entire sec tion which is concerned with Herod and the Magi is the Nazareth residence. The story is told for the express purpose of explaining why the heir of David, who was born at Bethlehem, lived at Nazareth.

      This brings the narrative of Mt into striking relationship with that of Lk. The lattcr s concern is to show how it was that the Messiah who lived at Nazareth was born at Bethlehem. We have here one of the undesigned unities which bind together these two narratives which are seemingly so diver gent. That Mt says nothing about a previous residence at Nazareth and that Lk says nothing about a forced return thither may be explained, in accordance with the balance of probabilities, on the ground, either that each evangelist was ignorant of the fact omitted by himself, or that in his condensed and rapid statement he did not see fit to mention it. In any case the harmony immeasurably outweighs the discrepancy.

      The fact that the focus of the entire narrative lies in the residence of Jesus at Nazareth effectually disposes of a number of current hypotheses as to its o /-> i origin.

      Z. LOfOl- (i ) The idea that it is merely legend told

      laries from for the purpose of literary embellishment. The dovetailing of what would be the main

      PVirt<i T

      10 item into the rest of the narrative and its subordination to secondary features cannot be explained on this hypothesis. The absence of adorn ment by available passages from the OT alone is con clusive on this point (see Allen, "Matthew," ICC, 14, 15). (2) The idea that the story is told for the purpose of illustrating the scope of the Messiah s influence beyond Israel. Here, again, the subordinate position assigned to the story of the Magi together with the absence of OT material is conclusive. Moreover, the history of the Magi is abruptly dropped with the statement of their

      Innocents Inspiration



      return home. Interest in them Mags as soon us their brief connection with the movement of the history through Herod ceases. And t lie intensely Hebraic char acter of Mi s infancy section as a whole is incidental evidence pointing in the same direction (cf remarks of the writer, Hirth and Infancy of Jexux Christ, 70 f).

      (:$) The idea that the story is told to emphasize, the wonder-element in connection with the birth of Christ. The facts contradict this. In addition to the primary consideration, the subordinate position, there urn others of great value. That the Magi were providentially guided to the feet of the Messiah is evidently the firm conviction of (he narrator. The striking feature of the story is that with this belief in his mind he keeps so strictly within the limits of the natural order. In vs . and \\\\ 2 only is there apparent exception. Of these the state ment in ver . is the only one peculiar to this part of the

      narrative. Two things are to be remembered concerning it: It is clear that the verse cannot be interpreted apart from a clear understanding of the whole astronomical occurrence of which it forms a part.

      It is also evident that ver .) must not be interpreted apart from the context. From the viewpoint of a wonder-tali the writer makes a fatal blunder at the most critical point of his story. The popular notion that the Magi were miraculously led to the Messiah finds no support in the text. The Magi did not come to Beth lehem, but to .lerus, asking: "Where is he that is born King of the .lews . " Ver 9 comes after this statement and after the conclave called by Herod in which Beth lehem was specified. In view of all this it seems clear that the Magi were led, not miraculously, but in accord ance with the genius of their own system, and that the Providential element lay in the striking coincidence of their visit and the birth of .Jesus. The interest of tin- writer was not in the wonder-element, else, infallibly, he would have sharpened its outlines and expurgated all ambiguity as to the nature of the occurrence.

      We may now Blanco tit the positive evidence for the historicity of the event.

      (1) The centering of the narrative 3. Marks of upon the residence of Jesus at Naza- Historicity reth. This not only brings Lk s Gospel in support of the center, but groups the story around a point of known interest to the first generation of believers. It is interesting to note that the residence in Egypt has independent backing of a sort. Then- are in existence two stories, one traced by Origen through Jews of his own day to earlier times, and the other in the Talm, which connect Jesus with Egypt and attempt to account for His miracles by reference to Egyp magic (see IMumrner, Matthew, " Ex. Cotntn., 17,18).

      (2) The fact that the story of the Magi is told so objectively and with such personal detachment. Both Jews and early Christians had strong views both as to astrology and magic in general (see Plummer, op. cit ., 15), but the author of this Gospel tells the story without emphasis and without com ment and from the viewpoint of the Magi. His interest is purely historical and matter-of-fact.

      (3) The portrait of Herod the Great. So far as Herod is concerned the incident is usually discussed with exclusive reference 1o the savagery involved. By many it is affirmed that we have here a hostile and unfair portrait. This contention could hardly be sustained even if the question turned entirely upon the point of savagery. But there is far more than savagery in the incident, (a) In the first place there is this undeniable ( lenient of inherent proba bility in the story. Practically all of Herod s murders, including those of his beloved wife and his sons, were perpetrated under the sway of one emotion and in obedience to a single motive. They were in practically every instance for the purpose of consolidating or perpetuating his power. lie nearly destroyed his own immediate family in the half-mad jealousy that on occasion drove him to the very limits of ferocity, simply because they were accused of plotting against him. The accusations were largely false, but the suspicion doomed those accused. The murder of the Innocents was another crime of the same sort . The old king was obsessed by the fear of a claimant to his petty throne; the Messianic hope of the Jews was a perpetual secret torment, and the murder of the children, in the

      attempt to reach the child whose advent threatened him, was at once so original in method and so char acteristic in purpose as to give an inimitable veri similitude to the whole narrative. There are also other traits of truth, (h) Herod s prompt discovery of the visit of the Magi and their questions is in harmony with what we know of the old ruler s watchfulness and his elaborate system of espionage. (c) Characteristic also is the subtlety with which he- deals with the whole situation. How striking and vivid, with all its rugged simplicity, is the story of the king s pretended interest in the quest of tin- strangers, the solemn conclave of Jewish leaders with himself in the role of earnest inquirer, his ur gent request for information that he may worship also, followed by his swift anger (note that t6v- nu6r), cthnniolhv, "\\\\\\\\as wroth," ver 1(1, is not used elsewhere in the XT) at being deceived, and the blind but terrible stroke of his questing vengeance. All these items are so true to the man, to the atmosphere which always surrounded him, and to the historic situation, that we are forced to conclude, either that we have veracious history more or less directly received from one who was an observer of the events described, or the work of an incomparably clever romancer. Louis MATTHEWS SWEKT

      INORDINATE, in-6r di-nat ("ill-regulated," hence "immoderate," "excessive"; Lat in, "not," ordinatus, "set in order"): Only twice in AV. In each case there is no corresponding adj. in the orig inal, but the word was inserted by the translators as being implied in the noun. It disappears in RV: Ezk 23 11, "in her inordinate love" (RV "in her doting"); ^Zlj", *auliablu].fi, "lust"; Col 3 5 "in ordinate affection" (RV "passion"); rrddos, //a/lto*. a word which in classical Gr may have either a good or a bad sense (any affection or emotion of the mind), but in the NT is used only in a bad sense (passion). D. MIALL EDWARDS

      INQUIRE, in-kwlr (5S1T , sha al, "to ask," "de sire"; i r r/<0 > zt tPo, "to seek"); A form sometimes employed with reference to the practice of divina tion, as where Saul "inquires of" (or "Consults") the witch of Endor as to the issue of the coming battle (1 S 28 (5.7) (see DIVINATION).

      In Job 10 6, "to inquire [Vp_2 , bakash] after iniquity" signifies to bring to light and punish for it, and Job asks distractedly if God s time is so short that He is in a hurry to find him guilty and to pun ish him as if He had only a man s few days to live.

      "To inquire of Jeh" denotes the consultation of oracle, priest, prophet or Jeh Himself, as to a certain course of action or as to necessary supplies (Jgs 20 27 AV, "to ask"; 1 K 22 o; l" S 9 <J [V?X , Id- rash}; 10 22 AV; 2 S 2 1; 5 10.23; Kzk 36 37).

      "To inquire P3 , Imknr] in his temple" (palace) means to find out all that constant fellowship or unbroken intercourse with God can teach (Ps 27 4).

      Prov 20 25 warns against rashness in making a vow and afterward considering (bakar, "to make inquiry") as to whether it can be fulfilled or how it may be eluded.

      In the AV. the tr of several Gr words: diaginosko, "to know thoroughly" (Acts 23 !">); < {>izctcr>, "to seek after" (Acts 19 30); tinz< ti (~>, "to seek to gether" (Lk 22 23); exctazo, "to search out" i Mt 10 11). M. O. EVANS

      INQUISITION, in-kwi-/ish un \\\\^~]~ , (lamxh, "to follow," "diligently inquire." "question," "search" |l)t 19 IS; Ps 9 12|, ; p_2 , btikiixti, "to search out ," "to strive after," "inquire" [Est 2 23 1) : The term refers, as indicated by these passages, first of all to a careful and diligent inquiry necessary



      Innocents Inspiration

      to ascertain the truth from witnesses in a court, but may also refer to a careful examination into circum stances or conditions without official authority.

      INSCRIPTION, in-skrip shun (vb. eiu-ypa4 >w >

      epigrdpho, "to write upon," "inscribe"): The word occurs once in EV in Acts 17 23 of the altar at Athens with the inscription "To an Unknown God." On inscriptions in archaeology, see ARCHAEOLOGY; ASSYRIA; BABYLONIA, etc.

      INSECTS, in sekts: In EV, including: the mar ginal notes, we find at least 23 names of insects or words referring to them: ant, bald locust, bee, beetle, cankerworm, caterpillar, creeping thing, cricket, crimson, flea, fly, gnat, grasshopper, honey, hornet, locust, louse, (lice), moth, palmer-worm, sandfly, scarlet-worm, silk-worm. These can bo referred to about 12 insects, which, arranged sys tematically, are: H ymenoptera, ant, bee, hornet; Lepidoptcra, clothes-moth, silk-worm; XiphoiHt/i- tcra, flea; Diptera, fly; Rhynchota, louse, scarlet- worm; Orthoptera, several kinds of grasshoppers and locusts.

      The word "worm" refers not only to the scarlet- worm, but to various larvae of Lepidoptera, Colcop- tcra, and Dipttra. "Creeping things" refers indefi nitely to insects, reptiles, and beasts. In the list of 23 names given above honey and bee refer to one insect , as do crimson and scarlet. Sandfly has no place if "lice" be retained in Ex 8 1(5 ft. Bald locust, beetle, canker-worm, cricket, and palmer- worm probably all denote various kinds of grass hoppers and locusts. When the translators of EV had to do with two or more Heb words for which there was only one well-recognized Eng. equivalent, they seem to have been content with that alone, if the two Heb words occurred in different passages; e.g. z bliubfi, "fly" (Eccl 10 1; Isa 7 IS), and Vofc/t, "fly" (Ex 8 21 ff). On the other hand, they were put to it to find equivalents for the insect names in Lev 11 22; Joel 1 4, and elsewhere. For al r am (Lev 11 22) they evidently coined "bald locust," following a statement of the Talm thai it had a smooth head. For fjazam and yclck they im ported "palmer-worm" and "canker-worm," two old Eng. names of caterpillars, using "caterpillar" for hdfiiL The AV "beetle" for hun/ol is absolutely inappropriate, and the RV "cricket," while less objectionable, is probably also incorrect. The Eng. language seems to lack appropriate names for different kinds of grasshoppers and locusts, and it is difficult to suggest any names to take the places of those against which these criticisms are directed. See under the names of the respective insects. See also SCORPION and SPIDKK, which are not included here because they are not strictly insects.


      INSPIRATION, in-spi-ra slnm :

      1. Meaning of Terms

      2. Occurrences in the Bible

      3. Consideration of Important Passages

      (1) 2 Tim 3 K>

      (2) 2 Pet 1 19-21

      (3) Jn 10 31 f

      4. Christ s Declaration That Scripture Must Bo Ful filled

      5. His Testimony That God Is Author of Scripture

      6. Similar Testimony of His Immediate Followers

      7. Their Identification of God and Scripture

      8. The "Oracles of God"

      9. The Human Element in Scripture

      10. Activities of God in Giving Scripture

      11. General Problem of Origin: God s Part

      12. How Human Qualities Affected Scripture. Provi dential Preparation

      13. "Inspiration" More than Mere "Providence"

      14. Witness of NT Writers to Divine Operation ir>. "Inspiration" and "Revelation"

      16. Scriptures a Divine-Human Book?

      17. Scripture of NT Writers Was the OT

      18. Inclusion of the NT LITERATURE

      The word "inspire" and its derivatives seem to

      have come into Middle Eng. from the Fr., and have

      been employed from the first (early in

      1. Meaning the 14th cent.) in a considerable num- of Terms ber of significations, physical and meta phorical, secular and religious. The

      derivatives have been multiplied and their applica tions extended during the procession of the years, until they have acquired a very wide and varied use. Underlying all their use, however, is the constant implication of an influence from without, producing in its object movements and effects beyond its native, or at least its ordinary powers. The noun "inspiration," although already in use in the 14th cent., seems not to occur in any but a theo logical sense until late in the 16th cent. The specifically theological sense of all these terms is governed, of course, by their usage in Lat theology; and this rests ultimately on their employment in the Lat Bible. In the Vulg Lat Bible the vb. in- spiro (Gen 2 7; Wisd 15 11; Ecclus 4 12; 2 Tim 3 16; 2 Pet 1 21) and the noun insuiratio (2 S 22 16; Job 32 8; Ps 18 15; Acts 17 2o) both occur 4 or 5 t in somewhat diverse applications. In the development of a theological nomenclature, however, they have acquired (along with other less frequent applications) a technical sense with reference to the Bib. writers or the Bib. books. The Bib. books are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of inspired men; the Bib. writers are called inspired as breathed into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthi ness.

      Meanwhile, for Eng. -speaking men, these terms have virtually ceased to be Bib. terms. They natur ally passed from the Lat Vulg into the

      2. Occur- Eng. VSS made from it (most fully rences in into the Rhcims-Douay: Job 32 8; the Bible Wisd 15 11; Ecclus 4 12; 2 Tim

      3 16; 2 Pet 1 21). But in the de velopment of the Eng. Bible they have found ever- decreasing place. In the EV of the Apoc (both AV and RV) "inspired" is retained in Wisd 15 11; but in the canonical books the nominal form alone occurs in AV and that only twice: Job 32 8, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding"; and 2 Tim 3 16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor rection, for instruction in righteousness." RV removes the former of these instances, substituting "breath" for "inspiration"; and alters the latter so as to read: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correc tion, for instruction which is in righteousness," with a marginal alternative in the form of, "Every scripture is inspired of God and profitable," etc. The word "inspiration" thus disappears from the Eng. Bible, and the word "inspired" is left in it only once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even misleading mistranslation.

      For the. Gr word in this passage OeAwvevtrros, thcopneustos very distinctly does not, mean "in spired of God." This phrase is rather the render ing of the Lat, divinilns inspirata, restored from the Wyclif ("Al Scripture of God ynspyrid is . . . .") and Rhemish ("All Scripture inspired of God is ....") VSS of the Vulg. The Gr word dot s not even mean, as AV tr a it, "given by inspiration of God," although that rendering (inherited from Tindale: "All Scripture given by inspiration of God is . . . ." and its successors; cf Geneva: "The




      whole S( ripturc is given by inspiration of (lod and j s ; | K1S at least to say for itselt thill it is ;i

      somewhat clumsy, perhaps," but not misleading paraphrase of tin Gr term in the theological lan- !r U uge of the day. The Cr term has, however, nothing to say of ///spiring or of ///spiral ion : it speaks only of a "spiring" or "spiration. \\\\\\\\hsi1 it s-ivs of Scripturo is, not that it is breathed into l,v ( iod" or is the product of the Divine "inbreath ing" into its human authors, bill that it is breathed out by (iod, "God-breathed," the product ot the creative breath of Cod. In a word, what is de clared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how Cod has operated in producing them . No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. The "breath of God" is in Scrip ture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. "By the word of Jeh, we read in the significant parallel of Ps 33 6, "were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." And it is particularly where the operations of (iod are energetic that this term (whether fT"! , ru"h, or "VCr: , n r ^iauiah} is em ployed to designate them Cod s breath is the irresistible outflow of His power. When Paul de clares, then, that "every script lire," or "all script ure" is the product of the Divine breath, "is Cod- breathed, he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a, specifically Divine operation.

      (1) 2 Tim 3 K>: In the passage in which Paul makes this energetic assertion of the Divine origin of Scripture he is engaged in explain- 3. Impor- ing the greatness of the advantages tant which Timothy had enjoyed for learn-

      Passages ing the saving truth of Cod. He had had good teachers; and from his very infancy he had been, by his knowledge of the Scrip tures, made wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The expression, "sacred writings, here employed (ver 15), is a technical one, not found elsewhere in the NT, it is true, but occurring cur rently in Philo and Jos to designate that body of authoritative books which constituted the Jewish "Law." It appears here anarthroiisly because it is set in contrast with the oral teaching which Timo thy had enjoyed, as something still better: he had not only had good instructors, but also always "an open Bible," as we should say, in his hand. To enhance yet further the great advantage of the possession of these Sacred Scriptures the apostle adds now a sentence throwing their nature? strongly up to view. They are of Divine origin and there fore of the highest value for all holy purposes.

      There is room for some difference of opinion as to the exact construction of this declaration. Shall we render " K very Script are" or " All Script ure " . Shall \\\\ve render " Kvery [or all] Scripture is God-breathed and [there fore] profitable," or "Kvery [or all| Scripture, being God-breathed, is as well profitable "? No doubt both questions are interesting, but for the main matter now engaging our attention they are both indifferent. Whether Paul, looking back at the Sacred Scriptures he had just mentioned, makes the assertion he is about to ;id" l. of them distributively, of all their parts, or col lectively, of their entire mass, is of no moment: to say that every part of t h esc Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed and to say that the whole of these Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed, is, for the main matter, all one. Nor is the deference ^reat between saying that they arc in all their parts, or in their whole extent, Cod-breathed and therefore profitable, and saying that they are in all their parts or in their whole extent, because God-breathed as well profitable. In both cases these Sacred Scriptures are d dared to owe their value to their Divine origin; and i n bot li cases this t heir Divine origin is energet ically asserted of their en t ire fabric. On the whole, t lie prefer able construction would seem to be, "Kvery Scripture, seeing that it is God-breathed, is as well profitable."

      In that case, what the apostle asserts is that the Sacred Scriptures, in their every several passage for it is just "passage of Scripture" which "Scripture" m this dis tributive use of it signifies is the product of the cre- at ive breat h of ( !od. and. because of this its Divine origi nal ion is of supreme value for all holy purposes.

      It is to be observed that the apostle does not .stop here to tell us either what particular books enter into the collection which he calls Sacred Scriptures, or by what precise operations (iod has produced them. Neither of these subjects entered into the matter he had at the mo ment in hand. It was the value of the Scriptures, and the source of that value in their Di\\\\ ine origin, which he required at the moment to assort; and these things lie asserts leaving to other occasions any further facts con cerning them which it might he well to emphasize. It is also to be observed that the apostle does not tell us here everything for which the Scriptures are, made val uable bv their Divine origination, lie speaks simply to the point, immediately in hand, and reminds I imothy of the value which these Scriptures, by virtue of their Divine origin, have for the "man of Cod." Their spirit ual power as God-breathed, is all that he had occasion her, to advert to. Whatever other qualit ies may accrue to them from their Divine origin, he loaves to other occasions to speak of.

      (2) 2 Pet 1 10-21: What Paul tells us here about the Divine origin of the Scriptures is en forced and extended by a striking passage in 2 Pet (1 l ,l 21). Peter is assuring his readers that what had been made 1 known to them of "the power and coming of our Lord .Jesus Christ" did not rest on "cunningly devised fables." He offers them the testi mony of eyewitnesses of Christ s glory. And then he intimates that they have better testimony than even that of eyewitnesses. "We have," says he, "the prophetic word" (EV, unhappily, "the word of prophecy"): and this, he says, is "more sure," and therefore should certainly be heeded. He refers, of course, to the Scriptures. Of what other "prophetic word" could he, over against the testimony of the eyewitnesses of Christ s "excellent glory" (AY) say that " we have" it, that is, it is in our hands? And he proceeds at once to speak of it plainly as "Scrip tural prophecy." You do well, he says, to pay heed to the prophetic word, because we know this lirst, that "every prophecy of scripture . . . ." It admits of more question, however, whether by this phrase he means the whole of Scripture, designated according to its character, as prophetic, that is, of Divine origin; or only that portion of Scripture which we discriminate as particularly prophetic, the immediate revelations contained in Scripture. The former is the more likely view, inasmuch as the entirety of Scripture is elsewhere conceived and spoken of as prophetic. In that case, what Peter has to say of this "every prophecy of scripture" the exact equivalent, it will be observed, in this case of Paul s "every scripture" (2 Tim 3 16) applies to the whole of Scripture in all its parts. What he says of it is that it does not come "of private interpre tation"; that is, it is not the result of human inves tigation into the nature of things, the product of its writers own thinking. This is as much as to say it is of Divine gift. Accordingly, he proceeds at once to make this plain in a supporting clause which contains both the negative and the positive declaration: "For no prophecy ever came [m "was brought"| by the will of man, but it was^as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God." In this singularly precise and pregnant statement there are several things which require to be carefully observed. There is, first of all, the emphatic de nial that prophecy that is to say, on the hypothesis upon which we are working, Scripture owes its origin to human initiative: "No prophecy ever was brought came is the word used in the KV text, with was brought in lU m by the will of man." Then, then; is the equally emphatic assertion that its source lies in C.od: it was spoken by men, in deed, but the men who spoke it "spake from God." And a remarkable clause is here inserted, and thrown forward in the sentence that stress may fall




      on it, which tells us how it could he that men, in speaking, should speak not from themselves, but from God: it was "as borne" it is the same word which was rendered "was brought" above, and might possibly be rendered "brought" here "by the Holy Spirit" that they spoke. Speaking thus under the determining influence of the Holy Spirit, the things they spoke were not from themselves, but from God.

      Here is as direct an assertion of the Divine origin of Scripture as that of 2 Tim 3 16. But there is more here than a simple assertion of the Divine origin of Scripture. We are advanced somewhat in our understanding of how God has produced the Scriptures. It was through the instrumentality of men who "spake from him." More specifically, it was through an operation of the Holy Ghost on these men which is described as "bearing" them. The term here used is a very specific one. It is not to be confounded with guiding, or directing, or controlling, or even leading in the full sense of that word. It goes beyond all such terms, in assigning the effect produced specifically to the active agent. What is "borne" is taken up by the "bearer," and conveyed by the "bearer s" power, not its own, to the "bearer s" goal, not its own. The men who spoke from God are here declared, therefore, to have been taken up by the Holy Spirit and brought by His power to the goal of His choosing. The things which they spoke under this operation of the Spirit were therefore His things, not theirs. And that is the reason which is assigned why "the prophetic word" is so sure. Though spoken through the in strumentality of men, it is, by virtue of the fact that these men spoke "as borne by the Holy Spirit," an immediately Divine word. It will be observed that the proximate stress is laid here, not on the spiritual value of Scripture (though that, too, is seen in the background), but on the Divine trustworthi ness of Scripture. Because this is the way every prophecy of Scripture "has been brought," it affords a more sure basis of confidence than even the tes timony of human eyewitnesses. Of course, if we do not understand by "the prophetic word" here the entirety of Scripture described, according to its character, as revelation, but only that element in Scripture which we call specifically prophecy, then it is directly only of that element in Scripture that these great declarations are made. In any event, however, they are made of the prophetic element in Scripture as written, which was the only form in which the readers of this Ep. possessed it, and which is the thing specifically intimated in the; phrase "every prophecy of scripture." These great declarations are made, therefore, at least of large tracts of Scripture; and if the entirety of Scripture is intended by the phrase "the prophetic word," they are made of the whole of Scripture 1 .

      (3) Jn 10 34 f: How far the supreme trust worthiness of Scripture, thus asserted, extends may be conveyed to us by a passage in one of Our Lord s discourses recorded by John (Jn 10 34-35). The Jews, offended by Jesus "making himself God," were in the act to stone Him, when He defended Himself thus: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sancti fied [m "consecrated"] and sent unto the world, Thou blasphernest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" It may be thought that this defence is inadequate. It certainly is incomplete: Jesus made Himself God (Jn 10 33) in a far higher sense than that in which "Ye are gods" was said of those "unto whom the word of God came": He had just declared in unmistakable terms, "I and the Father are one." But it was quite sufficient for the imme

      diate end in view to repel the technical charge of blasphemy based on His making Himself God: it is not blasphemy to call one God in any sense in which he may fitly receive that designation; and certainly if it is not blasphemy to call such men as those spoken of in the passage of Scripture adduced gods, because of their official functions, it cannot be blasphemy to call Him God whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world. The point for us to note, however, is merely that Jesus defence takes the form of an appeal to Scripture; and it ia important to observe how He makes this appeal. In the first place, He adduces the Scriptures as law: "Is it not written in your law?" He demands. The passage of Scripture which He adduces is not written in that portion of Scripture which was more specifically called "the Law," that is to say, the Pent; nor in any portion of Scripture of formally legal contents. It is written in the Book of Pss; and in a particular psalm which is as far as possible from presenting the external characteristics of legal enactment (Ps 82 6). When Jesus adduces this passage, then, as written in the "law" of the Jews, He does it, not because it stands in this psalm, but because it is a part of Scripture at large. In other words, He here ascribes legal authority to the entirety of Scripture, in accordance with a con ception common enough among the Jews (cf Jn 12 34), and finding expression in the NT occasionally, both on the lips of Jesus Himself, and in the writings of the apostles. Thus, on a later occasion (Jn 15 2.~>), Jesus declares that it is written in the "law" of the Jews, "They hated me without a cause," a clause found in Ps 35 19. And Paul assigns pas sages both from the Pss and from Isa to "the Law" (1 Cor 14 21; Rom 3 19), and can write such a sentence as this (Gal 4 21 f): "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written . . . ." quoting from the narra tive of Gen. We have seen that the entirety of Scripture was conceived as "prophecy"; we now see that the entirety of Scripture was also conceived as "law": these three terms, the law, prophecy, Scripture, were indeed, materially, strict synonyms, as our present passage itself advises us, by varying the formula of adduction in contiguous verses from "law" to "scripture." And what is thus implied in the manner in which Scripture is adduced, is immediately afterward spoken out in the most explicit language, because it forms an essential element in Our Lord s defence. It might have been enough to say simply, "Is it not written in your law?" But Our Lord, determined to drive His appeal to Scripture home, sharpens the point to the utmost by adding with the highest emphasis: "and the scripture cannot be broken." This is tho reason why it is worth while to appeal to what ia "written in the law," because "the scripture cannot be broken." The word "broken" here is the com mon one for breaking the law, or the Sabbath, or the like (Jn 5 18; 7 23; Mt 5 19), and the mean ing of the declaration is that it is impossible for the Scripture to be annulled, its authority to be with stood, or denied. The movement of thought is to the effect that, because it is impossible for the Scripture the term is perfectly general and wit nesses to the unitary character of Scripture (it is all, for the purpose in hand, of a piece) to be with stood, therefore this particular Scripture which is cited must be taken as of irrefragable authority. What we have here is, therefore, the strongest pos sible assertion of the indefectible authority of Scrip ture; precisely what is true of Scripture is that it "cannot be broken." Now, what is the particular thing in Scripture, for the confirmation of which the indefectible authority of Scripture is thus invoked? It is one of its most casual clauses more than that,




      the very form of it. casual clauses. This means, of course, thai in the Saviour s view the indefectible authority of Scrip ture attaches to the very form of expression of its most casual clauses. It belongs to Script ure through and through, down to its most minute particulars, that it is of indefect ihle aut horily.

      It is sometimes suggested, it is true, that Our Liument here is an <ir</unii nl/ii ml Ininn- that His words, therefore, express not His of the authority of Scripture, hut that wish opponents. It will scarcely he de nied that there is a vein of satire running through Our Lord s defence: that the Jews so readily al lowed that corrupt judges might properly he called "gods," but could not endure that He whom the Father had consecrated and sent into the world should call Himself Son of < iod, was a somewhat pungent fact to throw up into such a high light. But the argument from Scripture is not ad hominem hut i coHCt XKit; Scrip) ure was common ground wit h Jesus and His opponents. If proof were needed for so obvious a fact, it would he supplied by the circumstance that this is not an isolated but a rep resentative passage. The conception eit Scripture thrown up into such clear view here supplies the ground of all Jesus appeals to Scripture, and ot all the appeals of the NT writers as well. Every where, to Him and to them alike, an appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an indefectible nuthority whose determination is final; both He and they make their appeal indifferently to every part of Scripture, to every element in Scripture, to its most incidental clauses as well as to its most fundamental principles, and to the very form of its expression. This attitude toward Script ure as an authoritative document is, indeed, already intimated by their constant designation of it by the name of Scripture, the Scriptures, that is "the- Document," by way of eminence-; and by (heir customary citation of it with the simple formula, "It is written." What is written in this document admits so little of question ing that its authoritativeness required no asserting, but might safely be taken for granted. Both modes of expression belong to the constantly illustrated habitudes of Our Lord s speech. The first words He is recorded as uttering after His manifestation to Israel were an appeal to the unquestionable authority of Scripture; to Satan s temptations He opposed no other weapon than the- final "It is writ ten" 1 (Mt 4 1.7.10; Lk 4 4.8). And among tin- last words which He spoke to His disciples before He was received up was a rebuke to them for not understanding that all things "which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and psalms" concerning Him that is (ver 4.">) in the entire "Scriptures" -"must needs be" (very emphatic) "fulfilled" (Lk 24 44). "Thus it is written," says He (ver 4(1 >, as rendering all doubt absurd. For, as tie had explained earlier upon tin- same day (Lk 24 2.") IT), it argues only that one is "foolish and slow of heart" if lie does not "believe in" (if his laith does not rest securely on, as on a firm founda tion "all" (without limit of subject-matter here-) "that the- prophets" (explained in ver 27 as equiva lent^ to "all the scriptures ] "have spoken."

      The necessity of the fulfilment of all that is written in Scripture, which is so strongly asserted in these last instructions to His disciples, is frequently adverted to by Our Lord. He repeatedly explains of occurrences occasionally happening that they have come to | iass "that the scripture might he fulfilled" (Mk 14 -I .l; Jn 13 IS- 17 12; cf 12 II; Mk 9 12.13). On the basis of Scriptural declarations, therefore, He announces with confidence that given events will certaiulv

      4. Neces sary Ful filment of Scripture

      occur: "All ye shall be offended [lit. "scandalized"] in me this night: for it is written . . . ." (Mt 26 : ,!; Mk 14 27; cf Lk 20 17). Although holding at His command ample means of escape, He hows before on-coming calamities, for, He asks, how otherwise "should the scriptures be fufilled, that, thus it must be?" (Mt 26 f>lj. It is not merely the two disciples with whom He talked on the way to Kmmaus (Lk 24 2">) whom He rebukes for not trusting themselves more perfectly to (lu te-aching of Scripture. "Ye search the scriptures," he says to the .Jews, in (h< classical passage (Jn 5 I! .)/, "because ye think (hat in them ye have eter nal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, (hat ye may have life!" These words surely wen- spoken more in sorrow than in scorn: there- is no blame implied either for searching the Scriptures or for thinking that eternal life is to be found in Scripture; ap proval rather. What the Jews are blamed for is that they read with a veil lying upon their hearts which He would fain take- away (2 Cor 3 15 fj. Ye search the scriptures" that is right: and "even you" (empha(ic) "think to have eternal life; in them" that is right, too. But "it is these very Scriptures" (very emphatic) "which are bearing witness" (continuous process) "of me; and" (here is the marvel!) "ye will not come to me and have life!" that you may, that is, reach the very end you have- so properly in view in searching the? Scriptures. Their failure is due-, not to (he- Scriptures but to themselves, who re-ad the Scriptures to such little purpose.

      Quite similarly Our Lord often finds occasion to express wonder at the little effect to which Scrip ture had been re-ad, neit because- it had 5. Christ s been looked into too curiously, but Testimony because it had not been looked into That God earnestly enough, with sufficiently Is Author simple and robust trust in its every dee-laratinn. "Have- ye not read even this scripture?" He demands, as He- adduces I s 118 to show that the rejection of the Messiah was al ready in(imated in Scripture (Mk 12 10; Mt 21 42 varies the 1 expression to (he equivalent: "Did ye never re-ad in the scriptures? ). And when the indignant Jews came to Him complaining e>f the Hosannas with which the children in the- Temple were- acclaiming Him, and demanding, "Hearest thou what these are saying?" He met them (Mt 21 Kij merely with, "Yea: diel ye never read, Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise?" The underlying thought of these passages is spoken out when He intimate s that (he- source of all error in Divine things Is just ignorance of the Scriptures: "Ye do err," He declares to His ques tioners, on an important occasion, "not knowing the scriptures" (Mt 22 2 ( .)); or, as it is put, perhaps more forcibly, in interrogative form, in its || in another ( lospel: "Is it not for this cause that ye err, (hat ye know not the scriptures?" (Mk 12 24). Clearly, he who rightly knows the Scriptures does not err. The- confidence with which Jesus rested on Scripture, in its every declaration, is further illustrated in a passage like- Mt 19 4. Certain Pharisees had come to Him with a question on divorce and He met them thus: "Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male- and female, and said, For (his cause shall a man leave- his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the- two shall become one Hesh . .... What therefore (iod hath joined to gether, let not man put asunder." The- pe>int to be noted is the explicit reference of Gen 2 24 (o (iod

      as its author: "//r irho made tin in said";

      "what there-fore- (iod hath joined together." Yet this passage does not give us a saying of God s




      recorded in Scripture, hut just the word of Scripture itself, and can he treated as a declaration of God s only on the hypothesis that all Scripture is a decla ration of God s. The [| in Mk (10 5 IT) just as truly, though not as explicitly, assigns the passage to God as its author, citing it as authoritative* law and speaking of its enactment as an act of God s. And it is interesting to ohserve in passing that Paul, having occasion to quote the same passage (1 Cor 6 10), also explicitly quotes it as a Divine word: "For, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh"- the "he" here, in accordance with a usage to be noted later, meaning just "God."

      Thus clear is it that Jesus occasional adduction of Scripture as an authoritative document rests on an ascription of it to God as its author. His tes timony is that whatever stands written in Scripture is a word of God. Nor can we evacuate this testi mony of its force on the plea that it represents Jesus only in the days of His flesh, when He may be sup posed to have reflected merely the opinions of His day and generation. The view of Scripture He announces was, no doubt, the view of His day and generation as well as His own view. But there is no reason to doubt that it was held by Him, not because it was the current view, but because, in His Divine-human knowledge, He knew it to be true; for, even in His humiliation, He is the faith ful and true witness. And in any event we should bear in mind that this was the view of the resur rected as well as of the humiliated Christ. It was after He had suffered and had risen again in the power of His Divine life that He pronounced those foolish and slow of heart who do not believe all that stands written in all the Scriptures (Lk 24 2.">); and that He laid down the simple "Thus it is written" as the suflicient ground of confident belief (Lk 24 46). Nor can we explain away Jesus testimony to the Divine trustworthiness of Scrip ture by interpreting it as not His own, but that of His followers, placed on His lips in their reports of His words. Not only is it too constant, minute, inti mate and in part incidental, and therefore, as it were, hidden, to admit of this interpretation; but it so pervades all our channels of information con cerning Jesus teaching as to make it certain that it comes actually from Him. It belongs not only to the Jesus of our evangelical records but as well to the Jesus of the earlier sources which underlie our evangelical records, as anyone may assure himself by observing the in which Jesus adduces the Scriptures as Divinely authoritative that are recorded in more than one of the Gospels (e.g. "It is written," Mt 4 4.7.10 [Lk 4 4.S.10J; Mt 11 10; [Lk 7 27]; Mt 21 13 [Lk 19 40; Mk 11 17]; Mt 26 31 [Mk 14 21 1; "the scripture" or "the scriptures," Mt 19 4 |Mk 10 0]; Mt 21 42 [Mk 12 10; Lk 20 17]; Mt 22 29 [Mk 12 24; Lk 20 37]; Mt 26 .50 [Mk 14 41); Lk 24 44]). These passages alone would suffice to make clear to us the testimony of Jesus to Scripture as in all its parts and declarations Divinely authoritative.

      The attempt to attribute the testimony of Jesus to His followers has in its favor only the undeniable fact that the testimony of the writers 6. Similar of the NT is to precisely the same Witness of effect as His. They, too, cursorily Apostles speak of Scripture by that pregnant name and adduce it with the simple "It is written," with the implication that whatever stands written in it is Divinely authoritative. As .Jesus official life begins with this "It is written" (Mt 4 4), so the evangelical proclamation begins with an "Even as it is written" (Mk 1 2); and as Jesus sought the justification of His work in a solemn "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day"

      (Lk 24 46 ff), so the apostles solemnly justified the Gospel which they preached, detail after detail, by appeal to the Scriptures, "That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" and "That he hath been raised on the third day according to the scrip tures" (1 Cor 16 3.4; cf Acts 8 3.5; 17 3; 26 22, and also Rom 1 17; 3 4.10; 4 17; 11 20; 14 11;

      I Cor 1 19; 2 9; 3 19; 15 45; Gal 3 10.13; 4 22.27). Wherever they carried the gospel it was as a gospel resting on Scripture that they proclaimed it (Acts 17 2; 18 24. 2S); and they encouraged themselves to test its truth by the Scriptures (Acts 17 11). The holiness of life they inculcated, they based on Scriptural requirement (1 Pet 1 16), and they commended the royal law of love which they taught by Scriptural sanction (Jas 2 X). Every detail of duty was supported by them by an appeal to Scripture (Acts 23 f>; Rom 12 19). The cir cumstances of their lives and the events occasion ally occurring about them are referred to Scripture for their significance (Rom 2 26; 8 30; 9 33; 11 S; 15 9.21; 2 Cor 4 13). As Our Lord declared that whatever was written in Scripture must needs he fulfilled (Mt 26 .51; Lk 22 37; 24 44), so His followers explained one of the most startling facts which had occurred in their experience by pointing out that "it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David" (Acts 1 16). Here the ground of this constant appeal to Scripture, so that it is enough that a thing "is contained in scripture" (1 Pet 2 6) for it to be of indefectible authority, is plainly enough declared: Scripture must needs be fulfilled, for what is contained in it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost through the human author. What Scripture says, God says; and accordingly we read such remarkable declarations as these: "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up" (Rom 9 17); "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, .... In thee shall all the nations be blessed" (Gal 3 S). These are not of simple personification of Scripture, which is itself a sufficiently remarkable usage (Mk 15 >X; Jn 7 38.42; 19 37; Rom 43; 10 11;

      II 2; Gal 4 30; 1 Tim 5 IS; Jas 2 23; 4 .5 f), vocal with the conviction expressed by James (4 5) that Scripture cannot speak in vain. They indi cate a certain confusion in current speech between "Scripture" and "God," (lie outgrowth of a deep- seated conviction that the word of Scripture is the word of Cod. It was not "Scripture" that spoke to Pharaoh, or gave his great promise to Abraham, but God. But "Scripture" and "God" lay so close together in the minds of the writers of the NT that they could naturally speak of "Scripture" doing what Scripture records God as doing. It was, however, even more natural to them to speak casually of God saying what the Scriptures say; and accordingly we meet with forms of speech such as these: "Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit saith, To-day if ye shall hear His voice," etc (He 3 7, quoting Ps 95 7); "Thou art God . . . . who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage," etc (Acts 4 2,5 AV, quoting Ps 2 1); "He that raised him from the dead .... hath spoken on this wise, I will give you .... because he saith also in another [place] . . . ." (Acts 13 34, (plot ing Isa 55 3 and Ps 16 10), and the like. The words put into ( Jod s mouth in each case are not words of God recorded in the Scriptures, but just Scripture words in themselves. When we take t he two classes of passages together, in the one of which the Scriptures are spoken of as God, while in the other God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures, we may perceive how close



      the identification of the two was in the minds of the writers of the NT.

      This identification is strikingly qbservabli

      certain catenae of quotations, in which there are brought together a number of passages 7. Identifi- of Scripture clos- ly connected with cation of one another. Tlie first chapter of t he God and K|>. to the He supplies an example. Scriptures \\\\Ve may begin with ver >: "I* or unto which of the angels said he the subject being necessarily "God" -"at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have 1 begotten thee f - the citation being from 1 s 2 7 and very appro priate in the mouth of God "and again, 1 wilMte to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? from - S 7 11, again a declaration of God 8 own - \\\\nd when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him"- from Dt 32 43, LXX, or Ps 97 7, in neither of which is (lod the speaker "And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire" from Ps 104 4, where again Cod is not the speaker but is spoken of in the third person--"but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O Cod, etc" from Ps 46 0.7 where again Cod is not the speaker, but is addressed "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning," etc from Ps 102 I .") 27, where again Cod is not the speaker but is addressed "Hut of which of the angels hath lie said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand?" etc from Ps 110 1, in which Cod is the speaker. Here we have passages in which Cod is the speaker and passages in which Cod is not the speaker, but is addressed or spoken of, indiscriminately assigned to Cod, because they all have it in common thai they are words of Scripture, and as words of Scrip ture are words of Cod. Similarly _in Rom 15 9 IT we have a series of citations the first of which is introduced by "as it is written," and the next two by "again he saith," and "again," and the last, by "and again, Isaiah saith," the first being from Ps 18 19; the second from Dt 32 43; the third from Ps 117 1 ; and the last from Isa 11 10. Only the last (the only one here assigned to the 1 human author) is a word of Cod in the text of the OT.

      This view of the Scriptures as a compact mass of words of Cod occasioned the formation of a desig nation for them by which this their 8. "Oracles character was explicitly expressed. of God" This designation is "thesacred oracles," "the orach s of Cod." It occurs with extraordinary frequency in Philo, who very com monly refers to Scripture as "the sacred oracles" and cites its several passages as each an "oracle." Sharing, as they do, Philo s conception of the Scrip tures as, in all their parts, a word of God, the NT writers naturally also speak of them under this designation. The classical passage is Rom 3 2 (cf He 5 12; Acts 7 38). Here Paul begins an enumeration of the advantages which belonged to the chosen people above other nations; and, after declaring these advantages to have been great and numerous, he places first among them all their possession of the Scriptures: "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the- profit of circum cision . Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of Cod." That by "the oracles of Cod" here an 1 meant just the Holy Scriptures in their entirely, conceived as a direct Divine revelation, and not any portions of them, or elements in them more esp. thought of as revelatory, is perfectly clear from the wide con temporary use of this designation in this sense by Philo, and is put beyond question by the presence in the N T of habitudes of speech which rest on and grow out of the conception of Scripture embodied in this term. From the point of view of this desig-


      nation, Scripture.- is thought of as the living voice of God speaking in all its parts directly to the reader; and, accordingly, it is cited by some such formula as "it, is said," and this mode of citing Scripture duly occurs as an alternative to "it is written" (Lk 4 12, replacing "it is written" in Ml; He 3 15; cf Rom 4 18). It is due also to this point of view that Scripture is cited, not as what Cod or the Holy Spirit, "said," but what He "says," the present tense emphasizing the living voice of God speaking in Scriptures to the indi vidual soul (He 3 7; Acts 13 35; He 1 7.8.10; Rom 15 10). And esp. there is due to it the pecul iar usage by which Scripture is cited by the simple "saith," without expressed subject, the subject being too well understood, when Scripture is ad duced, to require stating; for who could be the speaker of the words of Scripture but God only (Rom 15 10; 1 Cor 6 16; 2 Cor 6 2; Gal 3 It); Eph 4 8; 5 14)? The analogies of this preg nant subject less "saith" are very widespread. It was with it, that the ancient Pythagoreans and Pla- tonists and the mediaeval Aristotelians adduced each their master s leaching; it was with it that, in certain circles, the judgments of Hadrian s great jurist Salvius Julianus were cited; African stylists were even accustomed to refer by it to Sallust, their great model. There is a tendency, cropping out occasionally, in the OT, to omit the name of God as superfluous, when He, as the great logical sub ject always in mind, would be easily understood (cf Job 20 2:5; 21 17; Ps 114 2; Lam 4 22). So, too, when the NT writers quoted Scripture there was no need to say whose word it was: that lay beyond question in every mind. This usage, accordingly, is a specially striking intimation of the vivid sense which the NT writers had of the Divine origin of the Scriptures, and means that in citing them they were 1 acutely conscious that they were citing immediate words of God. How completely the Scriptures were to them just the word of God may be illustrated by a passage like Gal 3 16: "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." We have seen Our Lord hanging an argument on the very words of Scripture (Jn 10 34); elsewhere His reasoning depends on the particular tense (Mt 22 32) or word (Mt 22 43) used in Scripture. Here Paul s argument rests similarly on a grammatical form. No doubt it is the grammatical form of the word which God is recorded as having spoken to Abraham that is in question. But Paul knows what grammat ical form God employed in speaking to Abraham only as the Scriptures have transmitted it to him; and, as we have seen, in citing the words of God and the words of Scripture he was not accustomed to make any distinction between them. It is probably the Scriptural word as a Scriptural word, therefore, which he has here in mind: though, of course , it is possible that, what he here witnesses to is rather the detailed trust worthiness of the Scriptural record t han its direct divinity if we can separate two things which apparently were not separated in Paul s mind. This much we can at least say without straining, that the designation of Scripture as "scripture" and its citation by the formula, "It is written," attest primarily its indefectible authority; the designation of it as "oracles" and the adduction of it by the for mula, "It says," attest primarily its immediate divinity. Its authority rests on its divinity and its divinity expresses itself in its trustworthiness; and the NT writers in all their use of it treat it as what they declare it to be a God-breathed document, which, because God-breathed, is through and through trustworthy in all its assertions, authoritative in all its declarations, and down to its last particular, the very word of God, His "oracles."




      That the Scriptures are throughout a Divine book, created by the Divine energy and speaking

      in their every part with Divine author- 9. Human ity directly to the heart of the readers, Element in is the fundamental fact concerning Scripture them which is witnessed by Christ and

      the sacred writers to whom we owe the NT. But the strength and constancy with which they bear witness to this primary fact do not prevent their recognizing by the side of it that the Scriptures have come into being by the agency of men. It would be inexact to say that they recog nize a human element in Scripture: they do not parcel Scripture out, assigning portions of it, or elements in it, respectively to God and man. In their view the whole of Scripture in all its parts and in all its elements, down to the least minutiae, in form of expression as well as in substance of teaching, is from God; but the whole of it has been given by God through the instrumentality of men. There is, therefore, in their view, not, indeed, a human element or ingredient in Scripture, and much less human divisions or sections of Scripture, but a human side or aspect to Scripture; and they do not fail to give full recognition to this human side or aspect. In one of the primary passages which has already been before us, their conception is given, if somewhat broad and very succinct, yet clear expression. No prophecy, Peter tells us (2 Pet 1 21), ever came by the will of man; but as borne by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God. Here the whole initiative is assigned to God, and such complete control of the human agents that the product is truly God s work. The men who speak in this "prophecy of scripture" speak not of them selves or out of themselves, but from God": they speak only as they are "borne by the Holy Ghost." But it is they, after all, who speak. Scripture is the product of man, but only of man speaking from God and under such a control of the Holy Spirit as that in their speaking they are "borne" by Him. The conception obviously is that the Scrip tures have been given by the instrumentality of men; and this conception finds repeated incidental expression throughout the NT.

      It is this conception, for example, which is ex pressed when Our Lord, quoting Ps 110, declares of its words that "David himself said in the Holy Spirit" (Mk 12 36). There is a certain emphasis here on the words being David s own words, which is due to the requirements of the argument Our Lord was conducting, but which none the less sin cerely represents Our Lord s conception of their origin. They are David s own words which we find in Ps 110, therefore; but they are David s own words, spoken not of his own motion merely, but "in the Holy Spirit," that is to say we could not better paraphrase it "as borne by the Holy Spirit." In other words, they are "God-breathed" words and therefore authoritative in a sense above what any words of David, not spoken in the Holy Spirit, could possibly be. Generalizing the matter, we may say that the words of Scripture are con ceived by Our Lord and the NT writers as the words of their human authors when speaking "in the Holy Spirit," that is to say, by His initiative and under His controlling direction. The conception finds even more precise expression, perhaps, in such a statement as we find it is Peter who is speaking and it is again a psalm which is cited in Acts 1 16, "The Holy Spirit spake by the mouth of David." Here the Holy Spirit is adduced, of course, as the real author of what is said (and hence Peter s certainty that what is said will be fulfilled) ; but David s mouth is expressly designated as the instrument (it is the instrumental preposition that is used) by means of which the Holy Spirit speaks the Scripture

      in question. He does not speak save through David s mouth. Accordingly, in Acts 4 25, the Lord that made the heaven and earth, acting by His Holy Spirit, is declared to have spoken another psalm through the mouth of .... David, His "servant"; and in Mt 13 35 still another psalm is adduced as "spoken through the prophet" (cf Mt 2 5). In the very act of energetically assert ing the Divine origin of Scripture the human instrumentality through which it is given is con stantly recognized. The NT writers have, there fore, no difficulty in assigning Scripture to its hu man authors, or in discovering in Scripture traits due to its human authorship. They freely quote it by such simple formulae as these: "Moses saith" (Rom 10 19); "Moses said" (Mt 22 24; Mk 7 10; Acts 3 22); "Moses writeth" (Rom 10 5); "Moses wrote" (Mk 12 19; Lk 20 28); "Isaiah . . . . saith" (Rom 10 20); "Isaiah said" (Jn 12 39); "Isaiah crieth" (Rom 9 27); "Isaiah hath said before" (Rom 9 29); "said Isaiah the prophet" (Jn 1 23); "did Isaiah prophesy" (Mk 7 6; Mt 15 7); "David saith" (Lk 20 42; Acts 2 25; Rom 11 9); "David said" (Mk 12 36). It is to be noted that when thus Scripture is adduced by the names of its human authors, it is a matter of complete in difference whether the words adduced are comments of these authors or direct words of God recorded by them. As the plainest words of the human authors are assigned to God as their real author, so the most express words of God, repeated by the Scriptural writers, are cited by the names of these human writers (Mt 15 7; Mk 7 6; Rom 10 5 19.20; cf Mk 7 10 from the Decalogue). To say that "Moses" or "David says," is evidently thus only a way of saying that "Scripture says," which is the same as to say that "God says." Such modes of citing Scripture, accordingly, carry us little be yond merely connecting the name, or perhaps we may say the individuality, of the several writers with the portions of Scripture given through each. How it was given through them is left meanwhile, if not without suggestion, yet without specific ex planation. We seem safe only in inferring this much : that the gift of Scripture through its human authors took place by a process much more intimate than can be expressed by the term "dictation," and that it took place in a process in which the control of the Holy Spirit was too complete and pervasive to permit the human qualities of the secondary authors in any way to condition the purity of the product as the word of God. The Scriptures, in other words, are conceived by the writers of the NT as through and through God s book, in every part expressive of His mind, given through men after a fashion which does no violence to their nature as men, and constitutes the book also men s book as well as God s, in every part expressive of the mind of its human authors.

      If we attempt to get behind this broad statement and to obtain a more detailed conception of the

      activities by which God has given the 10. Activi- Scriptures, we arc thrown back upon ties of God somewhat general representations, sup- in Giving ported by the analogy of the modes Scripture of God s working in other spheres of

      His operation. It is very desirable that we should free ourselves at the outset from in fluences arising from the current employment of the term "inspiration" to designate this process. This term is not a Bib. term and its etymological impli cations are not perfectly accordant with the Bib. conception of the modes of the Divine operation in giving the Scriptures. The Bib. writers do not con ceive of the Scriptures as a human product breathed into by the Divine Spirit, and thus heightened in its qualities or endowed with new qualities; but as a



      1 ISO

      Divine product produced through the instrumen tal, iv of men. They do not coneeiveof these m.-n, |,v whose instrumentality Scripture is produce.!, ; ,s svorking upon their own initiative, though ener- ,,,/ed bv God lo greater effort and higher achieve ment, but as moved by the Divine initiative and ,,.,,., the irresistible power of the Spirit oi God .,!,,- \\\\VMVS of Hi- choosing to end.- <>t His appomt- ,,.,,, The difference Let ween the two conceptions mav not appear great when the mind IS hxec ex clusively upon the nature of t he result ing product . Hut they are differing conceptions, and look at t production of Scripture from distinct points ot view the human and the Divine; and the involved ,, u . n tjil attitudes toward the origin ol Scripture are very diverse. The term "inspiration is too firmly fixed in both theological and popular usage, as the technical designation of the action ol God in giving the Scriptures, to be replaced; and we may I thankful that its native implications lie as close as they do to the Bib. conceptions. Meanwhile. however, it may be justly insisted that it shall receive its definition from the representations ol Scripture and not be permitted to impose upon our thought ideas of the origin of Scripture derived from an analysis of its own implications, etymo logical or historical. The Scriptural conception ol the relation of the Divine Spirit to the human authors in the production of Scripture is better ex pressed by the figure of "bearing" than by the figure of "inbreathing"; and when our Bib. writers speak of the action of the Spirit of God in this relation as a breathing, they represent it as a "breathing out" of the Scriptures by the Spirit, and not a "l.reathiim into" the Scriptures by Him.

      So soon, however, as we seriously endeavor to form for ourselves a clear conception of the precise nature of the Divine action in this 11. General-breathing out" of the Scriptures- Problem of this "bearing" of the writers of the Origin: Scriptures to their appointed goal of

      God s Part the production of a book of Divine trustworthiness and indefectible au thoritywe become acutely aware of a more deeply- lying and much wider problem, apart- from which t hisone of inspiration, technically so called, cannot be profitably considered. This is the general prob lem of the origin of the Scriptures and the part of (lod in all that complex of processes by the inter action of which these books, which we call the sacred Scriptures, with all their peculiarities, and all their qualities of whatever sort, have been brought in to being. For, of course, these books were not produced suddenly, by some miraculous act handed down complete out of heaven, as the phrase goes; but, like all other products of time, are the ultimate effect of many processes cooperating through long periods. There is to be considered, for instance, Hie preparation of the material which forms the subject-matter of these books: in a sacred history, say, for example, to be narrated; or in a religious experience which may serve as a norm for record; or in a logical elaboration of the contents of revelation which may be placed at the service of (lod s people; or in the progressive revelation of Divine truth itself, supplying their culminating contents. And there is the preparation of the men to write these books to be considered, a preparation physical, intellectual, spiritual, which must have attended them throughout their whole lives, and, indeed, must have had its beginning in their remote ancestors, and the effect of which was to bring the right men to the right places at the right times, with the right endowments, impulses, acquirements, to write just the books which were designed for them. When "inspiration," technically so called, is super induced on lines of preparation like these, it takes

      ,,,, ( , u ite a different aspect from that which it bears when it is thought of as an isolated action of the Divine Spirit operating out of all relation to his torical processes. Represent at ions are sometimes made as if, when (lod wished to produce sacred hooks which would incorporate His will a series ,,f letters like those of I aiil. for example He was minced | () the necessity of going down to earth and painfully serutini/ing the men lie found there, seeking anxiously for the one who, on the whole, promised best for His purpose; and then violently forcing the material He wished expressed through him against his natural bent, and with as little loss fro i n his recalcitrant characteristics as possible. Of course, nothing of the sort took place. It ( ,od wished to give His people a series ol letters like Paul s, He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spon taneously would write just such letters.

      If we bear this in mind, we shall know what esti mate to place upon the common representation to the effect that the human character- 12. Effect istics of the writers must, and in point of Human of fact do, condition and qualify the Qualities: writings produced by them, the impli- Providential cation being that, therefore, we cannot Preparation get from man a pure word ol God. As light that passes through the colored glass of a cathedral window, we are told, is light, from heaven, but is stained by the tints of the glass through which it passes; so any word of God which is passed through the mind and soul oi a man must come out discolored by the personality through which it- is given, and just to that degree ceases to be the pure word of God. But. what if this per sonality has itself been formed by (lod into precisely the personality it is, for the express purpose oi communicating to the word given through it just the coloring which if gives it? What it the colors of the stained-glass window have been designed by the architect for the express purpose of giving to the light that floods the cathedral precisely the tone and quality it receives from them? What if the word ol (lod that comes to His people is framed by Clod into the word of (lod it is, precisely by means of the qualities of the men formed by Him for the pur pose, through which it is given? When we think of God the Lord giving by His Spirit a body of authoritative Scriptures to His people, we must. remember that He is the God of providence and of grace as well as of revelation and inspiration, and that He holds all the lines of preparation as fully under His direction as He does the specific operation which we call technically, in the narrow- sense, by the name of "inspiration/ The production of the Scriptures is, in point of fact, a long process, in the course of which numerous and very varied Divine activities are involved, providential, gracious, miraculous, all of which must be taken into account in any attempt to explain the relation of God to the production of Scripture. When they are all taken into account, we can no longer wonder that the resultant Scriptures are constantly spoken of as the pure word of God. We wonder, rather, that an additional operation of God what we call spe cifically "inspiration," in its technical sense was thought necessary. Consider, for example, how a piece of sacred history say the Book of Ch, or the great historical work, Gospel and Acts, of Luke is brought to the writing. There is first, of all the preparation of the history to be written: God the Lord leads the sequence of occurrences through the development He has designed for them that they may convey their lessons to His people: a "teleological" or "aetiological" character is in herent in the very course of events. Then He pre pares a man, by birth, training, experience-, gifts



      of grace 1 , mid, if need he, of revelation, capable of appreciating this historical development and eager to search it out, thrilling in all his being with its lessons and bent upon making them clear and effect ive to others. When, then, by His providence, God sets this man to work on the writing of this history, will there not be spontaneously written by him the history which it was Divinely intended should be written? Or consider how a psalmist would be prepared to put into moving verse a piece of normative religious experience: how he would be born with just the right quality of religious sensibility, of parents through whom he should receive just the right hereditary bent, and from whom he should get precisely the right religious example and train ing, in circumstances of life in which his religious tendencies should be developed precisely on right- lines; how he would be brought through just the right experiences to quicken in him the precise emo tions he would be called upon to express, and finally would be placed in precisely the exigencies which would call out their expression. Or consider the providential preparation of a writer of a didactic epistle by means of which he should be given the intellectual breadth and acuteness, and be trained in habitudes of reasoning, and placed in the situations which would call out precisely the argumentative presentation of Christian truth which was required of him. When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of the providential government of God, to the minuteness and completeness of its sway, and to its invariable efficacy, we may be in clined to ask what is needed beyond this mere provi dential government to secure the production of sacred books which should be in every detail abso lutely accordant with the Divine will.

      The answer is, Nothing is needed beyond mere providence to secure such books provided only that it does not lie in the Divine pur- 13. "Inspi- pose, that these books should possess ration" qualities which rise above the powers

      More than of men to produce, even under the "Provi- most complete Divine guidance. For

      dence" providence is guidance; and guidance

      can bring one only so far as his own power can carry him. If heights are to be scaled above man s native power to achieve, then some thing more than guidance, however effective, is necessary. This is the reason for the superinduc- tion, at t he end of the long process of the production of Scripture, of the additional Divine operation which we call technically "inspiration." By it, the Spirit of God, flowing confluent ly in with the providentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously producing under the Divine directions the writings appointed to them, gives the product a Divine quality unattainable by human powers alone. Thus these books become not merely the word of godly men, but the immediate word of God Himself, speaking directly as such to the minds and hearts of every reader. The value of "inspi ration" emerges, thus, as twofold. It gives to the books written under its "bearing" a quality which is truly superhuman; a trustworthiness, an author ity, a searchingness, a profundity, a profitableness which is altogether Divine. And it speaks this Divine word immediately to each reader s heart and conscience; so that he does not require to make his way to God, painfully, perhaps even uncertainly, through the words of His servants, the human in struments in writing the Scriptures, but can listen directly to the Divine voice itself speaking imme diately in the Scriptural word to him.

      That the writers of the NT themselves conceive the Scriptures to have been produced thus by Di vine operations extending through the increasing ages and involving a multitude of varied activities, can

      be made clear by simply attending to the occasional references they make to this or that step in the process. It lies, for example, on the 14. Witness face of their expositions, that they of NT looked upon the Bib. history as leleo-

      Writers logical. Not only do they tell us that

      to This "whatsoever things were written afore

      time were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope" (Rom 15 4; cf Rom 4 23.24); they speak also of the course of the historical events themselves as guided for our bene fit : "Now these things happened unto them by way of example" in a typical fashion, in such a way that, as they occurred, a typical character, or pre dictive reference impressed itself upon them; that is to say, briefly, the. history occurred as it did in order to bear a message! to us "and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come" (1 Cor 10 11; cf ver (>). Ac cordingly, it has become a commonplace of Bib. ex- posit ion that "the history of redemption itself is a typically progressive one" (Kiiper), and is "in a manner impregnated with the prophetic element," so as to form a "part of a great plan which stretches from the fall of man to the first consummation of all things in glory; and, in so far as it reveals the mind of God toward man, carries a respect to the future not less than to the present" (P. Fairbairn). It lies equally on the face of the NT allusions to the sub ject that its writers understood that the preparation of men to become vehicles of God s message to man was not of yesterday, but had its beginnings in the very origin of their being. The call by which Paul, for example, was made an apostle of Jesus Christ was sudden and apparently without antecedents; but it is precisely this Paul who reckons this call as only one step in a long process, the beginnings of which antedated his own existence: "But when it was the good pleasure of God, \\\\vho separated me, even from my mother s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me" (Gal 1 l.").l(i; cf Jer 1 5; Isa 49 l.o). The recognition by the writers of the NT of the experiences of Clod s grace, which had been vouchsafed to them as an integral element in their fitting to be the bearers of His gospel to others, finds such pervasive; expression that the only difficulty is to select from the mass the most illustrative passages. Such a statement as Paul gives in the opening verses of 2 Cor is thoroughly typical. There he represents that lie has been afflicted and comforted to the end that he might "be able to comfort them that are in any affliction, through the comfort, wherewith" he had himself been "comforted of God." For, he explains, "Whether we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or whether we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which worketh in the patient endur ing of the same sufferings which we also suffer" (2 Cor 1 4-6). It is beyond question, therefore, that the NT writers, when they declare the Scriptures to be the product of the Divine breath, and explain this as meaning that the writers of these Scriptures wrote them only as borne by the Holy Spirit in such a fashion that they spoke, not out of them selves, but "from God," are thinking of this opera tion of the Spirit only as the final act of God in the production of the Scriptures, superinduced upon a long series of processes, providential, gracious, miraculous, by which the matter of Scripture had been prepared for writing, and the men for writing it, and the writing of it had been actually brought to pass. It is this final act in the production of Scripture which is technically called "inspiration"; and inspiration is thus brought before us as, in the minds of the writers of the NT, that particular operation of God in the production of Scripture


      Inspiration Instrument

      which takes cffeel at the very point ot the of Scripture unele-rstaneling the term "writing hm , :i s inclusive e,f all the- processes ot the actual composition of Scripture, the investigation of elocu- m ,. nt s the collection of facts, the excogitation ot conclusions, the adaptation of e-xhortations as means toe-ne Is and the like with the e-ffee-t of giving , n the result ant Scnpt ure a specifically supernatural character, and constituting it a Divine, as well as human, be>ok. Obviously the mode- e>! operation of this Divine activity moving to this result is con- e-e-ived in full accord wit h t he analogy ot the Divine operations in other spheres of its activity, in pmyi- de-ne-e and in grace alike-, as continent with the human activities operative in the case; as, in a weird, of the nature- of what has come to he known as "immanent action."

      It will not escape observation that thus "inspira tiein" is made- a mode of "revelation." \\\\\\\\ e are often exhorted, te>besure, to dist mguish 16. "Inspi- sharply between "inspiration" and ration" and "revelation"; and the exhortation is "Revela- just when "revelation" is taken in erne tion" of its narrower senses, of, say, an e-x-

      te-rnal manifestation of (Iod, or of an immediate communication from (ioel in words. But "inspiration" does not differ from "revelation in these- narre>we-el senses as genus from genus, but as a species of one- genus eiiffe-rs from another. That operation of (iod which we call "inspiration," that is to say, that e.peration of the Spirit of God by which He ; "he-ars" men in the process of e-eim- posinsz: Scripture, so that they write-, not of them selves, but "from God," isone e>f the; moele-s in which God make-s known te> ine-n His be-ing, His will, His operations. His purposes. It is as distinctly a mode of revelation as any meide e>f revelation can lie, and the-re fore it performs the- same office which all revelation perfeirms, that is to say, in the e-xpre-ss words e>f Paul, it make-s me-n wise-, anel makes the-m wise unto salvation. All "special" or "supernatural" re-velation (which is re-demptive in its very ide-a, and oe cupies a plae-e as a substantial element in God s redemptive proce-sses) has pree-ise-ly this for its end; and Scripture, as a mode eif the redemptive revelation of (iod. finds its fundamental ^purpose just in this: if the "inspiration" by which Scripture- is pre>eluce>el rende-rs it trustworthy and authorita tive-, it re-nde-rs it trustworthy and authoritative only that it may the bette-r se-rve- te)inake men wise; unto salvation. Scripture- is e-eme-eived, from the; peiint of view of the writers of the NT, not merely as the- record of revelations, but as itself a part e>f the- re-demptive revelatiein of (iod; not merely as the re-cord of the- re-demptive- acts by which God is saving the- world, but as itself one e>f these reelemp- tive ae-ts, having its own part to play in the- great weirk of establishing and huileling up the kingdom of God. \\\\\\\\ hat give s it a place; among the redemp tive acts of (lexl is its Divine origination, taken in its widest sense, as inclusive e>f all the- Divine operations, providential, gracious anel e-xpre-ssly supernatural, by which it has ben-n made; just what it is a body of writings able 1 to make; wise unto salvation, and profitable; fe>r making the man of (iod perfect. What gives it its place among the me>de-s e>f re-ve-latiem is, however, specifically the cul minating erne- e>f these Divine- opeTat ieins, which we e-all "inspiration"; that is to say. the action of the Spirit e)f (ie>d in so "hearing" its human anthems in the-ir work of prexlucing Scripture-, as that in these Scriptures they speak, not out of themse-lve-s, but. "from (iod." It is this act by virtue e>f which the Scriptures may properly be calle.-d "God- breathed."

      It has been e-ustomary among a certain scheieil of write-rs to speak eif the Scriptures, because thus


      "inspired," as a Divine--human boeik, and to appeal to the- analogy e>f Our Leml s Divine-human pe-r- semality to ex])lain the-ir peculiar emali- 16. Scrip- tie s as such. The expression e-alls tures a atte-ntion tei an impe)rtant fae-t, and

      Divine- the; analeigy holds goeid a certain elis- Human tance-. Th ere- are human and Divine

      Book? side s to Scripture-, anel, as we cursorily

      examine it , we may pe-m-ive; in it, alte-r- nate-ly, traits which sugge-st nenv the one-, nenv the other facte>r in its origin. But the- analogy with Our Lord s Divine-human personality may easily be pressed beyond reason. The-re is ne> hypostatic uniem betwe-e-ii the; Divine anel the- human in Se-rip- t ure; we canneit parallel t he "inscripturation" of the Holy Spirit and the ine-arnat iem of the Sem of God. The Scri])ture-s are- merely the pre>eluct eif Divine and human forces wetrking <ogethe-r tei produce a product in the pre>elue-tion of which the- human forces weirk unde-r the- initiation and prevalent di rection of the- Divine: the- person of Our Lorel unites in itse-lf Divine- and human natures, e-ach of whie-h re-tains its elistinctne-ss while ope-rating only in rela tion te the either. Be-twe-en such eliverse-_ things there can e-xist only a re-me>te> anale)gy; and, in point of fact, the analogy in the pre-se-nt instane-e- amounts to no more than that in beith e-ase-s Divine and human facteirs are> involveel, though ve-ry differ ently. In the one they unite to constitute a Divine- human persem, in the- other the-y cooperate- to pe-r- feirm a Divine-human weirk. Even sei elistant an analogy may enable us, howe-ver, to re-e-eignize that as, in the- case of Our Lord s persem, _ the- human nature re-mains truly human while ye-t it can ne-ver fall into sin or error because; it can ne^ve-r act out of re-hit ion with the Divine nature into conjunction with which it has he-en bremght; so in the case of the preiduction of Scripture by the e-einjoint action eif human and Divine factors, the human factors have acteel as human facteirs and have; le>ft their mark on the product as such, anel ye>t cannot have falle n into that error whie-h we say it is human to fall intei, because the-y have not ae-te-el apart from the Divine fae-tors, by themselves, but only under their une-rring guidance.

      The NT testimony is to the Divine origin and qualities of "Scripture"; anel "Scripture" to the writers of the; NT was fundamentally, 17. Scrip- of course, the OT. In the; primary ture of NT passage , in which we are told that Writers "every" or "all Scripture" is "God- Was the OT breathed," the direct re-fe-rence is to the "sae-reel writings" whie-h Timothy had had in knowledge since his infancy, anel these were-, of e-ourse, just the sacred books of the Jews (2 Tim 3 16). What is explicit he-re is implicit in all the allusions to inspired Scriptures in the NT. Ae-e-orelingly, it is fre-que-ntly said that our entire testimony to the inspiration of Scripture concerns the OT "alone. In many ways, however, this is overstate-d. Our prese-nt concern is not with the exte-nt of "Scripture" but with the nature of "Scripture-"; anel we cannot present here the con- side-ratiems which justify extending to the NT the inspiration which the NT writers attribute to the; OT. It will not be out of place, howe>ve-r, to point out simply that the NT writers obviously them selves made this exte-nsion. They do not for an instant imagine the-mse-lves, as ministers of a new covenant , less in peissessiem of the Spirit of God than the- ministers of the old covenant: the-y freely re-ceignize-, indeed, that they have no sufficiency of the inse-lves, but they know that God has made them sufficient (2 Cor 3 5.6). They prosecute the-ir weirk of proclaiming the gospe l, therefore, in full confide-nce that they speak "by the Holy Spirit" (1 Pet 1 12), to whom they attribute both the



      Inspiration Instrument

      matter and form of their teaching (1 Cor 2 13). They, therefore, speak with the utmost assurance of their teaching (Gal 1 7.X); and they issue com mands with the completes!, authority (1 Thess 4 2.14; 2 Thess 3 6.12), making it, indeed, the test of whether one has the Spirit that he should recog nize what they demand as commandments of God (1 Cor 14 37). It would be, strange, indeed, if these high claims were made for their oral teaching and commandments exclusively. In point of fact, they are made explicitly also for their written in junctions. It was "the things" which Paul was "writing," the recognition of which as commands of the Lord, he makes the test of a Spirit-led man (1 Cor 14 37). It is his "word by this epistle," obedience to which he makes the condition of Chris tian communion (2 Thess 3 14). There seems in volved in such an attitude toward their own teach ing, oral and written, a claim on the part of the NT writers to something very much like the "inspira tion" which they attribute to the writers of the ()T. And all doubt is dispelled when we observe the NT writ ers placing the writ ings of one anol her in the same category of "Scripture" with the 18. Inclu- books of the OT. The same Paul who, sion of NT in 2 Tim 3 10, declared that every or all scripture is God-breathed had already written in 1 Tim 5 IS: "For the scripture saith, Thou shall not muzzle the ox when he treat let h out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire." The first clause here is derived from Dt and the sec ond from the Gospel of Lk, though both are cited as together constituting, or better, forming part of the "Scripture" which Paul adduces as so authori tative as by its mere citation to end all strife. Who shall say that, in the declaration of the later ep. that "all" or "every" Scripture is God- breathed, Paul did not have, Lk, and, along with Lk, whatever other new books he classed with the old under the name of Scripture, in the back of his mind, along with those old books which Timothy had had in his hands from infancy? And the same Peter who declared that every "prophecy of scrip ture" was the product of men who spoke "from God, "being borne by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet 1 21), in this same ep. (3 10), places Paul s Epp. in the category of Scripture along with whatever other books deserve that name. For Paul, says he, wrote these epp., not out of his own wisdom, but "ac cording to the wisdom given to him," and though there are some things in them hard to be understood, yet it is only "the ignorant and unstedfast" who wrest these difficult passages as what else could be expected of men who wrest "also the other Scriptures" (obviously the OT is meant) "unto their own destruction"? Is it possible to say that Peter could not have had these epp. of Paul also lurking somewhere in the back of his mind, along with "the other scriptures," when he told his readers that every "prophecy of scripture" owes its origin to the prevailing operation of the Holy Ghost? What must be understood in estimating the testi mony of the NT writers to the inspiration of Scrip ture is that "Scripture" stood in their minds as the title of a unitary body of books, throughout the gift of God through His Spirit to His people; but that this body of writings was at the same time under stood to be a, growing aggregate, so that what is said of it applies to the new books which were being added to it as the Spirit gave them, as fully as to the old books which had come down to them from their hoary past. It is a mere matter of detail to deter mine precisely what new books were thus included by them in the category "Scripture." They tell us some of them themselves. Those who received them from their hands tell us of others. And when we put the two bodies of testimony together we find

      that they constitute just our NT. It is no pressure of the witness of the writers of the NT to the in spiration of the Scripture, therefore, to look upon it as covering the entire body of "Scriptures," the new books which they were themselves adding to this aggregate, as well as the old books which they had received as Scripture from the fathers. Whatever can lay claim by just right to the appellation of "Scripture," as employed in its eminent sense by those writers, can by the same just right lay claim to the "inspiration" which they ascribe to this "Scripture."

      LITERATURE. J. Gerhard, Loci Theolog., Locus I; P. Turretin, Instil. The,,!., Locus II; B. do Moor, Comm. in ./. Marckii Comp., cap. ii; C. Hodge, Siist. Theol., New York, 1S71, I, 151-80; Henry B. Smith, The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, New York, 1855, new cd, Cincin nati, 1X91; A. Kuyper, Encyclopedic. der heiliijc God- oeleerdheid, 1888-89, II, 347 if, ET; Enc of Sacred Theol. , Now York, 1898, 341-50:5: also Dt, Schrift hct woord (io,ls, Ticl, 1870; H. IJavinck, Gereformeerde Dotjttnili, /;-. Kampen, 1900, I, 400-527; K. Haldane, The Verlal In spiration of the Scriptures Established, Edinburgh. 1830; J. T. Hook. Eiideitunu in, /las Si/stem der christlichen Lehre, Stuttgart, 18158, 2d ed, 1870; A. (!. Rudolbaoh, " Dio Lehre von dor Inspiration dor hoil. Schrift," Zeitschrift fur die t/esaminte Lutherische Theolot/ie und Kirche, 1840, 1, 1841, 1, 1842, 1; S. R. L. Gaussen, Theopneustie ou inspiration plcniere des saintcs ecritures-, Paris, 1842, ET by K. N. Kirk, Now York, 1842; also Theopneustia; the Plenary Inspiration of the Uohj

      Scriptures, David Scott s tr, reedited and revised by B. \\\\V. Carr, with a preface by C. H. Spurgeon, London, 1888; William Loo, The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, Donellan Lecture, 1852, Now York, 1857; James Ban- nerman, Inspiration: the Infallible Truth and Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, Edinburgh, 1805; F. L. Patton, The Inspiration of the Scriptures, Philadelphia, 1809 (reviewing Loo and Bannerman); Charles Elliott, -I Treatise on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures Edinburgh, 1877; A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warliold, "Inspiration," Presbyterian Review, April, 1881, also tract, Philadelphia, isst; R. Watts. The Rule of Faith and the Doctrine of Inspiration, Edinburgh, 1885; A. Cave, The Inspiration of the OT Induct in I y Consider! </ London, 1888; B. Manly, The Jiihlr. Doctrine of Inspira tion, Now York, 1888; W. Rohnort, Die, Inspiration der In Hi,/, n, Schrift und Hire Bestreiter, Leipzig, 1889; A. \\\\V. Dieckhoff, Die Inspiration und Irrthumlosigkeit der heiliyen Schrift, Leipzig, 1891; J. Wichelhaus, Die Lehre der heiligen Schrift, Stuttgart, 1892; J. Maogrogor, The Jf> r> lation an,! the Record, Edinburgh, 189)5; J. I rquliart, The Inspiration anil Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures London, 1895; C. Peseh, De Inspirations Sacrae Scrip- turae, Freiburg, 1900; James Orr, Revelation and Inspira tion, London, 1910.


      INSTANT, in stant, INSTANTLY, in stant-li: Derivative from Lat instare. Found in Eng. with various meanings from the loth cent, to the present time.

      Instant is used once in Isa 29 5 in the sense of immediate time; elsewhere in the sense of urgent, pressing; Lk 23 2:5, where "were instant" is the AV tr of the vb. tirtufivTo, cpekcinlo; Horn 12 12, where it is involved in the vb. TrpoaKaprep^w, proskartcrcu; cf Acts 64. In 2 Tim 4 2 it stands for the ex pressive vb. tirlffTijOi, cpixlcl/ii, "stand to."

      Instantly (urgently, stedfastly) is the AV render ing _of two different Gr phrases, o-irovdaiws, spou- daios, found in Lk 7 4; and tv eKrevela, en ekte- ncia, in Acts 26 7. In both cases ARV renders "earnestly." Ri SSELL BENJAMIN MILLER


      INSTRUMENT, in stroo-ment pbs , Ml; in Gr pi. oirX.a, hopla, Rom 6 13) : The word in the OT is used for utensils for service, chiefly in connection with the sanctuary (cf Ex 25 9; Nu 4 12.2(5.32; 1 K 19 21; 1 Ch 9 29; 2 Ch 4 10, AV); for weapons of war (1 S 8 12; 1 Ch 12 33.37, etc); notably for musical instruments. See Music. The members of the body are described by Paul (Rom 6 13) as "instruments" to be used in the service of righteousness, as before they were in the service of unrighteousness.

      Instruments Intercession



      INSTRUMENTS OF MUSIC (ZTTTVIp, *////- 8 /,7/H): Thus \\\\(\\\\ and AV (1 S 18 (i), RVm "tri angles" or three-stringed instruments.

      MfSK .

      INSURRECTION, in-su-rek shun: The word in Ps 64 2 AV is changed in RV into "tumult E/r 4 I .I ivh.) it represents the Aram. S il" ,, to "Hft up oneself." In the NT <^a<m "/" " < < rendered "insurrection in Mk 15 , A\\\\ (where ct the vb "made insurrection"), hut in Lk 23 l ).2;j "sedition " RV correctly renders "insurrection throughout; also in Acts 24 .". "insurrections lor AV "sedition."

      INTEGRITY, in-teg ri-ti iZF . lorn, T2F , / ////- //,! The tr of tuni, simplicity," "soundness, "completeness," rendered also "upright," "per fection " Its original sense appears in the phrase //f,//, (1 K 22 31; 2 Ch 18 33), "A certain man drew his how at a venture," m "Heb, in his sim plicity" icf 2 S 15 11, "in their simplicity"). It Is tr 1 "integrity" (den 20 5.0; 1 K 9 I ; Ps 7 s; 25 21; 26 l.l l: 41 12; 78 72; Prov 19 1; 20 7), in all which places it seems to carry the meaning of simplicity, or sincerity of heart and intention, truthfulness, uprightness . In the pi. (ttunmim] it is one of the words on the breastplate of the high priest (Kx 28 30; 1)1 33 S; E/r 2 (>3; Xeh 7 ! >:, one of the sacred lots, indicating, perhaps, "inno- eence" or "integrity" (\\\\.\\\\\\\\ulilh<i,i).^ Seel iUM AND TIITMMIM. Another word tr 1 "integrity" is iw/d/i, from id t,ni in, "to complete," "be upright," "perfect, only in Job 2 3.<>; 27 ">; 31 (i; Prov 11 3.

      The word "integrity" does not occur in the XT, but its equivalents may be seen in "sincerity," "truth," the "pure heart," the "single eye," etc. In the above sense of NI /H /ilicil i/ of it/It ntni/i it is equivalent to being honest, sincere, genuine, and is fundamental to true character.

      W. L. WALKKK

      INTELLIGENCE, in-tel i-gens (fll , bin): Oc curs only once in AV as the tr of bin, "to dis criminate" (frequently tr 1 "to understand"), in Did 11 30 AV, "[he shall] have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant," RV renders "have regard unto them." "Intelligence" occurs in 2 Mace 3 ( .l AV, in the sense of infariiuilion (so RV).

      INTEND, in-tend , INTENT, in-tent :_ Early Eng. words derived from Lat and used in AV, sometimes in R\\\\ , to translate a number of different expressions of the original.

      Intend is sometimes used in Eng. in the literal sense of Lat inli nilt ;v, "to si ret ch," hut in t he Eng. Bible it is used only of the direction of the mind toward an object. Sometimes it is used of mere design (juAXw, ,,n llr, Acts 5 3.">AV; 20 13; or of desired action (WXw, thtlo), Lkl42s.\\\\V; again of a fixed purpose (/IcwXo/zcu, honlnnnii ), Acts 5 2S; 12 -I; or, finally, of a declared intention ( amar), Josh 22 33 AV; 2 Ch 28 13 AV.

      Intent is used only of purpose, and is the tr some times of a conjunction (l r bha*&bhur*), 2 S 17 11; I inn an j, 2 K 10 I 1 ,); (iVa, M/t), Eph 3 10; some times of an infinitive of purpose. 1 Cor 10 (i; or of a preposition with pronoun ui s TOI TO, < i* toiilni, Acts

      9 21, and sometimes of a suhst . (Xoyy, II KJI">), Acts

      10 2 .). This variety of original expressions repre sented in the Eng. by single terms is an interesting illustration of the extent of interpretation embodied in our JMig. Bible.

      RTSSKI.L BKNMAMIV MILI.KH INTERCESSION, in-ter-sesh un ("JS , i>n.</l,<i\\\\ "to make intercession"; originally "to strike ujion,"

      or "against"; then in a good sense, "to assail any one with petitions," "to urge," and when on behalf of -mother, "to intercede" [Ruth 1 Hi; Jer 7 16; 27 Is; .lob 21 l.V, den 23 S; Isa 53 12; Jer 36 2.~>1. A similar idea is found in evrty^is, cn- tciifis, used as petition," and in the NT "inter cession." The Eng. word is derived from Lat I nld-niln, "to come between," which strangely has the somewhat opposed meanings of "obstruct" and "to interpose on behalf of" a person, and finally "to intercede." The growth of meaning in this word in the various languages is highly suggestive. In the Or NT we find the word in 1 Tim 2 1; 4 .">; evTu-yx"- 1 " I ltltiyrliritnl, is also found in Rom 8 L ti 34):

      Ft vmologv and Meaiiiiif, of Term in the (>T ;ind XT 1. MAN H [NTEKCESSION KK His P EI.LO \\\\v-M.\\\\N

      1. 1 iitriarcliiil ICxaniples

      _> Intercessions of Moses

      :i. The I ronress of Religion, Seen in Moses In tercessions

      4 Intercessory Prayer in Israel s Later History

      r , The Rise of Official Intercession

      li Samuel as an Intercessor as Judge, Priest and Prophet

      7 Intercession ill the Poetic Books

      s The Hooks of Wisdom

      ;. Tin- Prophets Succession to Moses and S;i illllel

      ID. The Priest and Intercession

      1 1 . Intel-cession in the I iospels

      12. Intercessory l ra.\\\\ ers of t lie < linrcli

      1:5. [ntercession I- oun<l in the Kpistles



      The meaning of the word is determined by its use in 1 Tim 2 1, "1 exhort, therefore, first of all, that, supplications, prayers, iiUerces- Etymology sions, thanksgivings, be made for all and Mean- men"; where the different kinds of ing of Term prayers appear to be distinguished. Considerable discussion lias arisen on the exact meaning of these words. Augustine refers them to the liturgy of the Eucharist. This seems to be importing the .significance of the various parts of the ceremony as observed at a time much later than the date of the passage in question. "Suppli cations" and "prayers" refer to general and specific petitions; "intercessions" will then have; the mean ing of a request concerning others.

      Intercession is prayer on behalf of another, and naturally arises from the instinct of the human heart not merely prompted by affection and inter est, but recognizing that Cod s relation to man is not merely individual, but social. Religion thus involves man s relations to his fellow-man, just as in man s social position intercession with one on behalf of another is a common incident, becoming, in the development of society, the function of ap pointed oflicials; as in legal and courtly procedure, so in religion, the spontaneous and affectionate prayer to Cod on behalf of another grows into the regular anil orderly service of a duly appointed priesthood. Intercession is thus to be regarded: (1) as the spontaneous act of man for his fellow- man ; (2) the official act of developed sacerdot alism ; ( . )) the perfecting of the natural movement, of hu manity, and the typified function of priesthood in the intercession of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

      /. Man s Intercession for His Fellow- Man. Many such prayers are recorded in Scripture. The sacrificial act of Noah may have been 1. Patri- ] tartly of this nature, for it is followed archal by a promise of Cod on behalf of the

      Examples nice and the earth at large (Cen 8 20- 22). Such also is Abraham s prayer for Ishmael (Cen 17 18); Abraham s prayer for Sodom (Cen 18 23-33); Abraham for Abimelech (Cen 20 17). Jacob s blessing of Joseph s sons is of the nature of intercession (Gen 48 S-23). His



      Instruments Intercession

      dying blessing of his sons is hardly to be regarded as intercessory; it is, rather, declarative, although in the case of Joseph it approaches intercession. The absence, of distinct intercessory prayer from Abra ham to Moses is to be observed, and shows how In tensely personal and individual (he religious con sciousness was still in its undeveloped quality. In Moses, however, the social element finds a further development, and is interesting as taking up the spirit of the Father of the Faithful. Moses is the creator of the national spirit. He lifts religion from its somewhat selfish character in the patriarchal life to the higher and wider plane of a national and racial fellowship.

      The progressive character of the Divine leading of man is found thus in the development of the inter cessory spirit, e.g. Moses prayer for the

      2. Inter- removal of plagues (Ex 15 251 ;; for cessions of water at Kephidim (17 4); for victory Moses over Amalek (17S-10); prayer for

      the people after the golden calf (Ex 32 1 1 -14.21-34; 33 12 f); after the renewal of the tables of stone (34 9); at, the setting forth and stopping of the Ark (Nu 10 35 f); after the burning at Taberah (Nu 11 2); for the healing of Miriam s leprosy (12 13;; after the return of the spies (14 13-19); after the destruction by serpents (Nu 21 7); for direction in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad (27 5); for a successor (27 15); recital of his prayer for the people for their entrance into Canaan (Dt 3 23 fj; recital of his prayer for the people after the worship of the golden calf (9 IX ff); recital of prayers for the rebellious people (Dt 9 25-29); a command to him who pays his third-year tithes to offer prayer for the nation (26 15); Moses final blessing of the tribes (Dt 33).

      This extensive series of the intercessory prayers

      of Moses forms a striking illustration of the growth

      of religion, represented by the founder

      3. The of the national life of Israel. It is the Progress of history of an official, but it is also the Religion history of a leaden- whose heart was Seen in the filled with the intensest patriotism and Interces- regard for his fellows. None of these sions of prayers are perfunctory. They are Moses the vivid and passionate utterances of

      a man full of Divine enthusiasm and human affect ion. They are real prayers wrung from a great and devout soul on occasions of deep and crit ical importance. Apart from 1 heir import ance in the history of Israel, they are a noble record of a great leader of men and servant of God.

      In the history of Joshua we find only the prayer for the people after the sin of Achan (Josh 7 <>-!>), although the communications from (loci to Joshua arc; 4 Interces- numerous. A faint intercessory note may cnrv Pr-Qvur }w h( ard in Deborah s song (.IKS 5 :ili, &uiy .ridyer though it is almost silenced by thestern and in Later warlike; tone of the poem. Gideon s prayer

      History of seems to reecho something of the words" of T i Moses (Js 6 1H), and accords with the na

      tional and religious spirit of the great leader who helped in the formation of the religious life of his people (see Jgs 6 24), notwithstanding the evident lower plane on which lie stood (Jgs 8 27), which may account partially for the apostasy after his death (Jgs 8 33 f). Manoah s prayers (Jgs 13) 5. The Rise ma -V 1)( - noted. (The satisfaction of Micah of Official at securing a priest, for his house, and the subsequent story, belong rather to the his- Intercession tory of oflicial intercession [Jgs 18; see below], as also the inquiry of the people through Phinehas at, Shiloh [Jgs 20 27 f], and the peo ple s mourning and prayer [Jgs 21 2 f].)

      Samuel is the real successor of Moses, and in connection with his life intercession again appears more distinct and effective. Hannah s song, though chiefly of thankfulness, is not without the inter cessory spirit (1 S 2 1-11). So also of Samuel s prayer at Mizpeh (1 S 7 5), and the recognition by the people of Samuel s place (1 S 7 S f; see also

      8 0.21; 10 17-25; 12 19) (for the custom of in quiring of the Lord through a seer see 1 S 9 0-10;;

      Samuel s prayer for Saul (1 S 15 11); 6. Samuel Saul s failure to secure inquiry of (lod, as an Inter- even through intercession (IS 28 0;; cessor in Saul s final appeal through the witch His Func- of Endor (1 S 28 7-20); David s tions as prayer to Clod (2 S 7 IS); David s Judge, prayer for deliverance of the people

      Priest and from pestilence (2 S 24 17); Solo- Prophet inon s prayer for wisdom to govern the

      people (1 K 3 5-15); Solomon s prayer at the dedication of the temple (1 K 8 12-61); Jeroboam s appeal to the man of Cod to pray for the healing of his hand (1 K 13 0); Elijah s prayer for the widow s son (1 K 17 20); Elijah s prayer for ram (1 K 18 42); Elisha s prayer for the widow s son (2 K 4 33); Elisha s prayer for the opening of the young man s eyes (2 K 6 17); He/ekiah s appeal to Isaiah (2 K 19 4); Heze- kiah s prayer (2 K 19 14-19); Josiah s command for prayer concerning the "book that is found (2 K 22 13). In Ch we find David s prayer for his house (1 Ch 17 10-27); David s prayer for de liverance from the plague (21 17); David s prayer for the people and for Solomon at the offering of gifts for the temple (29 10-19); Solomon s prayer at the consecration of the temple (2 Ch 6 1-42); Asa s prayer (14 11); Jehoshaphat s prayer (2 Ch 20 5-13); Hezekiah s prayer for the people who had not prepared to eat the Passover (2 Ch 30 IS); Josiah s command for prayer concerning the book (34 21). In the Prophets we note Ezra s prayer (Ezr 9 5-15); Nehemiah s prayer (Neh 1 5-l l); the prayer of the Levites for the nation (Neh 9 4- 38).

      The poetic books furnish a few examples of inter cessory prayer: Job s intercession for his children (Job 1 5); Job s regret at t he absence of inter- 7 Tntpr cession (Job 16 21): the Lord s command

      . . that Job should pray for his friends (Job 42 cession m s). It is remarkable that the references to the Poetic intercession in the Pss are few: but it must Books no !" f f K<>tten that the psalm is generally

      a lyrical expression of an intense subjective condition. This does not seem in the con sciousness of Israel to have reached an altruistic- devel opment. The Pss express very powerfully the sense of obligation to (iod, consciousness of sin, indignation against the sin of others. Occasionally the patriotic spirit leads to prayer for Israel: but only rarely does any deep sense of interest in the welfare of others appear to possess the hearts of Israel s singers. In Ps 2 12 there is a hint of the intercessory oflice of the Son. which reflects, perhaps, the growth of the Messianic spirit in the mind of Israel: Ps 20 is intercessional; it is the prayer of a people for their king. In Ps 25 22 we find a prayer for the redemption of Israel, as in Ps 28 .- In Ps 35 1-i the Psalmist refers to his intercession for ot hers. But the " prayer ret urned into mine own bosom," and the final issue of the prayer becomes rather denun ciatory than intercessional. The penitence, of Ps 51 rises into a note of prayer for the city (ver IS). Some times (Ps 60, and perhaps Ps 67). the prayer is not indi vidual but for the community, though even there it is hardly intercession. A common necessity makes a common prayer. In T s 69 there is the recognition of the injury that folly and sin may do to others, and a kind of compensatory note of intercession is heard. Ps 72 is regarded by some as the royal father s prayer for his son and successor, but the, reading of the title adopted by TtV takes even this psalm from the category of inter cession. In Asaph s Maschil (Ps 74). intercession is more distinct; it is a prayer for the sanctuary and the people in their desolation and calamity. Asaph appears to have caught something of the spirit of Moses, as in Ps 79 he again prays for the deliverance of Jerus ; while a faint echo of the intercessory plea for the nation is heard in Ethan s psalm (Ps 89). It sounds faintly in Ps 106. In Ps 122 we seem to breathe a larger and more liberal spirit. It contains the appeal to pray for the peace of Jems (ver (5), as if the later thought "of Israel had begun to expand beyond the mere limits of personal penitence, or desire for deliverance, or denunciation of the enemy. In one of the Songs of Degrees (Ps 125), there is the somewhat, severely ethical prayer: " Do good, O Jeh, unto those that are good." The yearning for the salvation of man as man has not yet been born. The Christ must come before the fulness "of Divine love is shed abroad in the hearts even of the pious. This

      Intercession Inter, of Christ



      comparative absence .if intercessory prayer from the service-book of Israel, anil ils collected expressions cif spiritual experience. is instructive. \\\\Ve find continued references to those ulio needed prayer: hut for Hie most part these reference- are descriptive nf I h> ir wickedness, or denunciatorv c if i In ir In >-t ilil v (u tin- I sulinisl. The Hook of I ss is t lms a st rikinsi com men I arv on t lie ^row t h of Israel - spiritual life. Intense us ii i- in its perception , ,f i ,in I and His claim on 1m man righteousness, it is only when the supreme re\\\\elalion of |)i\\\\ine love and the regard for universal man has appeared in the person of Our Lord that the larLje and loving spirit which inter cession s jollities i- found in t he experience and expressions of t he pious.

      In t he Wisdom honks t here is lit tie. if any. reference to intercession. lint they deal rather with ethical char acter, and often on a merelv providential 8 The "" utilitarian basis. It is noticeahle that

      , ,. , tin-only reference to pleading a cause is said

      Wisdom ,,, ,. hy , hl . Llin | ||i msi .|r a - a^ain-t the

      Books injnstici- of man fl ro\\\\ 22 - > ".lehuill

      plead their [the poor s] cause." Action on hehalf of others dues not appear to have heen very highly regarded hy the current ethics of the Israelite. A kind of negative helpfulness is indicated in I rov 24 Lis; "Be not a witness against thv neighbor without cause "; and it is significant that the ollice of advocate was not known amont, the .lew.- until they had come under the authority of Koine, when, not knowing the forms of Kom law. t hev were obliged to secure the aid of a Kom lawyer before t he courts. Such practitioners uere found in the provinces M ic. i>ni Coi-liu c. :5()j ; Tertullus i^Acts 24 1) was such an advocate.

      In the prophoticul hooks the note of intercession reappears. The prophet, though ])i ini;trily ;i mes senger from Cod to man, has also 9. The something of the character of the inter-

      Prophets cessor (see Isaiah s call, Isa 6). Isa Succession 25,26 exhibit the intercessory char- to Moses acteristics. Tlie request of lle/e- and Samuel kiah tor the prayers of Isaiah (Isa 37 1 i, and the answer of the Lord implied in ver (i, recall (he constantly recurring service of Moses to the people. Ile/ekiah himself hecomes an intercessor (vs 14-21). In Jer 4 10 intercession is mingled \\\\vit h t he words of t he messen ger. The sin of the people hinders such prayers as were offered on their hehalf (Jer 7 Hi; cf ll 14; 14 11). Intercessory prayers are found in Jer 10 23 ff; 14 71T.1U 22. The message of Zedekiah re questing Jeremiah s help is perhaps an instance of seer-inquiry as much as intercession (Jer 21 1 f; cf 1 S 9 19). In Jer 42 4, the prophet consents to the request of Johanan to seek the Lord on hehalf of the people. The Hook of Lam is naturally con ceived in a more constantly recurring spirit of inter cession. In the prophecies Jeremiah has heen the. messenger of God to the people. Hut, after the ca tastrophe, in his sorrow he appeals to ( lod for mercy upon them (Lam 2 20; 5 !.!<)). Ezekiel in the same \\\\vay is rather the seer of visions and the pro phetic representative of Cod. Yet at times he appeals to Cod for the people (E/k 9 S; 11 l. >). In Dnl \\\\ve find the intercession of his three friends sought for in order to secure the revelation of t he king s dream (Dnl 2 17); and Daniel s prayer for Jems and her people (Dnl 9 1(1 li).

      In the Minor Prophets intercession rarely appears; even in the graphic pictures of Jonah, though the work itself shows the enlarging of the conception of Cod s relation to humanity outside of Israel, the prophet himself exhihits no tenderness and utters no pleas for the city against which he had heen sent to prophesy, and receives the implied rehuke from the Lord for his want of sympathy, caring more for the perished gourd than for t he vast population of Nineveh, whom the Lord, however, pitied and spared (Jon 4). Even the suhlime prayer of Hah 3 has only a suggestion of intercession, Zee 6 1:5 relieves the general severity of the prophetic mes sage, consisting of the t hreatenings of judgment, hy 1 he gleam of the promise of a royal priest whose office was partially thai of an intercessor, though the picture is darkened hy the character of the

      priesthood and the people, whose services had been

      selfish, without mercy and compassion (Zee 7 4.7). Now the spirit of tenderness, the larger nature, the loving heart, are to he restored to Israel (Zee 8 l(i- 23). Other nations than Israel will share in the mercy of Cod. In Mai 2 7 we find the priest relinked for the loss of his intercessory character.

      How far intercession was regarded as a special

      duly of the priesthood it is not very easy to

      determine. The priestly office itself

      10. The was undoubtedly intercessory. In the Priest and offering of the sacrifice even for the Intercession individual, and certainly in the nation al functions, both of the regular and

      the occasional ceremonies, t he priest represented 1 he individual or the community. In Joel 2 17 the priests are distinctly hidden to weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, () Jell." Mai 1 appeals to them for intercession to ( !od, and the graphic scene in 1 Mace 7 33 MS shows the priests interceding on hehalf of t he people against Nicanor.

      In t he XT, all prayer necessarily 1 akes a new form from its relation to Our Lord, and in this inter cessory prayer shares. At the outset,

      11. Inter- Christ teaches prayer on behalf of cession in those which despitefully use you" the Gospels (Mt 5 44 AV). How completely does

      this change the entire spirit of prayer! \\\\Ye breathe a new atmosphere of the higher revela tion of love. The Lord s Prayer (Mt 6 9-1)3) is of this character. Its initial word is social, do mestic; prayer is the address of children to the Father. Even though some of the petitions are not original, yet their place in the prayer, and the general tone of (lie Master s teaching, exhihit the social and altruistic spirit, not so pervasive of the older dis pensation. "Thy kingdom come" leads the order of petitions, with its essentially intercessory char acter. The forgiveness of others, which is the measure and plea of our own forgiveness, brings even those who have wronged us upon the same plane as ourselves, and if the plea be genuine, how can we refuse to pray for them? And if for our enemies, then surely for our friends. In Mt 7 11 f, the good things sought of the Father are to be inter preted as among those that if we desire from others we should do to them. And from this spirit the intercessory prayer cannot be absent. We find the spirit of intercession in t he pleas of those who sought Christ s help for their friends, which He was always so quick to recognize: the centurion for his servant (Mt 8 13); the friends of the paralytic (Mt 9 2-(i), where the miracle was wrought on the ground of the friends faith. Of a similar character are the re quests of the woman for her child and the Lord s response (Mt 15 2S); of the man for his lunatic son (17 14-21). There is the suggestion of the intercessory spirit in the law of trespass, specifically followed by the promise of the answer to the prayer of the two or three, agreed and in fellowship (Mt 18 1")-20), with the immediately attached precepts of forgiveness (vs 21-3")). A remarkable instance of intercession is recorded in Mt 20 20-23, where the mother of Zehedee s sons makes a request on behalf of her children; the added expression, "wor shipping him," raises the occasion into one of inter cessory prayer. Our Lord s rebuke is not to the prayer, hut to its unwisdom.

      It is needless to review the cases in the other Gospels. But the statement of Mk 6 5 f, that Christ could not perform mighty works because of unbelief, sheds a flood of light upon one of the im portant conditions of successful intercession, when contrasted with the healing conditioned by the faith of others than the healed. One of the most distinct examples of intercessory prayer is that of



      Intercession Inter, of Christ

      the Lord s intercession for Peter (Lk 22 31 f), and for those who crucified Him (Lk 23 34). The place of intercession in the work of Christ is seen clearly in Our Lord s intercessory prayer (see INTERCESSION OF CHRIST), where it is commanded by definite precept and promise of acceptance. The promise of the answer to prayer in the name of Christ is very definite (Jn 16 24). Christ s high-priestly prayer is the sublimest height of prayer to God and is inter cessory throughout (Jn 17); Jn 16 26 does not, as some have held, deny His intercession for His disciples; it only throws open the approach to God Himself.

      Acts introduces us to the working of the fresh ele ments which Christ gave to life. Hence the prayers of the. church becomcChristian prayers, 12. Inter- involving the wider outlook on others cessory and on the world at large which Chris-

      Prayers tianity has bestowed on men. The of the prayer of the assembled believers upon

      Church the liberation of the apostles breathes

      this spirit (Acts 4 24-30). The con secrating prayer for the seven was probably inter cessory (Acts 60; cf Acts 1 24). How pathetic is I lie plea of Stephen for his murderers (Acts 7 GO)! How natural is intercession (Acts 8 24)! Peter at Joppa (Acts 9 40); the church making prayer with out ceasing for Peter (Acts 12 5.12); the prayer for Barnabas and Saul at Antioch (Acts 13 3); Paul and Barnabas praying for the churches (Acts 14 23 ) ; the church at Antioch commending Paul and Silas to the grace of God (Acts 15 40); Paul and the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20 30), are all examples, more or less defined, of intercessory prayer.

      In the Epp. we may expect to find intercession more distinctly filled with the relation of prayer through Christ. Paul gives us many examples in hisKpp.: for t he Romans (Rom 1 <.)): tin; Spirit s interceding (8 27); Paul s prayer for Ins race (10 1); his request for prayers (15 W)); the help that ho found from the prayer of his friends (2 Cor 1 11); prayer for the Corinthian church (2 Cor 13 7); for the Kphesians (Eph 1 16-2:5; 311 21; see also Eph 6 IS; Phil 1 :i-ll.l<); Col 1 .TO; 4 :i; 1 Thess 1 2; 5 2:5.25: 2 Thess 1 2 ) ; a definite com mand that intercession be made for all men and for kings and those in authority (1 Tim 2 1.2); his prayer for Timothy (2 Tim 1 3); for Philemon (ver4); and prayer to he offered for the sick by the elders of the church (Jas 5 14-18: see also He 13 18-21 ; 1 Jn 5 It If).

      //. Intercession Perfected in Christ s Office and in the Church. This review of the intercession of the Scriptures prepares us for the development of a specific office of intercession, perfectly realized in Christ. We have seen Moses complying with the people s request to represent them before God. In a large and generous spirit the leader of Israel intercedes with God for his nation. It was natural that this striking example of intercessory prayer should be followed by other leaders, and that the gradually developed system of religious worship should furnish the conception of the priest, and esp. the high priest, as the intercessor for those who came to the sacrifice. This was particularly the signifi cance of the great Day of Atonement, when after offering for himself, the high priest offered the sac rifice for the whole people. This official act , however, does not do away with the intercessory character of prayer as offered by men. We have seen how it runs through the whole history of Israel. But it is found much more distinctly in the Christian life and apparently in the practice of the Chris tian assembly itself. Paul continually refers to his own intercessory prayers, and seeks for a similar service on his own behalf from those to whom he writes. Intercession is thus based upon the natural tendency of the heart filled by love and a deep sym pathetic sense of relation to others. Christ s inter cessory prayer is the highest example and pattern

      13 Inter cession Found in

      oo 5

      of this form of prayer. His intercessions for His disciples, for His crucifiers, are recorded, and the sacred record rises to the supreme height in the prayer of Jn 17. In this prayer the following char acteristics are to be found: (1) It is based upon the intimate relation of Jesus to the Father. This gives to such prayer its justification; may it be said, its right. (2) It follows the completest fulfilment of duty. It is not the mere expression of desire, even for others. It is the crown of effort on their behalf. He has revealed God to His disciples. He has given to them God s words; therefore He prays for them (Jn 17 6.7-9). (3) It recognizes the Di vine, unbroken relation to the object of the prayer: "I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep," etc (ver 11). (4) The supreme end of the prayer is salvation from the evil of the world (ver 15). (5) The wide sweep of the prayer and its chief ob jects unity with God, and the presence with Christ, and the indwelling of the Divine love. The prayer is a model for all intercessory prayer. See, further, INTERCESSION OF CHRIST; PRAYERS OF CHRIST; OFFICES OF CHRIST.

      ///. Intercession of the Holy Spirit. In connec tion with the subject of intercession, there arises a most interesting question as to whether the Holy Spirit is not presented in Scriptures as an inter cessor. The text in which the doctrine seems to be taught is that of Rom 8 20 f : "In like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought ; but the Spirit himself makelh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered ; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." By far the larger number of exposi tors have understood by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The older commentators, in general, refer to the Holy Spirit. Tholuck, Ewald, Philippi, Meyer, most of the Amer. theologians and Eng. commenta tors, as Shedd, Alford, Jowett, Wordsworth, inter pret it in the same way. Lange and Olshausen refer it to the human spirit. Undoubtedly the "groanings" have led to the denial of the reference to the Holy Spirit. But the very form of the word tr d "helpeth" indicates cooperation, and this must be of something other than the spirit of man him self. The undoubted difficulties of the passage, which are strongly urged by Lange (see Lange s Cumin, on Rom 8 20), must be acknowledged. At the same time the statement seems to be very clear and definite. An explanation has been given that the Holy Spirit is hero referred to as dwelling in us, and thus making intercession. The Divine Spirit is said to be a Spirit of supplication (Zee 12 10). The distinction which is made between the inter cession of Christ in heaven in His priestly office and that of the Holy Spirit interceding within the souls of believers, referred to by Shedd (see C onun. on Horn}, must be carefully used, for if pressed to its extreme 1 it would lead to the materialization and localization of the Divine nature. Moreover, may not the intercession of Our Lord be regarded as being partially exemplified in that of the Spirit whom He has declared to be His agent and repre sentative? If Christ dwells in believers by His Spirit, His intercession, esp. if subjective in and with their spirits, may properly be described as the inter cession of the Holy Ghost . LL. D. BE VAN

      INTERCESSION OF CHRIST: The general con ception of Our Lord s mediatorial office is specially summed up in His intercession in which He appears in His high-priestly office, and also as interceding with the Father on behalf of that humanity whose cause He had espoused.

      Inter, of Christ Tin . i \\\\TEKN ATIONAF STAND Interpretation

      The funclion of priesthood as developed under Judaism involved the position o mliation boj UV een limn and God. 1 he I 1111 7 1 Christ s represented mini, and on man s behalt Intercession approached God; thus he often, sacn- Viewed in fire, interceded and gave to the oflerei fts Priestly whom he represented ,1,; bened,c,,on Aspect and expression oi the Div no acce -

      , UH .(, (K,,r i he various forms pi these offerings, see special art ides. ) As in sacrifice, so in the work of Christ, we find the proprietary ngnts ,,f the oiTerer in the sacrifice. For man, ( linst us ,. with man, and yM in His own personal right ,,,T,r< Himself (seo Rom 5; and cf (laid S with II,. 211> There was also the transfer oi guilt ,,,,1 Us conditions, typically by laying the hand on )h(1 i,,..,,! O f ,). animal, which then bore the sins ( ,he offerer and was presented to Cod by the pnesl Tl, ( . acknowledgment of sin and the surrender to (Jod is completely fulfilled in Christ s offering oi Elimself, and His death (cf Lev 3 2.8.13; 16 2 with l<a 53 f; 2 Cor 6 21). Our Fords inter cessory quality in the sacrifice of Himself is not only indicated by the imputation oi guilt to Him as representing the sinner, hut also in the victory pt His life over death, which is then given to man in Cod s acceptance of His representative and SUb- stit lite.

      I,, , i,,. Ep to the He, the intercessory character ,,f Our Lord s high-priestly office is transferred to

      the heavenly condition and work ot Christ, where the relation of Christ s work to man s condition is ,v<r. H-ded as heinii still continued in the heavenly place isee He 9 ll- - Sj. This ent ranee int o heaven is once tor all. and in the person of the high priest, the way is open to the very presence of God. From one point of view (lie 10 12) the priestly service of the Ford was concluded and gathered up into His kingly office (vs i:U 1-18). Hut, from another point of view, we ourselves are hidden to enter into the Holiest Place; as if in union with Christ we too become a kinidy priesthood (He 10 19-22; and cf 1 Pet 2 9).

      It must not be forgotten, however, thai thisrignt of entrance into the most Holy Place is one that depends entirely upon our vital union with Christ, He appears in heaven for us and we with Him, and in this sense He fulfils the second duty of His high- priestly ollice as intercessor, with the added con ception drawn from the legal advocacy of the Rom court. The term tr 1 "Advocate" in 1 .In 2 2 is irapa.K\\\\riTo<;, /inriilclrii^, which ill .In 14 It) is tr Comforter." The word is of familiar use in Ci f,, r i he le-ial advocate or puli im u* who appeared on behalf of his client. Thus, in the double sense of priest ly and legal representative, Our Ford is oui intercessor in Heaven.

      Of the modes in which Christ carries out His inter cessory ollice, we can have no knowledge except so far as we may fairly deduce them from the phrase ology and suggested ideas of Scripture. As high priest, it may surely he right for us to aid our weak faith by assuring ourselves that Our Ford pleads for us, while at the same time we must he careful not to deprave our thought concerning the glorified Ford by the metaphors and analogies of earthh p-lat ionship.

      The intercessory work of Christ may thus b< represented: He represents man before Cod in Hif perfect nat lire. His exalted of lice and His complete! work. The Scripture \\\\\\\\ord for this is (He 9 24 "to appear before the face of Cod for us." Then is also an active intercession. This is the office o ( )m Ford as advocate or parakletos. That thi conveys some relation to the aid which one who ha broken the law receives from an advocate canno be overlooked, and we find Christ s intercession ii



      this aspect brought into connection with the texts vhich refer to justification and its allied ideas (see lo, n 8 34; 1 Jn 2 1 i.

      In Pu \\\\VKS OF CHRIST (q.v.), the intercessory liaracter of many of Our Ford s prayers, and esp. that of .Jn 17, is considered. And it 1 Christ s has been impossible for Christian ntercessory thought to divest, itself of the idea Work from that the heavenly intercession ot Christ he Stand- is of the order of prayer. It is im- oint of possible for us to know; and even it

      Prayer Christ now prays to the Father, it can

      be in no way analogous to earthly irayers. The thought of some portion of Christ en- lom distinctly combined prayer in the heavenly work ,f the Ford! There is danger in extreme views. Scriptural expressions must not be driven too tar, md on the other hand, they must not be emptied >f all their contents. Modern Protestant teaching , as in its protest against a merely physical concep- iori of Our Ford s state and occupation in heaven, dmost sublimed reality from His intercessory work In Lutheran teaching the intercession of Our Lord was said to be "vocal," "verbal" and "oral. It has ,een well remarked that such forms of prayer re quire flesh and blood, and naturally the teachers ot t he Reformed churches, for t he most part , have con- tented themselves (as for example Hodge, byst. Tfn-ol II - r > ( .-5j with the declaration that the intercession of Christ includes: (1) His appearing before Cod in our behalf, as the sacrifice for our sins, as our high priest, on the ground of whose work we receive the remission of our sins, the gilt of the Holy Spirit, and all needed good; (2) de fence against the sentence of the law and the charges of Satan, who is the. great accuser; (3) His offering Himself as our surety, not only that the demands of justice shall he shown to be. satisfied, but that, I is people shall he obedient and faithful; (4) the obla tion of the persons of the redeemed, sanctifying their prayers, and all their services, rendering them acceptable to God, through the savor of his own merits."

      Even this expression of the elements which con stitute the intercession of the Ford, cautious and spiritual as it is in its application to Christian thought and worship, must he can-fully guarded from a too complete and materialistic use \\\\\\\\ ith- out this care, worship and devout thought may become degraded and fall into the mechanical forms by which Our Lord s position of intercessor has been reduced to very little more than an imaginative and spectacular process which goes on in some heavenly place. It must not be forgotten that the metaphorical and symbolic origin of the ideas which constitute Christ s intercession is always in danger of dominating and materializing the spiritual real ity of His intercessional office. LL. D. BEVAN

      INTEREST, in ter-est (iftM , ncxln kh, iHitshxha ; TOKOS, /oA-ax ): The Ileh word nesfu A // is from a root which means "to bite" ; thus interest is something bitten off." The other word, mashsha , means "lending on interest." The Gr term is from the root tiklo, "to produce" or "beget," hence in terest is something begotten or produced by money. The Heh words are usually tr 1 "usury," but this meant the same as interest, all interest being reck oned as usury.

      Long before Abraham s time money had been loaned at a fixed rate of interest in Babylonia and almost certainly in Egypt. The CH gives regula- t ions regarding the lending and borrowing of money, the usual interest being 20 per cent. Sometimes it was only llf and 13-J-, as shown by contract tab lets. In one case, if the loan was not paid in two months, 18 per cent interest would be charged.



      Inter, of Christ Interpretation

      Corn, dates, onions, etc, were loaned at interest. Thus Moses and Israel would be familiar with com mercial loans and interest. In Israel there was no system of credit or commercial loans in Moses time and after. A poor man borrowed because he was poor. The law of Moses (Ex 22 2.~>) forbade loan ing at interest. There was to be no creditor and no taker of interest among them (Lev 25 3(5.37). Dt permits them to lend on interest to a foreigner (Dt 23 19.20), but not to a brother Israelite. That this was considered the proper thing in Israel for centuries is seen in Ps 15 5, while Prov 28 8 im plies that it was an unusual thing, interest being generally exacted and profit made. E/ekiel con demns it as a heinous sin (E/k 18 8.13.17) and holds up the ideal of righteousness as not taking interest (22 12). Isa 24 2 implies that it was a business in that age, the lender and borrower being social types. Jeremiah implies that there was not always the best feeling between lenders and borrowers (15 10). According to Neh 5 7.10, rich Jews were lending to others and exacting heavy interest. Ne- hemiah condemns such conduct and forbids its con tinuance, citing himself as an example of lending without interest. The lenders restored 1 per cent of that exacted.

      In the NT, references to interest occur in the parable of the Pounds (Lk 19 23) and of the Talents (Mt 25 27). Here the men were expected to put their master s money out at interest, and condem nation followed the failure to do so. Thus the principle of receiving interest is not condemned in the OT, only it was not to be taken from a brother Israelite. In the NT it is distinctly encouraged. See also USURY. J. J. REEVE

      INTERMEDDLE, in-ter-med"l P"j<,

      "to mix up [self] with something," "mingle in," "share," "take interest in"): The word occurs only once (Prov 14 10) in a passage descriptive of "the ultimate solitude of each man s soul at all times." "The heart knoweth its own bitterness."

      "Nor oven the tenderest heart, and next our own, Knows half the reasons why we smile and sigh."

      (Cf 1 K 8 3S.) Something there is in every sorrow which no one else can share. "And a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy," not necessarily in an interfering or any offensive way, but simply does not share or take any interest in the other s joy.

      For "intermeddleth with" (Prov 18 1 AV), RV gives "rageth against" (m "quarrelleth with").

      M. 0. EVANS

      INTERMEDIATE, in-ter-me di-fit, STATE. See


      INTERPRETATION, in-tur-pre-t a/shun : Is a generic term and may refer to any work of litera ture. Referred specifically to the sacred 1. General Scriptures, the science of interpretation Principles is generally known as hermcneutics, while the practical application of the principles of this science is exegesis. In nearly all cases, interpretation has in mind the thoughts of another, and then, further, these thoughts expressed in another language t han that of the interpreter. In this sense it is used in Bib. research. A person has interpreted the thoughts of another when he has in his own mind a correct reproduction or photo graph of the thought as it was conceived in the mind of the original writer or speaker. It is accordingly a purely reproductive process, involving no origi nality of thought on the part of the interpreter. If the latter adds anything of his own it is eiscgcsis and not excf/rxis. The moment the Bible student has in his own mind what was in the mind of the author or authors of the Bib. books when these

      were written, he has interpreted the thought of the Scriptures.

      The interpretation of any specimen of literature will depend on the character of the work under consideration. A piece of poetry and a chapter of history will not be interpreted according to the same principles or rules. Particular rules that are legiti mate in the explanation of a work of fiction would be entirely out of place in dealing with a record of facts. Accordingly, the rules of the correct inter pretation of the Scriptures will depend upon the character of these writings themselves, and the principles which an interpreter will employ in his interpretation of the Scriptures will be in harmony with his ideas of what the Scriptures are as to origin, character, history, etc. In the nature of the case the dogmatical stand of the interpreter will mate rially influence his hermeneutics and exegesis. In the legitimate sense of the term, every interpreter of the Bible is "prejudiced," i.e. is guided by certain principles which he holds antecedently to his work of interpretation. If the modern advanced critic, is right in maintaining that the Bib. books do not differ in kind or character from the religious books of other ancient peoples, such as the Indians or the Persians, then the same principles that he applies in the case of the Rig Veda or the Zend A vest a he will employ also in his exposition of the Scriptures. If. on the other hand, the Bible is for him a unique collection of writings, Divinely inspired and a reve- lat ion from the source of all truth, the Bible student will hesitate long before accepting contradictions, errors, mistakes, etc, in the Scriptures.

      The Scriptun>s are a Divine and human product combined. That the holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Spirit is the 2. Special claim of the Scriptures themselves. Principles Just where the line of demarkation is to be drawn between the human and the Divine factors in the production of the sacred Scriptures materially affects the principles of inter preting these writings (see INSPIRATION). That the human factor was sufficiently potent to shape the form of thought in the Scriptures is evident on all hands. Paul does not write as Peter does, nor John as James; the individuality of the writer of the different books appears not only in the style, choice of words, etc, but in the whole form of thought also. There are such things as a Pauline, a Johannine and a Petrine type of Christian thought, although there is only one body of Christian truth under lying all types. In so far as the Bible is exactly like other books, it must be interpreted as we do other works of literature. The Scriptures are written in Heb and in Gr, and the principles of forms and of syntax that would apply to the ex planation of other works written in these lan guages and under these circumstances must be applied to the OT and NT also. Again, the Bible is written for men, and its thoughts are those of mankind and not of angels or creatures of a differ ent or higher spiritual or intellectual character; and accordingly there is no specifically Bib. logic, or rhetoric, or grammar. The laws of thought and of the interpretation of thought in these matters pertain to the Bible as they do to other writings.

      But in regard to the material contents of the Scriptures, matters are different and the principles of interpretation must be different. God is the author of the Scriptures which He has given through human agencies. Hence the contents of the Scriptures, to a great extent, must be far above the ordinary concepts of the human mind. When John declares that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to redeem it, the inter preter does not do justice to the writer if he finds in the word "God" only the general philosophical

      Interpretation Ir-ha-heres



      ,,,,,,.,,,! MS decsve a

      .,!,, mo citations from the ()T foun f

      there is not one in which the mere "It is written is not regarded as settling its meaning. _ \\\\\\\\hateyer m: iv l>e a liihle student s theory (.1 inspiration, the teachings and the examples of interpretation found in (he Scriptures arc in perfect harmony m tins

      pretation of the Scriptures principles must be ap- nlicd that are not applicable in the explanation ot other books. As God is the author of the Scrip-

      tures He may have had, and. as a mailer ol tact, m

      es did have in mind more than thehuman

      agents thmunh whom He spoke did themselves

      understand. The fact that, in the XT, persons


      like Aaron and David, institutions like the law, the sacrificial system, the priesthood and the like, ire interpreted" as typical of persons and things under the New Covenant shows that the t rue significance, e.g. of the Levitieal system, can be found only when studied in the light ot the JN 1 fulfilment .

      \\\\uain. the principle of parallelism, not for il trative but for argumentative purposes, is a rule that can, in the nature of the case, be applied to the interpretation of the Scriptures alone and not else where. As the Scriptures represent one body of truth, though in a kaleidoscopic variety of forms, a statement on a particular subject in one place can be accepted as in harmony with a statement on the same subject elsewhere. In short, in all of those characteristics in which the Scriptures are unlike oilier literary productions, the. principles of interpretation of the Scriptures must also be unlike those employed in other cases.

      Owing chiefly to the dogmatical basis of her- rneneutics as a" science, there lias been a great di vergence of views in the history of the 3. Histori- church as to the proper methods of cal Data interpretation. It is one of the char acteristic and instructive features of the XT writers that they absolutely refrain from the allegorical method of interpretation current in t host- times, particularly in the writings of Philo. Xot, even Gal 4 22, correctly understood, is an excep tion, since tliis, if an allegorical interpretation at all, is an (iri/nnn nluni ml /mini IK in . The sober and grammatical method of interpretation in the XT writers stands out, too, in bold and creditable con trast to that of the early Christian exegetcs, even of Origen. Only the Syrian fathers seemed to be an exception to the fantasies of the allegorical methods. The Middle Ages produced nothing new in this sphere; but the Reformation, with its formal principle that the Bible and the Bible alone is the rule of faith and life, made the correct gram matical interpretation of the Scriptures practically a matter of necessity. In modern times, not at all prolific in scientific discussions of hermeneutieal principles and practices, the exegetical methods of different interpreters are chiefly controlled by their views as to the origin and character of the Scrip tural books, particularly in regard to their inspi- rat ion.


      ITBRATUHE. Terry, HH>. Hermeneutics, Now York, l Here tin- literature is fully given, as also m W.eid-

      (1. II. SrilODDK



      INTERROGATION, in-ter-o-gii shun (^rcpii-n^a,

      fin miiinii) This word is not found at all in \\\\Y and once only iu AllV (1 Pet 3 21), where it replaces the word "answer" of AV. This change according to Alford and Be.igel is correct. "The interrogation of a good conscience" may refer to the question asked of a convert before baptism (cf Acts 8 o7l. or the appeal of the convert to ( lot! (cf

      1 .In 3 20 21 ). The opportunity to do this was given in bapt ism.



      INTREAT, in-t ret , INTREATY, in-t ret i (EN TREAT j : The two forms are derived from the same vb. In Kill the spelling was indifferently "m- treat" or "entreat." In editions of AV since 1700 "intreat" is used in the sense of "to beg"; "en treat" in the sense of "deal with." As examples of "intreat" see Kx 8 S, "Intreat the Lord" (ga*ak~) , Ruth 1 16, "Intreat me not to leave thee" (paghcf);

      2 Cor 8 4, "praying us with much intreaty" (Trapd- K \\\\ri<ra, ptimklcsis). In Gen 25 21 "intreat" is used to indicate the success of a petition. For entreat see Gen 12 10, "He entreated Abraham well"; Acts 27 3, "And Julius courteously en treated Paul" (4>i\\\\ai>epunrus XP 7 ? operas, philanthro- pos chn sdmenoH, lit. "to use in a philanthropic way"); cf also ,)as 3 17, where efor0i}s, eupetthzs, lit . "easily persuaded," istr 1 "easy to be entreated."

      RV changes all passages of AV where "intreat" is found to "entreat," with the exception of those mentioned below. The meaning of "entreat" is "to ask," "to beseech," "to supplicate": Job 19 17 reads "and my supplication to the children" (han- nnl/il, AV "though I intreated for the children," RVm "I make supplication"). Jer 15 11 reads, "I will cause the enemy to make supplication" (hiph- r/rt /7), instead, AV "I will cause the enemy to en treat" (RVm "I will intercede for thee with the enemy"). 1 Tim 5 1 changes AV "intreat" to "exhort." Phil 4 3 renders AV "entreat" by "be seech." RUSSELL BENJAMIN MILLER

      INWARD, in werd, MAN: A Pauline term, nearly identical with the "hidden man of the heart" (1 Pet 3 4). The Gr original, 6 ecru (also tffufep) 6.vepwTros, ho ( .so (extithen) dnthropos (Rom 7 22) is lexigraphically defined "the internal man," i.e. "soul," "conscience 1 ." It is the immaterial part of man mind, spirit in distinction from the "out ward man" which "perishes" (2 Cor 4 10 AV). As the seat of spiritual influences it is the sphere in which the Holy Spirit does His renewing and saving work (Eph 3 10). The term "inward man" can not be used interchangeably with "the new man, ^ for it may still be "corrupt," and subject to "vanity and "alienated from the life of God." Briefly st ated, it is mind, soul, spirit God s image in man- man s higher nature, intellectual, moral, and spirit ual. DWIGHT M. PRATT

      INWARD PART: A symbolic expression in the OT represented by three Heb words: T>n , hcdhcr, "chamber," hence inmost bowels or breast; Tiin^ , luhdth, "the reins"; 2~V, kerebh, "midst," "middle," hence heart. Once in the XT (fa^Oev, esolhen, "from within," Lk 11 39). The viscera (heart,



      Interpretation Ir-ha-heres

      liver, kidneys) were supposed by the ancients to be the seat of the mind, feelings, affections: the high est organs of the psyche, "the soul." The term in cludes the intellect ("wisdom in the inward parts," Job 38 30); the moral nature ("inward part is very wickedness," Ps 6 9); the spiritual ("my law in their inward parts," Jer 31 33). Its adverbial equivalent in Bib. use is "inwardly." INWARD MAN (q.v.) is identical in meaning.


      IOB, ydb (ST , yobh; AV Job) : Third son of Issachar (Gen 46 13). In ii passages (Nu 26 24; 1 Ch 7 1) the name is Jashub (21tD^, yashubh), which the VSS in Gen also support as the correct form.

      IPHDEIAH, if-de ya (H^SI , i/iphd yah, "Jeh redeems"; AY Iphedeiah) : A descendant of Benja min (1 Ch 8 2o).

      IPHTAH, if ta (nPS\\\\ yiphtali; AV Jiphtah): An unidentified town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Libnah, Ether and Ashan (Josh 15 43).

      IPHTAH-EL, if ta-el (bjTn\\\\ yiphtah- el; AV Jiphtah-el): The valley of Iphtah-el lay on the N. border of Zebulun (Josh 19 14.27). N.W. of the plain of el- Battauf stands a steep hill, con nected only by a low saddle with the hills on the N. The name Tell Jcfat suggests the Jotapataof Jos ( HJ, III, vi, i; vii, i, etc), and the place answers well to his description. It probably corresponds to the ancient Iphtah-el. In that case the valley is most probably that which begins at Tell Jefat, passes round the S. of Jehel Kaukah, and, as Waily Abellin, opens on the plain of Acre. W. EWING

      IR, ir ("I" 1 ?, *lr): A descendant of Benjamin (1 Ch 7 12), called Iri in ver 7.

      IRA, i ra (X^27, *ira ; El pas, Elms): (1 ) A person referred to in 2 S 20 26 as "priest" (so RV correctly; AV "a chief ruler," ARV "chief minister") unto David. The tr of RV is the only possible one; but, according to the text, Ira was "a Jairite," and thus of the tribe of Manasseh (Nu 32 41) and not eligible to the priesthood. On the basis of the Pesh some would correct "Jairite" of 2 S 20 26 into "Jattirite," referring to Jattir, a priestly city within the territory of Judah (Josh 21 14). Others point to 2 S 8 IS m, "David s sons were priests," as an indication that in David s time some non-Levites were permitted to serve in some sense as priests.



      2) An "Ithrite," or (with a different pointing of ...j text) a "Jattirite," one of David s "thirty" (2S 23 38 1 Ch 11 40) ; possibly identical with (1). (3) Another of David s "thirty," son of Ikkesh of Tekoa (2 S 23 26; 1 Ch 11 28) and a captain of the temple guard (1 Ch 27 9). F. K. FARR

      IRAD, I rad (""V 1 ? , *imdh; LXX FaiSaS, Cai- ddd) : Grandson of Cain and son of Enoch (Gen 4 18).

      IRAM, I ram (2"1" I 37 , Tram; LXX variously in Gen) : A "chief" of Edom (Gen 36 43 j| 1 Ch 1 54).

      IR-HA-HERES, ir-ha-he rez (C"1P!n T? , Tr ha- hcrex, according to the MT, Aq, Theodotion, LXX, AV and RV; according to some Heb MSS, Sym- machus, and the Vulg, C~inn T^J , !/ ha-lteres): A city of Egypt referred to in Isa 19 18. Jewish quarrels concerning the temple which Onias built in Egypt have most probably been responsible for the altering of the texts of some of the early MSS, and

      it is not now possible to determine absolutely which have been altered and which accord with the original. This difference in MSS gives rise to different opinions among authorities here to be noted. Most of the discussion of this name arises from this uncertainty and is hence rather profitless.

      The starting-point of any proper discussion of Ir- ha-h is that the words are by Isaiah and that they are prophecy, predictive prophecy. They belong to that portion of the prophecies of Isa which by nearly all critics is allowed to the great prophet. Nothing but unfounded speculation or an unwill ingness to admit that there is any predictive proph ecy can call in question Isaiah s authorship of these words. Then t he sense of t he passage in which these words occur imperatively demands that they be accounted predict ive prophecy. Isaiah plainly refers to the future, "shall be called"; and makes a definite statement concerning what shall take place in the future (19 18-24). The reality of predictive prophecy may be discussed by those so inclined, but that the intention of the author here was to utter predictive prophecy does not seem to be open to question. For the verification of this prediction by its fulfilment in history we shall inquire con cerning: (1) the times intended: "that day"; (2) the "five cities"; (3) "Ir-ha-hcres."

      The prophet gives a fairly specific description of

      "that day." It was at least to begin when "there

      shall be five cit ies in the land of Egypt

      1. The that speak the language of Canaan, Times In- and swear to Jeh of hosts" (ver 18), tended: and "In that day shall there be an "That Day" altar to Jeh in the midst of the land of

      Egypt , and a pillar at the border there of to Jeh" (ver 19). There was to be also some inroad made upon the heathenism of Egypt by the message of the Lord (vs 21 f), and about that time a deliverer should arise in Egypt (ver 20), and all this should take place before the power of the land of Assyria should pass away (vs 23 f).

      The first historical fulfilment, of these words is found at the period when Onias built his imitation of

      the Temple of Jerusalem at, the place

      2. The called by the Greeks Leontopolis (Tell "Five el-Yehudiyeh), and the worship of Cities" Jeh was set up at Elephantine, and the

      Jews were a great power at Alexandria and at Tahpanhes. While any of these latter three might have contained the "pillar," the "altar" would thus be either at Leontopolis or the other one of the "five cities" which cannot, be named with much probability. The great deliverer would seem to be Alexander. Some think that the conversion of the Egyptians indicated in vs 21 .22 is furthered, though still not completed, in the Christian invasion of the 1st cent., and again in the success of modern Chris tian missions in Egypt.

      It will be seen that it does not follow from what has been said that Leontopolis was Ir-ha-h as some

      seem to think. It is not said by the

      3. "Ir-ha- prophet that the place where was the heres" "altar" was called Ir-ha-h, even if it

      were certain that the altar was at Leontopolis. Nevertheless, Leontopolis may be Ir-ha-h. The problem is not in the first place the identification of thename, but the determination of which one of the "five cities" was destroyed. The expression "shall be called the city of destruction" seems clearly to indicate that Ir-ha-h is not a name at all, but merely a descriptive appellation of that city which should "be destroyed." It still remains f,o inquire whether or not this was an independent appellation, or whether, more probably, it bore some relation to the name of that city at the time at which the prophet wrote, a play upon the sound, or the significance of the name or both of these,

      Iri Isaac



      ( . illl( . r through resemblance or contrast. If (.eM-n- ius is right, as he seems to be, m the opin on that ..,,,., of Isa Ir-ha-h means simply the c y thai shall be dest roved, " then the original problem of rmdng wind, one of the cities was dest roved ",,.,.,< i, ,b,.ihe whole problem. Still, in the highly- wrought language of Isaiah and according tothegen- iusof the lleb tongue, then- is probably n play upon , von ls It is here that the consideration ol the ,,, me it self properly comes in and probably guides

      sriThtlv Speculation, bvOesenms.Duhm.Chevne ju,,l other s, has proposed Various different readings of ,l,is name, some of them req uirmg two or three changes in the text to bring it to its present s Speculation can always propose readings. On \\\\sas sometimes called "Heres" and meant "house ol the sun" wind, would be both I r 1 and transliterated into Heb //-//, n x and might have Ir ("city ) pre fixed Navilfe, through his study oi the great Har ris papyrus, believed that the old Kgyp c,tv winch later was called Leontopolis (Tell d-Yehudiyeh) was immediately connected with On and called "Houseof ll-i " also Ilouseof the Sun. rhus this name might be both transliterated and tr d into the H.l, hn-hvn-9 and have Ir prefixed. The difference betwcen this expression and "Ir-ha-h which Isaiah ,,<e,l is only the difference between // and Al. So that Ir-ha-h is most probably a predictive prophecy concerning the disaster that was to over take one of the "five cities," with a play upon the ,, .,,,. of the city, and that city is either On, the later Ileliopolis, or the ancient sacred city about 4 miles to the N. of On, where (^\\\\<^ was to build his temple and which later became Lcontopohs (1 cll- ( l-Y,/niilii/i li). No more positive identification ot

      Ir-ha-h is yet possible. M. O. KYLE

      Ixvl, llll !<i ill). j

      IRIJAH, i-rl ja ("^ST. , // // /A ">h sees"): A captain at the gate of Benjamin in Jerus, who arrested Jeremiah the prophet on suspicion of in tending to desert to the Chaldaeans (Jer 37 13.14).

      IR-NAHASH, ur-na hash. ir-na hash (En! "P7 , Ir nahash): \\\\ town of Judah of which Tehinnah is called the "father," probably ni(>aning "founder" (1 Ch 4 12). KYm suggests the tr "city of Na- hasli."

      IRON, I urn (""15. 1 itwl: <T&T\\\\PS, sideros):

      It is generally believ<-d that the art of separating iron from its ores and making it into useful forms was not known much earlier than 1000 BC, and that the making of brass (bronze) antedates it by many centuries, in spite of the frequent Bib. ref erences where brass and iron occur together. This conjecture is based upon the fact that no specimen of worked iron has been found whose antiquity can be vouched for. The want of such instruments, however, can be attributed to the ease with which iron corrodes. Kvidence that iron was used is found, for example, in the hieroglyphics of the tomb of Rameses III, where the blades of some of the weapons are painted blue while others are painted red, a (list in ct ion believed to be due to the fact that some were made of iron or steel and some of brass. No satisfactory proof has yet been presented that the mar veli i us sculpturing on the hard Kgyp granite was done with tempered bron/,e. It seems more likely that steel tools were used. After the dis covery of iron, it was evidently a long time in re placing bron/.e. This was probably due to tlu difficulties in smelting it. An old mountaineer onc< described to the writer the process of iron smelting as it, was carried on in Mt. Lebanon in past centu ries. As a boy he had watched his father, who wa

      i smelter, operate one of the last furnaces to be fired For each tiring, many cords of wood, esp. en-en oak branches, were used, and several days ot strenuous pumping at the eight bellows was neces sary to supply the air blast. As a result a small lump of wrought iron was removed from the bottom ,,f the furnace after cooling. The iron thus won was carried to Damascus where it was made into steel by workers who kept their methods secret. This process, which has not been worked now tor years was undoubtedly the same as was used by the ancients It is not at all unlikely that, the Lebanon i,-,,,, transformed into steel, was what was ret erred to as "northern iron" in Jer 15 12 (AV). In many districts the piles of slag from the ancient, furnaces are st ill evident. .

      Vsicle from the limited supply of iron ore in Mt. .cbanon (cf Dt, 8 .)), probably no iron was found n Syria and Pal. It was brought from rarehiah 1-V.k 27 12) and Vedan and Javan OZK 41 U), md probably Egypt (Dt 4 20).

      The first mention of iron made in the Bible is in "Jen 4 22 where Tubal-Cain is mentioned as the orger of every cutting instrument of brass and ron." H is likely that- the Jews learned the art of metallurgy from the Phoenicians (2 Ch I 1 (see CUVFTS). Iron was used in Bib. tunes much is it is today. For a description of a smith at work see Ecclus 38 2S. Huge city gates, overlaid with strips of mm U s 107 16; Isa 45 2) he Id m place by crude square-headed nails (1 Ch 22 3), are still a" familiar sight in the larger cities of Pal and byna (Vets 12 10). Threshing instruments were made of iron (Am 1 3); so also harrows (2 b If dl), axes(i!>; 2 K 6 (i; see Ax), branding irons (1 I im 4 2), and other tools (1 K 6 7). There were iron weapons (Nu 35 Hi; Job 20 24), armor (2 S 23 7) , horns (I K 22 11), fetters (Ps 105 18) char iots (Josh 17 10), yokes (Jer 28 14), breastplates (Rev 9 0), pens (chisels) (Job 19 24; Jer 17 1), sheets or plates (Ezk 4 3), gods (Dnl 5 4), weights (1 S 17 7), bedsteads (Dt 3 11). Iron was used extensively in building the temple. See METALS. Figurative: "The iron furnace" is used meta phorically for affliction, chastisement (Dt 4 20; Ezk 22 IS-22). Iron is also employed fig. to repre sent barrenness (Dt 28 23), slavery ("yoke of iron " Dt 28 48), strength ("bars of iron, Job 40 18), severity ("rod of iron," Ps 2 9), captivity (Ps 107 10), obstinacy ("iron sinew," Isa 48 4), fortitude ("iron pillar," Jer 1 18), moral deteriora tion (Jer 6 28), political strength (Dnl 2 33), destructive power ("iron teeth," Dnl 7 7); the cer tainty with which a real enemy will ever show his hatred is as the rust returning upon iron (Ecclus 12 10 AV, RV brass"); great obstacles ("walls ot iron," 2 Mace 11 9). JAMES A. PATCH

      IRON, i ron OP^T. , yir oii): One of the fenced cities in the territory of Naphtali, named with Migdal-el and En-hazor (Josh 19 38). It is repre sented by the modern Ynnln, a village with the ruins of a synagogue 1 , at one time used as a monas tery, fully 6 miles W. of Kcdcs.

      IRPEEL, ur pe-el, ir pe-el (bET. , yiri> c el): An unidentified city in Benjamin (Josh 18 27). It may possibly be represented by Rafut, a ruin to the N. of (7-./ 7/i, the ancient (Jibeon.

      IRREVERENCE, i-rcv er-ens. See CRIME, CHIMES.

      IRRIGATION, ir-i-ga shun: No equivalent for this word is found in Bib. writings, although the use of irrigation for maintaining vegetable life is fre quently implied (Eccl 2 5.6; Isa 58 11). To one



      Iri Isaac

      familiar with the methods of irrigation practised in Pal, Syria and Egypt, the passage, "where thou sowedsl thy seed, and wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs" (Dt 11 10), is easily explained. The water is brought in channels to the gardens, where it is distributed in turn to the different square plots bounded by banks of earth, or along the rows of growing vegetables planted on the sides of the trenches. In stony soil the breach in the canal leading to a particular plot is opened and closed with a hoe. Any obstruction in the trench is similarly removed, while in the soft, loamy soil of the coastal plain or in the Nile valley these opera tions can be done with the foot, a practice still commonly seen.

      Egyptian Water Wheel.

      The remains of the great irrigation works of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians leave no doubt as to the extent to which they used water to redeem the deserts. In Pal and Syria there was less need (Dt 10 7; 11 11) for irrigation. Here there is an annual fall of from 30 to 40 in., coming principally during the winter. This is sufficient for the main crops. The summer supply of vegetables, as well as the fruit and mulberry trees, requires irrigation. Hardly a drop of many mountain streams is allowed to reach the sea, but is used to water the gardens of the mountain ((Traces and plains. This supply- is now being supplemented by the introduction of thousands of pumps and oil engines for raising the water of the wells sufficiently to run it through the irrigation canals. Where a spring is small, its supply is gathered into a l>irk< I, or cistern, and then drawn off through a large outlet into the trenches, sometimes several days being required to fill the cistern. In Eccl 2 (>, Solomon is made to say, "I made me pools of water, to water therefrom the forest." This passage helps to explain the uses of the so-called Pools of Solomon, S. of Jems. In this same district are traces of the ancient ((Traces which were probably watered from these pools. See AGRICULTUKE; GAKI>K\\\\. JAMKS A. PATCH

      . IR-SHEMESH, ur-she mesh, ir-she mcsh H^ IL"}? !" , Zr litn intxh, "city of the sun"). See BETH- SHEMESH ; HKKES.

      IRU, I ro7> 0-P7 , Trw) : Eldest son of Caleb (1 Ch 4 1.")); probably to be read Ir, the syllable -it being the conjunction "and" belonging to the following word.

      ISAAC, i zak:

      I. NAMK

      1. Root , Forms, Analogues 2. Implication II. FAMILY ANI> KI\\\\I>KI:I>

      1. Birth and Place in the Family 2. Relation to the Religious Birthright >. Significance of Marriage III. STORY <>! Li i i;

      1. Previous to Marriage

      2. Subsequent to Marriage


      1. In the OT

      2. In the NT


      /. Name. This name has the double spelling, pn^"!, yitfiak, and pni!T , yinhalf ( laaaK, Isadk), corresponding to the two forms in 1. Root, which appears the root meaning "to Forms and laugh" a root that runs through nearly Analogues all the Sem languages. In Heb both <;ahuk and sahafy have their cognate nouns, and signify, in the simple stem, "to laugh," in the intensive stem, "to jest, play, dance, fondle, and the like. The noun yigtiar, meaning "fresh oil," from a root qaluir ("to be bright, conspicuous"), proves that nouns can be built on precisely the model of yifhulf, which would in that case signify "the laughing one," or something similar. Yet Barth (Die Nominalbildung in den Nt tniltxchcn X/>rachcn, 154, 6 and c) maintains that all proper names be ginning with ijuilh prefixed to the root are really pure imperfects, i.e. verbal forms with some subject to be understood if not actually present. Hence Isaac would mean "laughs": either indefinite, "one laughs," or "he laughs," viz. the one understood as the subject. There are some f)0 He!) names that have a similar form with no accompanying subject . Of these sometimes the meaning of the root is quite obscure, sometimes it is appropriate to any sup- posable subject. Each is a problem by itself; for the interpretation of any one of them there is little help to be gained from a comparison with the others.

      What subject, then, is to be understood with this imperfect vb. yi<;kuk . Or is no definite subject to be supplied? (1) El, (lod, may be 2. Impli- supplied: "God laughs." Such an cation expression might be understood of the

      Divine benevolence, or of the fearful laughter of scorn for His enemies (Ps 2 4), or, euphemistically, of the Divine wrath, the "terrible glance," as of Moloch, etc (_so Meyer, Israclilcn und ihre Nachbarstamme, 25")). (2) Some human per son: "he laughs." So, for example, he himself, viz. the child who receives the name; or, the father; or, the brother (not the mother, which would require lirlidk). In the light now of these possibilities we t urn to the narratives of Isaac s birth and career and find the following subjects suggested: (a) father, (Jen 17 17; (b) indefinite, "one laughs" (not "she laughs," see above), (Jen 18 12-1. ~>; 21 (j; (c) brother, (Jen 21 9; (d) himself, den 26 8. Of these passages the last two show the vb. in the in tensive stem in the signification of (c) "mock" (?), and (d) "dally." We find this same vb. in these senses in Gen 19 14 and. 39 14.17, in the stories of Lot and of Joseph, and it is possible that here also in the story of Isaac it has no more connection with the name Isaac than it has there with the names Lot and Joseph. However this may be, there is ob viously one interpretation of the name Isaac, which, required in two of the passages, is equally appro priate in them all, viz. that with the indefinite sub ject, "one laughs." Consideration of the sources to which these passages are respectively assigned by the documentary hypothesis tends only to con firm this result.

      //. Family and Kindred. The two things in Isaac s life that are deemed worthy of extensive treatment in the sacred narrative are his birth and his marriage. His significance, in fact, centers in his transmission of what went before him to what came after him. Hence, his position in his father s family, his relation to its greatest treasure, the reli gious birthright, and his marriage with Rebekah are the subjects that require special notice in this connection.

      Isaac Isaiah



      The birth of Isaac is represented as peculiar in

      these respects: the age of his parents, the purity of

      his lineage, the special Divine promises

      1. Birth accompanying, \\\\\\\\hat in Abraham s and Place life is signali/ed by the Divine "call" in the from his father s house, and what- in Family Jacob s life is brought about by a

      series of providential interpositions, seems in Isaac s case to become his by his birth. llis mother, who is not merely of the same stock as Abraham but actually his half-sister, is the legal wife. As her issue Isaac is qualified by the laws of inheritance recogni/ed in their native land to be come liis father s heir. But Ishmael, according to those laws, has a similarly valid claim (see AUKA- ii AM, I V, 2 i, and it is only by express command t hat Abraham is led to abandon what was apparently both custom and personal preference, to "cast out the bondwoman and her son," and to acquiesce in the arrangement that "in Isaac shall t hy seed be called." lint the birthright of Isaac was of infinitely more importance than the birthright in the family of any other wealthy man of that day. All

      2. Relation that limitless blessing with which to the Re- Abraham set forth under God s leader- ligious ship was promised not only to him but Birthright to his "seed": it was limitless in time

      as well as in scope. To inherit it was of more consequence to Isaac than to inherit any number of servants, flocks or wells of his father s acquisition. A sense of these relative values seems to have been a part of Isaac s spiritual endowment, and this, more than anything else related of him, makes him an at t ract ive figure on t he pages of ( len. The raising up of a "seed" to be the bearers of these promises was t he prime concern of Isaac s

      life. Not by intermarriage with the

      3. Signifi- Canaanites among whom he lived, but cance of by marriage with one of his own peo- Marriage pie, in whom as much as in himself

      should be visibly embodied the separ- ateness of the chosen family of God thus primarily was Isaac to pass on to a generation as pure as his own the heritage of the Divine blessing. Rebekah enters the tent of Isaac as truly the chosen of God as was Abraham himself.

      ///. Story of Life. Previous to his marriage Isaac s life is a part of the story of Abraham; after his marriage it merges into that of his children. It is convenient, therefore, to make his marriage the dividing-line in the narrative of his career.

      A child whose coming was heralded by such signal marks of Divine favor as was Isaac s would be, even

      apart from other special considera- 1. Previous tions, a welcome and honored member to Marriage of the patriarchal household. The

      covenant-sign of circumcision (which Isaac was the, first to receive at the prescribed age of S days), the great feast at his weaning, and the disinheritance of Ishmael in his favor, are all of them indications of the unique position that this child held, and prepare the reader to appreciate the depth of feeling involved in the sacrifice of Isaac, the story of which follows thereupon. The age of Isaac at the time of this event is not stated, but the fact that he is able to carry the wood of the offering shows that he had probably attained his full growth. The single question he asks his father and his other wise unbroken silence combine to exhibit him in a favorable light, as thoughtful, docile and trustful. The Divine interposition to save the lad thus de voted to God constitutes him afresh the bearer of the covenant-promise and justifies its explicit, renewal on this occasion. From this point onward the biographer of Isaac evidently has his marriage in view, for the two items that preceded the long 24th ch, in which Rebekah s choice and coming are

      rehearsed, are, first, the brief genealogical para graph that informs the reader of the development, of Nahor s family just as far as to Rebekah, and second, the ch that tells of Sarah s death and burial -an event clearly associated in the minds of all with the marriage of Isaac (see 24 .3.30.67). Di vine interest in the choice of her who should be the mother of the promised seed is evident in every line of the ch that dramatizes the betrothal of Isaac, and Rebekah. Their first meeting is described at its close with the tender interest in such a scene nat ural to every descendant of the pair, and Isaac is sketched as a man of a meditative; turn (ver G3) and an affectionate heart, (ver 07).

      The dismissal of the sons of Abraham s concu bines to the "I last -country" is associated with the statement that Isaac inherited all that 2. Subse- Abraham had; yet it has been re- quent to marked that, besides supplying them Marriage with gifts, Abraham was doing them a further kindness in thus emancipating them from continued subjection to Isaac, the future head of the clan. After Abraham s death we are ex pressly informed that God "blessed Isaac his son" in fulfilment of previous promise. The section entitled "the lol il/iot/i [generations] of Isaac" extends from 25 I .)to35 29. At the opening of it Isaac is dwell ing at Beer-lahai-roi (25 11), then at Gerar (26 1.0; and "the valley of Gerar" (26 17), then at Beer- sheba (26 23; 28 10), all localities in the Negeb or "South-country." But after the long narrative of the fortunes of Jacob and his family, occupying many years, we find Isaac at its close living where his father Abraham had lived, at Hebron.

      For 20 years Isaac and Rebekah remained child less; it was only upon the entreaty of Isaac that (lod granted them their twin sons. A famine was the usual signal for emigration to Egypt (cf Gen 12 10; 42 2); and Isaac also appears to have been on his way thither for the same cause, when, at Gerar, he is forbidden by God to proceed, and occa sion is found therein to renew to him the covenant - promise of his inheritance: land, posterity, honor and the Divine presence (26 1-4).

      But Isaac had also received from his father tradi tions of another sort ; he too did not hesitate to say to the men of Gerar 1 hat his wife was his sister, with the same intent to save his own life, but without the same justification in fact, us in the case of Abraham s earlier stratagem. Vet even the dis covery by the king of Gerar of this duplicity, and repeated quarrels about water in that dry country, did not suffice to endanger Isaac s status with the settled inhabitants, for his large household and great resources made him a valuable friend and a danger ous enemy.

      The favoritism which Isaac showed for one son and Rebekah for the other culminated in the painful scene when the paternal blessing was by guile ob tained for Jacob, and in the subsequent enforced absence of Jacob from his parental home. Esau, too, afforded no comfort to his father and mother, and ere long he also withdrew from his father s clan. The subsequent reconciliation of the brothers per mitted them to unite at length in paying the last honors to Isaac on his decease. Isaac was buried at Hebron where his parents had been buried (Gen 49 31), and where his place of sepulture is still honored.

      IV. Biblical References. There is a great con trast between Abraham and Jacob on the one hand, and Isaac on the other, with respect to their promi nence in the lit . of the nation that traced to them its descent . To be sure, when the patriarchs as a group are to be named, Isaac takes his place in the stereo typed formula of "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," or "Israel" (so 23 t in the OT, 7 t in the NT).



      Isaac Isaiah

      But apart from this formula Isaac is referred to

      in the OT only as follows. During the lifetime of

      Jacob the names of Abraham and Isaac

      1. In the are repeatedly linked in the same way OT as are all three subsequently: they

      form for that age the dynasty of the covenant. But several times Jacob calls Jeh the God (or, the Fear; see infra) of Isaac, because Isaac is his own immediate predecessor in this chain of the faithful. Isaac is called the "gift" of God to Abraham, in the farewell address of Joshua, just as Jacob and Esau are called God s "gifts" to Isaac (Josh 24 3 f ; cf Koran, S ra 6 84). The "house of Isaac" is used by Amos as a i| expression for "Israel," and "the high places of Isaac" for "the sanctuaries of Israel" (Am 7 16.9), in the same way as "Jacob" is often used elsewhere (LXX in ver 16 reads "Jacob"). Other references to Isaac are simply as to his father s son or his children s father. He fares better in the NT. For, besides the gene alogical references, Isaac s significance as the first to

      receive circumcision on the 8th day

      2. In is remembered (Acts 7 8); his posi- the NT t ion as first of the elect seed is set forth

      (Rom 9 7); his begetting of two sons so unlike in their relation to the promise as were Esau ami Jacob is remarked (Rom 9 10); the facts of his being heir to the promise, a child of old age, and, though but one, the father of an innumerable progeny, are emphasized in He 11 (vs 9-12), which also discovers the deeper significance of his sacrifice and restoration to his father (vs 17-19; cfJas 2 21); and in the same context is noticed the faith in God implied in Isaac s blessing of his sons. But Isaac receives more attention than anywhere else in that famous passage in Gal (4 21-31), in which Paul uses Isaac and his mother as allegorical representa tions of Christians who are justified by faith in the promise of God, and are the free-born heirs of all the spiritual inheritance implied in that promise. Even Isaac s persecution by Ishmael has its counter part in the attitude of the enemies of Paul s gospel toward him and his doctrines and converts.

      V. Views Other than the Historical. Philo, the chief allegorizer of Scriptural narratives, has little to say of Isaac, whom he calls "the self-instructed nature." But modern critics have dissolved his personality by repre senting him as the personification of an ethnic group. "All Israel," writes Wellhausen (Pro/., (ith eel, 31<>), "is

      frouped with the people of Kdom under the old name saac (Am 7 9.16) .... the material here is not mythical [as in Gen 1-11] hut national." And just as Israel plus Kdom had little or no significance in national customs or political events, when compared on the one hand with Israel alone (=.Iacoh), and with Israel plus Edom plus Moab and Ammon ( = Abraham) on the other hand; so likewise the figure of Isaac is colorless and his story brief, as compared with the striking figures of Jacob on the one hand and of Abraham on the other hand, and the circumstantial stories of their lives.

      Other scholars will have none of this national view, because they believe Isaac to be the name of an ancient deity, the local numen of Beersheba. Stark, whom others have followed, proposes to interpret the phrase trd "the Fear of Isaac" in Gen 31 42.53 as the name of this god used by his worshippers, the Terror Isaac, Isaac the terrible god. For the sense of Isaac in that case see above under I, 2, (1). Meyer (loc. cit.) defends the transfer of the name from a god to the hero of a myth, by comparing the sacrifice of Isaac ("the only story in which Isaac plays an independent role"!) with the Gr myth of Iphigenla a sacrifice (Ilesiod, Euripides, etc), in which the by-name of a goddess (tphigenia) identified with Artemis has passed to the intended victim rescued by Artemis from death.

      The, most recent critical utterances reject both the foregoing views of Isaac as in conflict with the data of Gen. Thus Gunkcl (Schriften dex AT, 5te Lieferung, 1910, 41) writes: "Quite clearly the names of Abraham, Isaac, and all the patriarchal women are not tribal

      names The interpretation of the figures of Gen

      as nations furnishes by no means a general key." And again: " Against the entire assumption that the principal patriarchal figures are originally gods, is above all to be noted that the names Jacob and Abraham are proved by the Bab to be personal names in current use, and at the same time that the sagas about them can in no

      wise be understood as echoes of original myths. Even Winckler s more than bold attempt to explain these sagas as original calendar-myths must be pronounced a complete failure." Yet Gunkel and those who share his position are careful to distinguish their own view from that of the " apologetes," and to concede no more than the bare fact that there doubtless were once upon a time persons named Abraham, Isaac, etc. For these critics Isaac is simply a name about which have crystal lized cycles of folk-stories, that have their parallels in other lands and languages, but have received with a Heb name also a local coloring and significance on the lips of successive Heb story-tellers, saga-builders and finally collectors and editors; "Everyone who knows the history of sagas is sure that the saga is not able to preserve through the course of so many centuries, a true picture" of the patriarchs. See also ABRAHAM, end.



      ISAIAH, i-za ya, i-zl a:

      1. Name

      2. Personal History

      3. Call

      4. Literary Genius and Style

      5. Traditions concerning His Martyrdom 0. Period

      7. Analysis and Contents

      8. Isaiah s Prophecies Chronologically Arranged

      9. The Critical Problem

      (1) The History of Criticism

      (2) The Disintegration of " Deutero-Isaiah"

      (3) Recent Views

      (4) The Present State of the Question

      (5) Reasons for Dissecting the Book (0) Arguments for One Isaiah

      (a) The Circle of Ideas

      (b) The Literary Style

      (c) Historical References

      (d) The Predictive Element

      (e) Cyrus a Subject of Prediction LITERATURE

      Of all Israel s celebrated prophets, Isaiah is the king. The writings which bear his name are among the profoundest in all literature. One great theme salvation by faith stamps them all. Isaiah is the St. Paul of theOT.

      In Heb VpyiZP , ifshiftjahu, and

      tfshcfyah; Gr Ho-tuos, Esalas; Lat Esaida and

      Isaids. His name was symbolic of

      1. Name his message. Like "Joshua," it means

      "Jeh saves," or "Jeh is salvation," or "salvation of Jeh."

      Isaiah was the son of Amoz (not Amos). He seems to have belonged to a family of some rank,

      as may be inferred from his easy access

      2. Personal to the king (Isa 7 3), and his close History intimacy with the priest (8 2). Tradi

      tion says he was the cousin of King Uzziah. He lived in Jerus and became court preacher. He was married and had two sons: Shear-jashub, his name signifying "a remnant shall return" (7 3), and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "hasting to the spoil, hurrying to the prey," sym- bolic of Assyria s mad hist of conquest (8 3). Jew ish tradition, based upon a false interpretation of 7 14, declares he was twice married.

      In the year that King Uzziah died, Isaiah, ap parently while worshipping in the temple, received

      a call to the prophetic: office (ch 6).

      3. Call He responded with noteworthy alac

      rity, and accepted his commission, though he knew from the outset that his task was to be one of fruitless warning and exhortation (6 9-13). Having been reared in Jerus, he was well fitted to become the political and religious counselor of the nation, but the experience which prepared him most for his important, work was the vision of the majestic and thrice-holy God which he saw in the temple in the death-year of King Uzziah. There is no good reason for doubting that this was his inaugural vision, though some regard it as a vision which came to him after years of experience in preaching and as intended to deepen his spirituality. While this is




      the nlily explicit "vision" hook, from first to last , is. a "vision." 1 1 is hori/.on, was practically unbound as 1 )elit /.sell says, he \\\\\\\\ as Israel."

      I- or versatility of expression imagery Isaiah had no ,-uperioi 1 1 is st vie marks t In 4. Literary literary art. Hoi I Genius and Style

      characterist ic metaphors, p; (1 U<; 5 is. 22; 8 S; 10 22: 28 17.20; 30 2s.:;oi, interrogation and dialogue 16 X; 10 X. .D, antithe- n (1 is; 3 21; 17 10.12), hyper- < (2 7; 5 17; 28 2M 29), even paranomasia, or play upon words (5 7; 7 !)), ehar- aeteri/e Isaiah s book as the great masterpiece of Hebrew literal ure. He is also famous for his rich ness of vocabulary and synonyms. For example, K/ekiel uses 1 ,">o") words; Jeremiah, 1, (.">:>; the Psalmists2, 170; while Isaiah uses 2,1X(i. Isaiah was also an orator: Jerome likened him to Demost henes; and a poet: he frequently elaborates his messages in rhythmic or poetic style (12 1 -II; 25 !.">: 26 1 12: 38 10 20; 42 1 l ; 49 1 9; 50 4-9; 52 13-53 12; 60-62; 66 ;"> 21); and in several in stances slips into elegiac rhythm, e.g. in 37 22-29 there is a fine taunting poem on Sennacherib, and in 14 l-2:-{ another on the king of Hahylon. As Driver observes, "Isaiah s poetical genius is superb."

      Nothing definite or historical is known concerning the prophet s end. Toward the close of the -_ d cent. A I ) , however, there was a tradition to the clfect that he suffered martyrdom in the heathen reaction which occurred under King Manasseh. because of certain earning His speeches concerning <lod and the Holy lUqrtvrHnm ( itv wl lich his contemporaries alleged - 1 were contrary to the law. Indeed the Jewish Mishna explicitly states that Manasseh slew him. Justin Martyr also (150 AD), in his controversial dialogue with the Jew Trypho, re proaches the .lews with this accusation, " whom ye sawed asunder with a wooden saw"; this tradition is further confirmed l>y a Jewish Apocalypse of the I d cent. AD, entitled, The Ascension of Isaiah, and by Kpiplianins in his so-called Lives <>f tin- !>r,,ii>i,t.->. It is barely possible that there is an allusion to his martyrdom in He H 37, which reads. "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder." but this is by no means certain. In any case Isaiah probably survived the great catastrophe of the siege of Jerus by Sennacherib in 701 1{(\\\\ and possibly also the deatli of He/ekiah in <> .)<> HC; for in 2 Ch 32 X 2 it is stated that Isaiah wrote a biography of King Hezekiah. If so. his prophetic activity extended over a period of more than 10 years. Or. O. A. Smith extends it. to "more than 50" (Jerusalem, II, ISO; cf Whitehouse "Isaiah." A , w / , nl. 11, hl, , 1. 7_

      According to the title of his book Cl 1), Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of I"//iah, Jotham,

      Aha/ and He/ekiah, kings of Judah. 6. Period He dates his inaugural vision (6 1)

      in I //iah s death-year, which was approximately 740 HC. This marks, therefore, the beginning of his prophetic ministry. And we know- that he was still active as late as the siege of Jerus by Sennacherib in 701 HC. Hence the minimum period of his activity as a prophet was from 740 to (01 HC. As a young man Isaiah witnessed the rapid development of Judah into a strong commercial and military state; for under I //iah Judah at tained a degree of prosperity and strength never before enjoyed since the days of Solomon. Walls, towers, fortifications, ;i large standing army, a port for commerce on the Ked Sea, increased inland trade, tribute from the Ammonites, success in war with the Philis and the Arabians all these* became Judah s during I //iah s long and prosperous reign of .72 years. Hut along with power and wealth

      5. Tradi tions con-

      came also avarice, oppression, religious formality and corruption. The temple revenue.-: indeed were greatly increased, hut religion and life were too frequently dissociated; the nation s progress was altogether material. During the reign of Jotham 710 7-!H lU ), who for several years was probably a- -ociat ed with his fat her as co-regent , a new power began lo appear over the eastern hori/.nn. The Assyrians, with whom Ahab had come in conlact at the battle of Ixarkar in X/i 1 HC, and to whom Jehu had paid tribute in X 12 HC, began to manifest anew t heir eharaclorist ic lust of conquest . Tiglat h- pileser III, who is called "Pul" in 2 K 15 19 and reigned over Assyria from 74") to 727 HC, turned his attention westward, and in 7 . IX HC reduced Arpad, Calno, Carchemish, llamath and Damascus, causing them to pay tribute. His presence in the West led Pekah, king of North Israel, and Re/in, king of Damascus, to form an alliance in order to resist further encroachment on 1 he part of Assyria. \\\\\\\\hen Alia/, re! used to join their confederacy they resolved to dethrone him and set in his stead the son of Tabeel upon the throne of David (2 K 16 ">; Isa 7 (1). The struggle which ensued is commonly known as the Syro-Kphraimii ic \\\\\\\\ar (7M1- HC ) - one of the great events in Isaiah s period. Aha/, in panic sent to Tiglat h-pileser for help (2 K 16 7i, who of course responded with alacrity. The result was that the great Assyrian warrior sacked (la/a and carried all of Calilee and Cilead into captivity (7:U) and finally took Damascus (7:52 HC). Aha/ was forced to pay dearly for his protection and Judah was brought very low (2 K 15 20; 16 7-9; 2 Ch 28 19; Isa 71). The religious as well as the political effect of Alia/ policy was de cidedly baneful. To please Tiglat h-pileser, Aha/ went to Damascus to join in the celebration of his victories, and while there saw a Syrian altar, a pattern of which lie sent to Jerus and had a copy set up in the temple in place of the bra/en altar of Solomon. Thus Aha/., with all the influence of a king, introduced idolatry into Jerus, even causing his sons to pass through the fire (2 K 16 10 1(1; 2 Ch 28 o).

      He/ekiah succeeded Aha/, beginning to rule at the age of 2.") and reigning 29 years (727-1)0 .) HC). Isaiah was at least 15 years his senior. The young king inherited from his father a heavy burden. The splendor of l"//iah s and Jot ham s reigns was rapidly fading before the ever-menacing and avari cious Assyrians. He/ekiah began his reign with reformation. Tie removed the high places, ;i nd brake the pillars, and cut down the Asherah" (2 l\\\\ 18 4.22). He even invited the surviving remnant of Xorth Israel to join in celebrating the Passover (2 Ch 30 1). Hut Israel s end was drawing near. Hoshea, the vacillating puppet -king of North Israel (7. !0 722 HC ), encouraged by Kgypt , refused longer to pay Assyria his annual tribute (2 K 17 4 ); whereupon Shalmaneser IV, who had succeeded Tiglat h-pileser, promptly appeared before the gates of Samaria in 724 BC, and for . 3 weary years be sieged the city (2 K 17 5). Finally, the city was captured by Sargon II, who succeeded Shalmaneser IV in ,22 HC , and 27,292 of Israel s choicest people (according to Sargon s own description) were de ported to Assyria, and colonists were brought from Habylon and other adjacent districts and placed in the cities of Samaria, (2 K 17 6.24). Thus the kingdom of North Israel passed into oblivion, and Judah was left ever after quite exposed to the direct ravages, political and religious, of her Assyrio-Hab neighbors. In fact Judah herself barely escaped destruction by promising heavy tribute. This was the second great political crisis during Isaiah s min istry. Other crises were soon to follow. One was the desperate illness of King He/ekiah, who faced




      assured death in 714 BC. Being childless, he was seriously concerned for the future of the Davidic dynasty. He resorted to prayer, however, and God graciously extended his life 15 years (2 K 20; Isa 38). His illness occurred during the period of Baby lon s independence under Merodach-baladan, the ever-ambitious, irresistible and uncompromising enemy of Assyria, who for 12 years (721-709 BCj maintained independent supremacy over Babylon. Taking advantage of Hezekiah s wonderful cure, Merodach seized the opportunity of sending an embassy to Jerus t o congrat ulat e him on his recovery (712 BC), and at the same time probably sought to form an alliance with Judah to resist Assyr su premacy (2 K 20 12 ff; Isa 39). Nothing, how ever, came of the alliance, for the following year Sargon s army reappeared in Philistia in order to discipline Ashdod for conspiracy with the king of Egypt (711 BC). The greatest crisis was yet to come. Its story is as follows: Judah and her neighbors groaned more and more 1 under the heavy exactions of Assyria. Accordingly, when Sargon was assassinated and Sennacherib came to the throne in 705 BC, rebellion broke out on all sides. Merodach-baladan, who had been expelled by Sar gon in 709 BC, again took Babylon and held it for at least six months in 703 BC. Hezekiah, who was encouraged by Egypt and all Philistia, except Padi of Ekron, the puppet -king of Sargon, refused longer to pay Assyria tribute (2 K 18 7). Meanwhile a strong pro-Kgyp party had sprung up in Jerus. In view of all these circumstances, Sennacherib in 701 BC marched westward with a vast army, sweeping everything before him. Tyre was in vested though not taken; on the other hand, Joppa, Eltekeh, Ekron, Ashkelon, Ammon, Moab, and Edom all promptly yielded to his demands. Ileze- kiah was panic stricken and hastened to bring rich tribute, stripping even the temple and the palace of their treasures to do so (2 K 18 13-10). But Sennacherib was not satisfied. He overran Judah, capturing, as he tells us in his inscription, 40 walled towns and smaller villages without number, carry ing 200,150 of Judah s population into captivity to Assyria, and demanding as tribute SOO talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, in all over $1,500,000; he took also, lie claims, Hezekiah s daughters and palace women, seized his male and female singers, and carried away enormous spoil. But the end was not yet. Sennacherib himself, with the bulk of the army, halted in Philistia to reduce Lachish; thence he sent a strong detachment under his com- mander-in-chief, the Rabshakeh, to besiege Jerus (2 K 18 1719 8; Isa 36 237 8). As he de scribes this blockade in his own inscription: "I shut up Hezekiah in Jerus like a bird in a cage." The Rabshakeh, however, failed to capture the city and returned to Sennacherib, who meanwhile had completely conquered Lachish, and was now warring against Libnah. A second expedition against, Jerus was planned, but hearing that Tirhakah (at that time the commander-in-chief of Egypt s forces and only afterward king of Ethiopia") was ap proaching, Sennacherib was forced to content him self with sending messengers with a letter to Heze kiah, demanding immediate surrender of the city (2 K 19 9ff; Isa 37 9ff). Hezekiah, however, through Isaiah s influence held out ; and in due time, though Sennacherib disposed of Tirhakah s army without difficulty, his immense host in some mysterious way by plague or otherwise was suddenly smitten, and the great Assyr conqueror was forced to return to Nineveh; possibly because Merodach-baladan had again appeared in Baby lonia. Sennacherib never again returned to Pal, so far as we know, during the subsequent 20 years of his reign, though he did make an independent

      expedition into North Arabia ((591-689 BC). This invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 BC was the great political event in Isaiah s ministry. Had it not been for the prophet s statesmanship, Jerus might have capitulated. As it was, only a small, insignificantly small, remnant of Judah s popula tion escaped. Isaiah had at this time been preach ing 40 years. How much longer lie labored is not known.

      There are six general divisions of the book: (1) chs 1-12, prophecies concerning Judah and Jerus, closing with promises of restoration 7. Analysis and a psalm of thanksgiving; (2) chs and 13-23, oracles of judgment and salva-

      Contents tion, for the most part concerning those foreign nations whose fortunes affected Judah and Jerus; (3j chs 24-27, Jell s world- judgment in the redemption of Israel; (4) chs 28- 35, a cycle of prophetic warnings against alliance with Egypt, closing with a prophecy concerning Edom and a promise of Israel s ransom; (5) chs 36-39, history, prophecy and song intermingled; serving both as an appendix to chs 1-35, and as an introduction to chs 40-66; (0) chs 40-66, prophecies of comfort and salvation, and also of the future glory awaiting Israel.

      By examining in detail these several divisions we can trace better the prophet s thought. Thus, chs 1-12 unfold Judah s social sins (chs 1-6), and her political entanglements (chs 7-12J; ch 1 is an introduction, in which the prophet strikes the chief notes of his entire book: viz. thoughtlessness (vs 2-9), formalism in worship (vs 10 17), pardon (vs 1S-23) and judgment (vs 24-31). Chs 2-4 contain three distinct pictures of Zion: (a) her exaltation (2 2-4), (/>) her present idolatry (2 54 1), and (/) her eventual purification (4 2-0). Ch 5 con tains an arraignment of Judah and Jerus, composed of three parts: (a) a parable of Jeh s vineyard (vs 1-7); (b) a series of six woes pronounced against insatiable greed (vs 8-10), dissipation (vs 11-17), daring defiance against Jeh (vs 18.19), confusion of moral distinctions (ver 20), political self-conceit (ver 21), and misdirected heroism (vs 22.2)5); and ( ) an announcement of imminent: judgment. The Assyrian is on the way and there will be; no escape (vs 24-30). Ch 6 recounts the prophet s inaugural vision and commission. It is really an apologetic, st anding as it does aft er the prophet s denunciat ions of his contemporaries. When they tacitly object to his message of threatening and disaster, he is able to reply that, having pronounced "woe" upon himself in the year that King I z/iah died, he had the authority to pronounce woe upon them (6 5). Plainly Isaiah tells them that Judah s sins are well- nigh hopeless. They are becoming spiritually in sensible. They have eyes but they cannot see. Only judgment can avail: "the righteous judgment of a forgotten Cod" awaits them. A "holy seed," however, still existed in Israel s stock (6 13).

      Coming to chs 7-12, Isaiah appears in flu; role of a practical statesman. He warns Ahaz against political entanglements with Assyria. The sin-lion 7 1 9 7 is a prophecy of Irnmanuel, history and prediction being intermingled.

      They describe tho Syro-Ephraimitie uprising in 730 BC, when Pekah of Xorth Israel and Rezin of Damascus, in attempting to defend themselves against the Assyr ians, demanded that Ahaz of Jerus should become their ally. Hut Ahaz preferred the friendship of Assyria, and refused to enter into alliance with them. And in order to defend himself, he applied to Assyria for assist ance, sending ambassadors with many precious treasures, both royal and sacred, to bribe Tigfath-pileser. It was at this juncture that Isaiah, at .Jeh s bidding, expostulates with Ahaz concerning the fatal step he is about to take, and as a- practical statesman warns Ahaz. "the king of Xo-Faith," that the only path of safety lies in loyalty to Jeh and keeping clear of foreign alliances; thai " God is with us" for salvation; and that no "conspiracy" can




      possibly he successful unices (iod too is against us. When, "however, tin- prophet s message of promise and salvation llnds no welcome. In- roniniits it to his disciples, hound up and sealed for future use; assuring his hearers that unto them a child is horn and unto them a son is ni\\\\en. ill \\\\\\\\hnse day the empire of David will be estab lished upon a basis of justice and righteousness. The Messianic scion is the ground of the prophet s hope ; which hope, thciuu h unprecedented, he thus early in his ministry commits, written and sealed, to his inner circle of "disciples." See. further, IMMXNI i i..

      The sect inn 9 S - 10 4 ( (Hit a ins an annomieeineiit to North Israel of accumulated wrath and impend ing ruin, with a refrain (9 12.17.21; 10 -1). Here, in an artistic poem composed of four strophes, the prophet describes the great calamities which Jell has sent down upon North Israel but \\\\vliieli have Hone unheeded: foreign invasion (9 X-12), deleat inbattle(9 1:1 17 i, anarchy i9 Is 21), and impend ing captivity (10 1-4). Vet Jeh s judgments have pme unheeded: "For all this his anger is nol turned away, but his hand is stretched out. still." Divine discipline has failed ; only judgment remains.

      In 10 ."> 31, Assyria is declared to lie an instru ment of Jeh, the rod of Jeh s anger. Clis 11-12 predict Israel s return from exile, including a vision of the Messiah s reign of ideal peace. For .Isaiah s vision of the nation s future reached far beyond mere exile. To him t he downfall of Assyria was the signal for the commencement of a new era in Israel s history. Assyria has no future, her downfall is fatal; Judah has a future, her calamities are only disciplinary. An Ideal Prince will be raised up in whose advent all Nature will rejoice, even dumb animals (11 1-10). A second great exodus will take place, for the Lord will .set His hand again the second time" to recover the remnant of His people from the four corners of the earth" (11 11.12). In that day, "Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim" (11 13). On the contrary, the reunited nation, redeemed and occu pying their rightful territory (11 14-l(i), shall sing a hymn of thanksgiving, proclaiming the salvation of Jeh to all the earth (ch 12).

      Chs 13 23 contain oracles of judgment and sal vation, for the most part concerning those foreign nations whose fortunes affected Judah and Jerus. They are grouped together by the editor, as similar foreign oracles are in Jer 46-51 and E/k 25-32. Isaiah s lion/on was world-wide. First among the foreign prophecies stands the oracle concerning Babylon (13 1 14 23), in which he predicts the utter destruction of the city (13 2-22), and .sings a dirge or taunt -song over her fallen king (14 4-23). The king alluded to is almost beyond doubt an Assyr mot a Bab) monarch of the Sth cent.; the brief prophecy immediately following in 14 24-27 concerning Assyria tacitly confirms this interpre tation. Another brief oracle concerning Babylon (21 1-10) describes the city s fall as imminent. Both oracles stand or fall together as genuine prophecies of Isaiah. Both seem to have been written in Jerus (13 2; 21 9.10). It cannot, be said that either is absolutely unrelated in thought and language to Isaiah s age (14 13; 21 2i; each foretells the doom to fall on Babylon (13 19; 21 9) at the hands of the Medes (13 17; 21 2); and each describes the Israelites as already in exile but not necessarily all Israel.

      The section 14 21-27 tells of the certain do- struct ion of the Assyrian.

      The passage 14 2s 32 is an oracle concerning Philistia.

      Chs 15-16 are ancient oracles against Moab, whose dirgelike meter resembles that of chs 13-14. It is composed of two separate prophecies belong ing to two different periods in Isaiah s ministry (16 13.14). The throe points of particular interest in the oracle are: (1) the prophet s lender sym

      pathy for Moab in her aflliction (15 ">; 16 11). Isaiah mingles his own tears wit h t hose of t he Moab- ites. As Deli) /sch says, "There is no prophecy in the Book of Isa in which the heart of the prophet is so painfully moved by what his spirit beholds and his mouth must prophecy." (2) Moab s pa thetic appeal for shelter from her foes; particularly t he ground on which she urges it , namely, t he Mes sianic hope that the Davidic dynasty shall always stand and be able to repulse its foes (16 5). The prophecy is an echo of 9 o-7. (3) The promise that a remnant of Moab, though small, shall be saved (16 14). Wearied of prayer to Chemosh in his high places, the prophet predicts that Moab will seek the living Cod (16 12).

      The passage 17 1-11 is an oracle concerning Damascus and North Israel, in which Isaiah predicts the fate of the two allies Syria and Ephraim in the Syro-Ephraimitic war of 734 BC, with a promise that only a scanty remnant will survive (17 6). In 17 12-14, the prophet boldly announces the com plete annihilation of Judah s unnamed foes the Assyrians.

      Ch 18 describes Ethiopia as in great excitement, sending ambassadors hither and thither possibly all the way to Jerus ostensibly seeking aid in making preparations for war. Assyria had already taken Damascus (732 BC) and Samaria (722 BC), and consequently Egypt and Ethiopia were in fear of invasion. Isaiah bids the ambassadors to return home and quietly watch Jeh thwart Assyria s self- confident, attempt to subjugate Judah; and he adds that when the Ethiopians have seen God s hand in the coining deliverance of Judah and Jerus (701 BC), they will bring a present to Jeh to His abode in Mount Zion.

      Ch 19, which is an oracle concerning Egypt , con tains both a threat (vs 1-17) and a promise (vs 18- 2o), and is one of Isaiah s most remarkable! foreign messages. Egypt is smitten and thereby led to abandon her idols for the worship of Jeh (vs 19-22). Still more remarkable, it is prophesied that in that- day Egypt and Assyria will join with Judah in a triple alliance of common worship to Jeh and of blessing to others (vs 23-25). Isaiah s missionary out look here is wonderful !

      Ch 20 describes Sargon s march against Egypt and Ethiopia, containing a brief symbolic prediction of Assyria s victory over Egypt and Ethiopia. By donning a captive s garb for three years, Isaiah attempts to teach the citizens of Jerus that the siege of Ashdod was but a means to an end in Sar gon s plan of campaign, and that it was sheer folly for the Egyp party in Jerus, who were ever urging reliance upon Egypt, to look in that direction for help. 21 11.12 is a brief oracle concerning Seir or Edom, "the only gentle utterance in the ()T upon Israel s hereditary foe." Edom is in great anxiety. The prophet s answer is disappointing, though its tone is sympathetic. 21 13 ft is a brief oracle con cerning Arabia. It contains a sympathetic appeal to the Temanites to give bread and water to the caravans of Dedan, who have been driven by war from their usual route of travel.

      Ch 22 is concerning the foreign temper within the theocracy. It is composed of two parts: (1) an oracle "of the valley of vision," i.e. Jerus (vs 1-14); and (2) a philippic against Shcbna, the comptroller of _ the palace. Isaiah pauses, as it wore, in his series of warnings to foreign nations to rebuke the 1 foreign temper of the frivolous inhabit ants of_ Jerus, and in particular Shebna, a high ollicial in the government. The reckless and God- ignoring citizens of the capital are pictured as in dulging themselves in hilarious eating and drinking, when the enemy is at that very moment standing before the gates c, f the city. Shebna, on the other



      hand, seems to have been an ostentatious foreigner, perhaps a Syrian by birth, quite possibly one of the Egyp party, whose policy was antagonistic to 1 hat. of Isaiah and the king. Isaiah s prediction of Shebna s fall was evidently fulfilled (36 3; 37 2). Ch 23 is concerning Tyre. In this oracle Isaiah predicts that Tyre shall be laid waste (ver 1), her commercial glory humbled (ver 9), her colonk become independent of her (ver 10), and she herself forgotten for "seventy years" (ver l~));but "after the end of seventy years," her trade will revive, her business prosperity will return, and she will dedi cate her gains in merchandise as holy to Jeh (ver IS). The third great section of the Book of Isa em braces chs 24-27, which tell of Jeh s world-judgment, issuing in the redemption of Israel. These prophe cies stand closely related to chs 13-23. They ex press the same tender emotion as that already observed in 15 5; 16 11, and sum up as in one grand finale the prophet s oracles to Israel s neigh bors. For religious importance they stand second to none in the Book of Isa, teaching the necessity of Divine discipline and the glorious redemption awaiting the faithful in Israel. They are a spiritual commentary on the great Assyr crisis of the 81 h cent.; they are messages of salvation intended, not for declamation, but for meditation, and were prob ably addressed more particularly to the prophet s inner circle of "disciples" (8 16). These chapters partake of the nature of apocalypse. Strictly speaking, however, they are prophecy, not apoca lypse. No one ascends into heaven or talks with an angel, as in Dnl 7 and Rev 4. They are apocalypse only in the sense that certain things are predicted as sure to come to pass. Isaiah was fond of this kind of prophecy. lie frequently lifts his reader out of the sphere of mere history to paint pictures of the far-off, distant future (2 2-4; 4 2-6; 11 6 16; 30 27-33).

      In ch 24 the prophet announces a general judg ment of the earth (i.e. the land of Judah), and of "the city" (collective, for Judah s towns), after which will (lawn a better day (vs 1-15). The prophet fancies he hears songs of deliverance, but alas! they are premature; more judgment must follow. In ch 25 the prophet transports himself to the period after the Assyr catastrophe and, identifying himself with the redeemed, puts into their mouths songs of praise and thanksgiving for their deliverance. Vs (i-S describe Jeh s bountiful banquet on Mount Zion to all nations, who, in keeping with 2 2-4, corne up to Jerus, to celebrate "a feast of fat things," rich and marrowy. While the people are present at the banquet, Jeh gra ciously removes their spiritual blindness so that they behold Him as the true dispenser of life; and grace. He also abolishes violent death, that is to say, war (cf 2 4), and its sad accompaniment, "tears," so that "the earth" (i.e. the land of Judah) is no longer the battlefield of the nations, but the blessed abode of the redeemed, living in peace and happiness. The prophet s aim is not political but religious.

      In 26 1-19 Judah sings a song over Jerus, the impregnable city of God. The prophet, taking again his stand with the redeemed remnant of the nation, vividly portrays their thankful trust in Jeh, who has been unto them a veritable "Rock of Ages" (ver 4m). With hope he joyfully exclaims, Let Jeh s dead ones live! Let Israel s dead bodies arise! Jeh will bring life from the dead! (ver 19). This is the first clear statement of the resurrection in the OT. But it is national and restricted to Israel (cf ver 14), and is merely Isaiah s method of expressing a hope of the return of Israel s faithful ones from captivity (cf Hos 6 2: Ezk 37 1-14; Dnl 12 2).

      In 26 2027 13 the prophet shows that Israel s chastisements are salutary. lie begins by exhort ing his own people, his disciples, to continue a little longer in the solitude of prayer, till God s wrath has shattered the world-powers (26 20 27 1). He next predicts that, the true vineyard of Jeh will henceforth be safely guarded against the briars and thorns of foreign invasion (27 2-6). And then, after showing that Jeh s chastisements of Israel were light compared with His judgments upon other nations (27 7-11), he promises that if Israel will only repent, Jeh will spare no pains to gather "one by one" the remnant of His people from Assyria and Egypt (cf 11 11); and together they shall once more worship Jeh in the holy mountain at Jerus (27 12.13).

      The prophet s fundamental standpoint in chs 24-27 is the same as that of 2 2-4 and chs 13-23. Yet the prophet not infrequently throws himself forward into the remote future, oscillating back ward and forward between his own times and those of Israel s restoration. It is esp. noteworthy how he sustains himself in a long and continued trans portation of himself to the period of Israel s redemp tion. He even studies to identify himself with the new Israel which will emerge out of the present chaos of political events. His visions of Israel s redemption carry him in ecstasy far away into the remote future, to a time when the nation s suffer ings are all over; so that when he writ es down what he saw in vision he describes it as a discipline that is past. For example, in 25 1-S the prophet, trans ported to the end of time, celebrates in song what he saw,, and describes how the fall of the world- empire is followed by the conversion of the heathen. In 26 S.9 he looks back into the past from the stand point of the redeemed in the last days, and tells how Israel longingly waited for the manifestation of God s righteousness which has now taken place, while in 27 7-9 he places himself in the midst of the nation s sufferings, in full view of their glorious future, and portrays how Jell s dealings with Israel have not. been the punishment of wrath, but the discipline of love. This kind of apocalypse, or prophecy, indeed, was to be expected from 1 he very beginning of the group of prophecies, which are introduced with the word "Behold!" Such a man ner of introduction is peculiar to Isaiah, and of itself leads us to expect a message which is unique.

      The practical religious value of these prophecies to Isaiah s own age would be very great. In a period of war and repeated foreign invasion, when but few men were left in the land (24 6.13; 26 IS), and Judah s cities were laid waste and desolate (24 10.12; 25 2; 26 f>; 27 10;, and music and gladness were wanting (24 S), when the nation still clung to their idols (27 9) and the Assyrians work of destruction was still incomplete, other calami ties being sure to follow (24 16), it would certainly be comforting to know that forgiveness was still possible (27 9), that Jeh was still the keeper of His vineyard (27 3.4), that His judgments were to last but for a little moment (26 20), and that though His people should be scattered, He would soon care fully gather them "one by one" (27 12.13), and that in company with other nations they would feast together on Mt. Zion as Jeh s guests (25 6. 7.10), and that Jerus should henceforth become the center of life and religion to all nations (24 23; 25 6; 27 13). Such faith in Jeh, such exhortations and such songs and confessions of the redeemed, >en in vision, would be a source of rich spiritual omfort to the few suffering saints in Judah and Jerus, and a guiding star to the faithful disciples of the prophet s most inner circle.

      Chs 28-35 contain a cycle of prophetic warnings against alliance with Egypt, closing with a prophecy




      concerning Edom Mini :i ])roinis(> of Israel s ransom. As in 5 N - :;, the prophet indulges in a series of six

      (1) Woe to drunken, scoffing politicians / I 28). Tin- is one of the great chapters of Isaiah s book.

      In the opening section (vs 1 G) the prophet^ points in warning to tlie proud drunkards of Kphraim whose crown (.Samaria) is rapidly fading, lie next turns to the scotiing politicians of Jerus, rebuking esp. the bibulous priests who stumble in judgment, and the slandering prophets who err in vision (vs 7- 2 2); closing with a most instructive parable from agriculture, teaching that Cod s judgments arc not arbitrary; that as the husbandman does not plow and harrow his fields the whole year round, so God will not punish His people forever; and as the husbandman does not thresh all kinds of gram with equal severity, no more will Cod discipline His people beyond 1 heir desert s (vs 2:j-29).

      (2) Woe to formalists in religion (29 1-11). Isaiah s second woe is pronounced upon Ariel, the altar-hearth of Cod, i.e. .lerus, the sacrificial center of Israel s worship. David had first inaugurated the true worship of Jeh in Zion. But now Zion s worship has become wholly conventional, formal, and therefore insincere; it is learned by rote (ver I. *; cf 1 10-1"); Mie 6 6-8). Therefore, says Isaiah, Jeh is forced to do an extraordinary work among them, in order to bring them back to a true knowledge of Himself (ver 1 Ij.

      !. $) Woe to those who hide their plans from God (29 15-24). What their plans are, which they are devising in secret, the prophet doc-snot yet disclose; but he doubtless alludes to their intrigues with the Egyptians and their purpose to break faith with the Assyrians, to whom they were bound by treaty to pay annual tribute. Isaiah bravely remonstrates with them for supposing that any policy will suc ceed which excludes the counsel and wisdom of the, Holy One. They are but clay; He is the potter. At this point, though somewhat abruptly, Isaiah turns his face toward the Messianic future. _ In a very little while, he says, Lebanon, which is now overrun by Assyria s army, shall become a fruitful field, and the blind and deaf and spiritually weak shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.

      (4) Woe to the pro-Egyp party (ch30)._ Isaiah s fourth woe is directed against the rebellious poli ticians who stubbornly, nnd now openly, advocate making a league with Egypt . They have at length succeeded apparently in winning over the king to their side, and an embassy is already on its way to Egypt, bearing across the desert of the exodus rich treasures with which to purchase the friendship of their former oppressors. Isaiah now condemns what he can no longer prevent. Egypt is a Rah ah "sit- still, i.e. a mythological sea-monster, menacing in mien but laggard in action. When the crisis comes, she will sit still, causing Israel only shame and confusion.

      (")) Woe to those who trust in horses and chariots (chs 31-32). Isaiah s fifth woe is a still more vehement denunciation of those who trust in Egypt s horses and chariots, and disregard the Holy One of Israel. Those who do so forget that the Egyp tians are but men and their horses flesh, and that mere flesh cannot avail in a conflict with spirit. Eventually Jeh means to deliver Jems, if the chil dren of Israel will but turn from their idolatries to Him; and in that day, Assyria will be vanquished. A new era will dawn upon Judah. Society will bo regenerated. The renovation will begin at the to]). Conscience also will be sharpened, and moral distinctions will no longer be confused (32 1-8). As Delit/.sch puts it, The aristocracy of birth and wealth will be replaced by an aristocracy of char acter." The careless and indifferent women, too,

      in that day will no longer menace the social welfare of the state (32 9-14); with the outpouring of Jeh s spirit an ideal commonwealth will emerge, in which social righteousness, peace, plenty and security will abound (32 lf)-20).

      (()) Woe to the Assyr destroyer (ch 33). Isaiah s last woe is directed against the treacherous spoiler himself, who has already laid waste the cities of Judah, and is now beginning to lay siege to Jerus (701 BC). The prophet prays, and while he prays, behold! the mighty hosts of the Assyrians are routed and the long-besieged but now triumphant inhabit ants of Jerus rush out like locusts upon the spoil which the vanishing adversary has been forced to leave behind. The destroyer s plan to reduce Jerus has come to naught . The whole eart h beholds the spectacle of Assyria s defeat and is filled with awe and amazement at the mighty work of Jeh. Only the righteous may henceforth dwell in Jerus. Their eyes shall behold the Messiah-king in his beauty, reigning no longer like Hezekiah over a limited and restricted territory, but over a land unbounded, whose inhabitants enjoy Jeh s peace and protection, and are free from all sin, and there fore from all sickness (vs 17-24). With this beau tiful picture of the Messianic future, the prophet s woes find an appropriate conclusion. Isaiah never pronounced a woe without adding a corresponding promise.

      In chs 34-35, the prophet utters a fierce cry for justice against "all the nations," but against Edom in part icular. His tone is t hat of judgment. Edom is guilty of high crimes against Zion (34 8 f), there fore she is doomed to destruction. On the other hand, the scattered ones of Israel shall return from exile and "obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (ch 35).

      Chs 36-3$ contain history, prophecy and song intermingled. These chapters serve both as an appendix to chs 1-35 and as an introduction to chs 40-66. In them three important historical events are narrated, in which Isaiah was a prominent factor: (1) the double attempt of Sennacherib to ob tain possession of Jerus (chs 36-37); (2) Hezekiah s sickness and recovery (ch 38) ; (3) the embassy of Merodach-baladan (ch 39). With certain im portant omissions and insertions^ these chapters are duplicated almost verbatim in 2 K 18 13 20 19. They are introduced with the chronological note, "Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah." Various attempts have been made to solve the mystery of this date; for, if the author is alluding to the siege of 701 BC, difficulty arises, because that event occurred not in Heze kiah s "14th" but 26th year, according to the Bib. chronology of his life; or, if with some we date Hezekiah s accession to the throne of Judah as 720 BC, then the siege of 701 BC occurred, as is evi dent , in Hezekiah s 19th year. It is barely possible of course that "the 14th year of king Hezekiah" was the 14th of the "15 years" which were added to his life, but more probably it alludes to the 14th of his reign. On the whole it is better to take the phrase as a general chronological caption for the entire section, with special reference to ch 38, which tells of Hezekiah s sickness, which actually fell in his 14th year (714 BC), and which, coupled with Sargon s expected presence at Ashdod, was the great personal crisis of the king s life.

      Sennacherib made two attempts in 701 BC to reduce Jerus: one from Lachish with an army headed by the Rabshakeh (36 237 8), and an other from Libnah with a threat conveyed by mes sengers (37 Off). The brief section contained in 2 K 18 14-16 is omitted from between vs 1 and 2 of Isa 36, because it was not the prophet s aim at this time to recount the nation s humiliation.




      Isaiah s last "word" concerning Assyria (37 21-35) is one of the prophet s grandest predictions. It, is composed of three parts: (1) a taunt-song, in ele giac rhythm, on the inevitable humiliation of Sen nacherib (vs 22-29); (2) a short poem in different rhythm, directed to Hezekiah, in order to encourage his faith (vs 30-32) ; (3) a definite prediction, in less elevated style, of the sure deliverance of Jerus (vs 33-35). Isaiah s prediction was literally fulfilled.

      The section 38 9-20 contains Hezekiah s Song of Thanksgiving, in which he celebrates his re covery from some mortal sickness. It is a beautiful plaintive "writing"; omitted altogether by the author of the Book of K (cf 2 K 20). Hezekiah was sick in 714 BC. Two years later Merodach- baladan, the veteran arch-enemy of Assyria, having heard of his wonderful recovery, sent letters and a present to congratulate him. Doubtless, also, political motives prompted the recalcitrant Baby lonian. But be that as it may, I le/ekiah was greatly flattered by the visit of Merodach-baladan s en voys, and, in a moment of weakness, showed them all his royal treasures. This was an inexcusable blunder, as the sight of his many precious posses sions would naturally excite Bab cupidity to possess Jerus. Isaiah not only solemnly condemned the king s conduct, but he announced with more than ordinary insight that the days were coming when all the accumulated resources of Jerus would be carried away to Babylon (39 3-6; cf Mic 4 10). This final prediction of judgment is the most mar velous of all Isaiah s minatory utterances, because he distinctly asserts that, not the Assyrians, w r ho were then at the height of their power, but the Babylonians, shall be the instruments of the Divine vengeance in consummating the destruction of Jerus. There is absolutely no reason for doubting the genuineness of 1 his prediction. In it , indeed, we have a prophetic basis for chs 40-66, which follow.

      Coming now to chs 40-66, we have prophecies of comfort, salvation, and of the future glory await ing Israel. These chapters naturally fall into three sections: (1) chs 40-48, announcing deliverance from captivity through Cyrus; (2) chs 49-57, de scribing the sufferings of the "Servant" of Jeh, this section ending like the former with the refrain, "There is no peace, saith my Clod, to the wicked" (57 21; cf 48 22); (3) chs 58-66, announcing the final abolition of all national distinctions and the future glory of the people of God. Ch 60 is the characteristic chapter of this section, as ch 53 is of the second, and ch 40 of the first.

      Entering into greater detail, the first section (chs 40-48) demonstrates the deity of Jeh through His unique power to predict. The basis of the comfort which the prophet announces is Israel s incomparable God (ch 40). Israel s all-powerful Jeh in comparison with other gods is incomparable. In the prologue (40 1-11) he hears the four voices: (1) of grace (vs 1.2); (2) of prophecy (vs 3-5); (3) of faith (vs 6-8), and (4) of evangelism (vs 9-11). Then, after exalting the unique character of Israel s all-but-forgotten God (vs 12-26), he exhorts them not to suppose that Jeh is ignorant of, or indiffer ent to, Israel s misery. Israel must wait for sal vation. They are clamoring for deliverance pre maturely. Only wait, he repeats; for with such a God, Israel has no reason to despond (vs 27-31).

      In ch 41 he declares that the supreme proof of Jeh s sole deity is His power to predict. He in quires, "Who hath raised up one from the east?" Though the hero is left unnamed, Cyrus is doubt less in the prophet s mind (cf 44 28; 45 1). He is not, however, already appearing upon the horizon of history as some fancy, but rather predicted as sure to come. The verb tenses which express com pleted action are perfects of certainty, and are used

      in precisely the same manner as those in 3 8; 5 13; 21 9. The answer to the inquiry is, "I, Jeh, the first, and with the last, I am he" (41 4). Israel is Jeh s servant. The dialogue continues; but it is no longer between Jeh and the nations, as in vs 1-7, but between Jeh and the idols (vs 21-29). Ad dressing the dumb idols, Jeh is represented as saying, Predict something, if you are real deities. As for myself, I am going to raise up a hero from the north who will subdue all who oppose him. And I an nounce my purpose now in advance "from the be ginning," "beforetime," before there is the slightest ground for thinking that such a hero exists or ever will exist (ver 26), in order that the future may verify my prediction, and prove my sole deity. I, Jeh, alone know the future. In vs 25-29, the prophet even projects himself into the future and speaks from the standpoint of the fulfilment of his prediction. This, as we saw above, was a char acteristic; of Isaiah in chs 24 -27.

      In 42 1 43 13 the prophet announces also a spiritual agent of redemption, namely, Jeh s "Serv ant." Not only a temporal agent (Cyrus) shall be raised up to mediate Israel s redemption, which is the first step in the process of the universal sal vation contemplated, but a spiritual factor. Jeh s "Servant-" shall be employed in bringing the good tidings of salvation to the exiles and to the Gentiles also. In 42 1-9 the prophet describes this ideal figure and the work he will execute. The glorious future evokes a brief hymn of thanksgiving for the redemption which the prophet beholds in prospect (42 10-17). Israel has long been blind and deaf to Jeh s instructions (42 18.19), but now Jeh is determined to redeem them even at the cost of the most opulent nations of the world, that they may publish His law to all peoples (42 1843 13).

      In 13 14 44 23 forgiveness is made the pledge of deliverance. Jeh s determination to redeem Israel is all of grace. Salvation is a gift. Jeh has blotted out their transgressions for His own sake (43 25). "This passage," Dilhnann observes, "marks the highest point of grace in the OT." Gods of wood and stone are nonentities. Those; who manufacture idols are blind and dull of heart, and are "feeding on asln -s." The section 44 9-20 is a most remorseless exposure of the folly of idolatry.

      In 44 24 45 25 the prophet at length names the hero of Israel s salvation and describes his mission. He is Cyrus. He shall build Jerus and lay the foundations of the temple (44 28); he shall also subdue nations and let the exiles go free (45 1.13). He speaks of Cyrus in the most extraordinary, almost extravagant, terms. He is Jeh s "shepherd" (44 28), lie is also Jeh s "anointed," i.e. Messiah (45 1), "the man of my counsel" (46 11), whom Jeh has called by name, and surnamed without his ever knowing Him (45 3.4); the one "whom Jeh loveth" (48 14), whose right hand Jeh upholdeth (45 1), and who will perform all Jeh s pleasure; (44 28); though but "a ravenous bird from the east" (46 ll).jCThe vividness with which the prophet speaks of Cyrus leads some to suppose that the latter is already upon the horizon. This, how ever, is a mistake. Scarcely would a contemporary have spoken in such terms of the real Cyrus of 538 BC. The prophet regards him (i.e. the Cyrus of his own prediction, not the Cyrus of history) as the fulfilment of predictions spoken long before. That is to say, in one and the same context, Cyrus is both predicted and treated as a proof that pre diction is being fulfilled (44 24-28; 45 21). Such a phenomenon in prophecy can best be explained by supposing that the prophet projected himself into the future from an earlier age. Most ex traordinary of all, in 45 14-17, the prophet soars in imagination until he sees, as a result of Cyrus




      victories, tin conquered nations renouncing their idols, and attracted to .leh as the Saviour of all man kind (45 22 i. On any theory of origin, the p^dict ive element in these prophecies is \\\\vritten large.

      ( hs 46 47 describe further the distinct ive work of Cyrus, though Cyrus himself is but once referred I,,. 1 articular emphasis is laid on the complete collapse of the Bab religion; the prophet being apparently more concerned with the humiliation ol Babylon s idols than with the fall of the city itself. Of course the destruction of the city would imply the defeat of her gods, as also the emancipation of Israel. But here again all is in the future; in fact .Jeh s incomparable superiority and unique deity are proven by His power to predict, "the end from the beginning" and bring His prediction to pass (46 Ml.l 1).

      Ch 47 is a dirge over the downfall of the imperial city, strongly resembling the- taunt-song over the kiiig of Babylon in 14 4 21.

      Ch 48 is a hortatory summary and recapitulation of the argument contained in chs 40-47, the prophet again emphasizing the following points: (1) J h s unique power to predict; ( 2) that salvation is of grace; (3) that Cyrus advent will be the crowning proof of .Jeh s abiding presence among His people; (4) that Cod s chastisements were only disciplinary; and (5; that even now there is hope, if they will but accept of Jell s proffered salvation. Alas! that there is no peace or salvation for the godless (48 20-22). Thus ends the first division of Isaiah s remarkable "vision" of Israel s deliverance from captivity through Cyrus.

      The second section (chs 49-57) deals with the spiritual agent of salvation, Jeh s suffering "Serv ant." With ch 49 the prophet leaves off attempt ing further to prove the sole deity of Jeh by means of prediction, and drops entirely his descrip tion of Cyrus victories and the overthrow of Baby lon, in order to set forth in greater detail the charac ter and mission of the suffering "Servant" of Jeh. Already, in chs 40-48, he had alluded several times to this unique and somewhat enigmatical personage, speaking of him both collectively and as an indi vidual (41 8-10; 42 1-9.18-22; 43 10; 44 1-5. 21-28; 454; 4820-22;; but now he defines with greater precision both his prophetic and priestly functions, his equipment for his task, his sufferings and humiliation, and also his final exaltation. Alto gether in these prophecies ho mentions the "Serv ant" some 20 t. But, there are four distinctively so-called "Servant-Songs" in which the prophet seems to rise above; the collective masses of all Israel to at least a personification of the pious within Israel, or better, to a unique Person embodying within himself all that is best in the Israel within Israel. They arc; the following: (1)42 1-9, a poem descriptive of the Servant s gentle manner and world-wide mission; (2) 49 1-13, describing the Servant s mission and spiritual success; (3) 50 4-1 1 , the Servant s soliloquv concerning His perfection through suffering; and (4) 52 1353 12, the Serv ant s vicarious suffering and ultimate exaltation. In this last of the four "Servant -Songs" we reach the climax of the prophet s inspired symphony, the acme of Hi b Messianic hope. The profoundest thoughts in the OT revelation are to be found in thissection. It is a vindication of the "Servant," so clear and so true, and wrought out with such pathos and potency, that it holds first place among Mes sianic predictions. Polycarp called it "the golden passional of the OT." It has been realized in Jesus Christ.

      Chs 58-66 describe the future glory of the people of Cod. Having described in chs 40-48 the tem poral agent of Israel s salvation, Cyrus, and in chs 49-57 the spiritual agent of their salvation, the

      "Servant" of Jeh, the prophet proceeds in this last section to define the conditions on which salvation may be enjoyed. He begins, as before, with a double imperative, "Cry aloud, spare not" (cf 40 1; 49 1).

      In ch 58 he discusses true fasting and faithful Sabbat h observance.

      In ch 59 he beseeches Israel to forsake; their sins. It is their sins, he urges, which have hidden Jeh s face and retarded the nation s salvation. In vs Off the prophet identifies himself with the people and leads them in their devotions. Jeh is grieved over Israel s forlorn condition, and, seeing their helplessness, He arms himself like a warrior to interfere judicially (vs 15-19). Israel shall be redeemed. With them as the nucleus of a new na tion, Jeh will enter anew into covenant relation, and put His Spirit upon them, which will abide with them henceforth and forever (vs 20-21).

      Chs 60-61 describe the future blessedness of Zion. The long-looked-for "light" (cf 59 9) begins to dawn: "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the; glory of Jeh is risen upon thee" (60 1). The prophet pauses at this point to paint a picture of the redeemed community. As in 2 3.4, the Gentiles are seen flocking to Zion, which becomes the mis tress of the nations. Foreigners build her walls, and her gates are kept open continually without fear of siege. The Gentiles acknowledge that Zion is the spiritual center of the world. Even Israel s oppressors regard her as "the city of Jeh," as "an eternal excellency," in which Jeh sits as its ever lasting light (60 10-22).

      In ch 61, which Drummond has called "the pro gram of Christianity," the "Servant" of Jeh is again introduced, though anonymously, as the herald of salvation (vs 1-3). The gospel monologue of the "Servant" is followed by a promise of the restora tion and blessedness of Jerus (vs 4-11). Thus the prophecy moves steadily forward toward its goal in Jesus Christ (cf Lk 4 18-21).

      In 62 1 63 6 Zion s salvation is described as drawing near. The nations will be spectators of the great event. A new name which will better symbolize her true character shall be given to Zion, namely, Hephzi-bah, "My delight is in her"; for Jerus shall no more be called desolate. On the other hand, Zion s enemies will all be vanquished. In a brief poem of peculiar dramatic beauty (63 1-6), the prophet portrays Jeh s vengeance, as a victorious warrior, upon all those who retard Israel s deliverance. Edom in particular was Israel s in satiate foe. Hence the prophet represents Jeh s judgment of the nations as taking place on Edom s unhallowed soil. Jeh, whose mighty arm has wrought salvation, returns as victor, having slain all of Israel s foes.

      In 63 7 64 12, Jeh s "servants" resort to prayer. They appeal to Jeh as the Begetter and Father of the nations (63 16; 64 8). With this thought of the fatherhood of God imbedded in his language, Isaiah had opened his very first oracle to Judah and Jerus (cf 12). As the prayer proceeds, the lan guage becomes increasingly tumultuous. The people are thrown into despair because Jeh seems to have abandoned them altogether (63 19). They recognize that the condition of Jerus is desperate. "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire ; and all our pleasant places are laid waste" (64 11). Such language, however, is the language of fervent prayer and must not be taken with rigid litcralness, as 63 18 and 3 8 plainly show.

      Finally, in chs 65-66, Jeh answers His people s supplications, distinguishing sharply between His own "servants" and Israel s apostates. Only His chosen "seed" shall be delivered (65 9). Those




      who have obdurately provoked Jeh by sacrificing in gardens (65 3; 66 17), offering libations to Fortune and Destiny (65 11), sitting among the graves to obtain oracles from the dead, and, like the Egyptians, eating swine s flesh and broth of abominable things which were supposed to possess magical properties, lodging in vaults or crypts in which heathen mysteries were celebrated (65 4), and at the same time fancying that by celebrating such heathen mysteries they are holier than others and thereby disqualified to discharge the ordinary duties of life (65 5) such Jeh designs to punish, measuring their work into their bosom and destroy ing them utterly with the sword (65 7.12). On the other hand, the "servants" of Jeh shall inherit His holy mountains. They shall rejoice and sing for joy of heart, and bless themselves in the God of Amen, i.e. in the God of Truth (65 9.14.10). Jeh will create new heavens and a new earth, men will live and grow old like the patriarchs; they will possess houses and vineyards and enjoy them; for an era of idyllic peace will be ushered in with the coming of the Messianic age, in which even the natures of wild animals will be changed and the most rapacious of wild animals will live together in harmony (65 17-25). Religion will become spirit ual and decentralized, mystic cults will disappear, incredulous scoffers will be silenced. Zion s popu lation will be marvelously multiplied, and the people will be comforted and rejoice (66 1-14). Further more, all nations will flock to Zion to behold Jell s glory, and from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh will come up to worship in Jems (66 ln-23).

      It is evident that the Book of Isa closes, prac tically as it begins, with a polemic against false worship, and the alternate reward of the righteous and punishment, of the wicked. The only essential difference between the prophet s earlier and later oracles is this: Isaiah, in his riper years, on t he basis of nearly half n century s experience as a preacher, paints a much brighter eschatological picture than was possible in his early ministry. His picture of the Messianic age not only transcends those of his contemporaries in the Sth cent. BC, but he pene trates regions beyond the spiritual horizon of any and all OT seers. Such language as that contained in 66 1.2, in particular, anticipates the great, prin ciple enunciated by Jesus in Jn 4 24, namely, that "God is a Spirit : and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth." To attempt to date such oracles as these on the basis of internal evi dence is an absolute impossibility. Humanly speak ing, one age could have produced such revelations quite as easily as another. But no age could have produced them apart from the Divine spirit.

      The editorial arrangement of Isaiah s prophecies is very suggestive. In the main they stand in chronological order. That is to say, 8. Isaiah s all the dales mentioned are in strict Prophecies historical sequence; e.g. 6 1, "In the Chronologi- year that king Uzziah died" (740 BC); callyAr- 7 1, "In the days of Ahaz" (736 ft ranged BC); 14 2S, "In the year that, king

      Ahaz died" (727 BC); 20 1, "In tin- year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him" (711 BC); 36 1, "In the 14th year of king Hezekiah" (701 BC). These points are all in strict chronological order. Taken in groups, also, Isaiah s great individual messages are likewise arranged in true historical sequence; thus, chs 1-6 for the most, part belong to the last, years of Jotham s reign (740-730 BC); chs 7-12, to the period of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734 BC); ch 20, to the year of Sargon s siege of Ashdod (711 BC); chs 28-32, to the invasion of Judah by Sen nacherib (701 BC); while the distinctively promis

      sory portions (chs 40-66), as is natural, conclude the collection. In several minor instances, how ever, there are notable departures from a rigid chronological order. For example, ch 6, which describes the prophet s initial call to preach, follows the rebukes and denunciations of chs 1-5; but this is probably due to its being used by the prophet as an apologetic. Again, the oracles against foreign nations in chs 13-23 belong to various dates, being grouped together, in part, at least, because of their subject-matter. Likewise, chs 38-39, which give an account of Hezekiah s sickness and Merodach- baladan s embassy to him upon his recovery (714- 712 BC), chronologically precede chs 36-37, which describe Sennacherib s investment of Jerus (701 BC). This chiastic order, however, in the last instance, is due probably to the desire to make chs 36-37 (about Sennacherib, king of Assyria) an appropriate conclusion to chs 1-35 (which say much about Assyria), and, on the other hand, to make chs 38 39 (about Merodach-baladan of Baby lon) a suitable introduction to ychs 40-66 (which speak of Babylon).

      The attempt to date Isaiah s individual messages on the basis of internal criteria alone, is a well-nigh impossible task; and yet no other kind of evidence is available. Often passages stand side by side which point in opposite directions; in fact, certain sections seem to be composed of various fragments dating from different periods, as though prophecies widely separated from each other in time had been fused together. In such cases much weight should be given to those features which point, to an early origin, because of (he predominatingly predictive character of Isaiah s writings.

      Isaiah always had an eye upon the future. His semi-historical and biographical prophecies are nat urally the easiest to date; on the other hand, the form of his Messianic and eschatological discourse s is largely due to his own personal temper and psy chology, rather than to the historical circumstances of the time. The following is a table of Isaiah s prophecies chronologically arranged: Chs

      1-6 written probably

      7-12 15 116 12; 17

      13 114 2:5 between

      14 24-27 14 2,s :52

      23 " short I v befort



      c 710 7:iti c 7:54-7152 c 7:54 7:52-722 7:52-722 7

      28 19 38 39 21 22 21

      1 1.12.1:5-1; 15-25 1-10 22 l Hi

      733 24






      soon after

      e 7LO

      c 714

      < 712


      c. 711

      e 700

      c 709


      c 701

      f 701



      The prophet s standpoint in chs 40-66 is that, of Isaiah himself. For if Isaiah, before 734 BC, in passages confessedly his own, could describe Judah s cities as already "burned with fire," Zion as de serted as "a booth in a vineyard" (1 7.S), Jerus as "ruined," Judah as "fallen" (3 S), and Jeh s people as already "gone into captivity" (5 13), surely after all the destruction and devastation wrought on Judah by Assyria in the years 722, 720, 711, and 701 BC, the same prophet with the same poetic license could declare that the temple had been "trodden down" (63 IS) and "burned with fire," and all Judah s pleasant places "laid waste" (64 11); and, in perfect, keeping with his former prom ises, could add that "they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations" (61 1; cf 44 20; 58 12).




      Or again, if Isaiah the son of Amoz could comfort Jerus with promises of protection \\\\vlien (lie Assyrian (73-1 BC) should come like an overflowing river (8 .1. 10; 10 21.2."> ; and conceive a beautiful parable of comfort like that contained in 28 23 29; and insert among his warnings and exhortations of the gloomy year 70- B( so many precious promises of a bri"iiter future which was sure to follow Sen nacherib s invasinn (29 17 24; 30 29 33; 31 8.9 : and, in the very midst of the siege of 701 BC , con ceive of such marvelous Messianic visions as those in 33 17 L l with which to dis|>el the dismay of his compatriots, surely I lie same prophet might he con ceived of as seizing the opportunity to comfort Miose in /ion who survived the great catastrophe of 701 BC. The prophet who had done the one was pre pared to do I he other.

      There was one circumstance of the prophet s position after 701 BC which was new, and which is too often overlooked, a circumstance 1 which he could not have employed to anything like the same degree as an argument in enforcing his message prior to the Assyrian s overthrow and the deliver ance of .lerus. it was this: the fulfilment of former prediction* /ix proof of J eh s deity. From such pas- sa ir es we obtain an idea of the prophet s true his torical posit ion (42 9; 44 S; 45 21; 46 10; 48 3). Old predictions have already been fulfilled (6 1 1-13; 29 S; 30 31; 31 S; 37 7.30), on the basis of which the prophet ventures to predict new and even more astounding things concerning the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, and Israel s deliverance through him from their captors (43 (>). Isaiah s book is signally full of predictions (7 S.lOff; 8 4.8; 9 11.12; 1020ft; 1424-27; 1614; 179.12-14; 204-0; 21 Hi; 22 19 IT; 23 1">; 38 f>), some of which, written down and sealed, were evidently committed by the prophet to his inner circle of disciples to be used and verified by them in subsequent crises (8 16). Failure to recognize this element in Isaiah s book is fatal to a true interpretation of the prophet s real message.

      For about twenty-five centuries," as A. B. Davidson observes (OT I ro/i/nc/j, 190. ], 244), "no one dreamt of doubting that Isaiah the 9. The son of Amoz was the author of every

      Critical part of the book that goes under his

      Problem name; and those who still maintain the unity of authorship are accus tomed to point, with satisfaction, to the unanimity of the Christian church on the matter, till a few C.erman scholars arose, about a century ago, and called in question the unity of this book." Tradi tion is unanimous in favor of the unity of the book.

      (1) The liixlari/ of criticism. The critical dis integration of the book began with Koppe, who in 17X0 first doubted the genuineness of ch 60. Nine years later Doederlein suspected the whole of chs 40 66. lie was followed by Rosenmueller, who was the first to deny to Isaiah the prophecy against, Babylon in 13 1 14 23. Eichhorn, at the begin ning of the last century, further eliminated the oracle against Tyre in ch 23, and he, with Gesenius and Ewald, also denied the Isaianic origin of chs 24 27. (lesenius also ascribed to some unknown prophet chs 15 and 16. Rosenmueller then went, farther, and pronounced against chs 34 and 35, and not long afterward (18-10) Ewald questioned chs 12 and 33. Tims by the middle of the 19th cent, some 37 or 38 chapters were rejected as no part of Isaiah s actual writings. In 1X79-80, the cele brated Leip/ig professor, Franz Delitzsch, who for years previous had defended the genuineness of the entire book, finally yielded to the modern critical position, and in the new edition of his commentary published in 1889, interpreted chs 40-66, though with considerable hesitation, as coming from the

      close of the period of Bab exile. About the same time (1888-90), Drs. Driver and G. A. Smith gave popular impetus to similar views in Great Britain. Since 1890, the criticism of Isa has been even more trenchant and microscopic, than before. Duhm, Staile, Guthe, Ilackmann, Cornill and Marti on the Continent, and Cheyne, Whitehouse, Box, Glaze- brook, Kennett, Gray, Peake, and others in Great Britain and America have questioned portions which hitherto were supposed to be genuine.

      (2) The disintct/nttion. of "Deutero-Isaiah." Even the unity of chs 40-66, which were supposed to be the work of the "Second" or "Deutero-Isaiah," is now given up. What prior to 1890 was supposed to be the unique product of SOUK; celebrated but anonymous seer who lived in Babylonia about 550 BC is today commonly divided and subdivided and in large part distributed among various writers from Cyrus to Simon (538-104 BC). At first it was thought, sufficient to separate chs 63-66 as a later addition to "Deutero-lsaiah s" prophecies; but more recently it has become the fashion to dis tinguish between chs 40-55, which are claimed to have been writ ten by "Deutero-Isaiah" in Babylonia about 549-538 BC, and chs 56-66, which are now alleged to have been composed by a "Trito-Isaiah" about 400-445 BC.

      (3) Recent views. Among the latest to investi gate the problem is Professor R. H. Kennett of Cambridge, Eng., who, in his Schwcich Lectures (The, Composition of tin; Hook of Isa in the Light of Hist (mil Archaeology, 1910, 84 ff), sums up the results of investigations as follows: (a) all of chs 3, 5, 6, 7, 20 and 31, and large portions of chsl, 2,4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17,22 and 23, maybe assigned to Isaiah, the son of Amoz; (b) all of chs 13, 40 and 47, and large portions of chs 14, 21, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48, may be assigned to the time of Cyrus; (c) all of chs 15, 36, 37 and 39, and portions of chs 16 and 38, may be assigned to the period between Nebu chadnezzar and Alexander the Great, but cannot be dated precisely; (d) the passage 23 1-14 may be assigned to the time of Alexander the Great; (c) all of chs 11, 12, 19, 24-27, 29, 30, 32-35, 42, 49-66, and portions of chs 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23, 41, 44, 45, 48 may be assigned to the 2d cent. BC (107-140 BC).

      Professor C. F. Kent, also (Sermons, Epistles, and Apocalypses of Israel * Prophets, 1910, 27 ff), makes the following critical observations on chs 40-66. Ho says: "The prophecies of Haggai and Zecliariah .... afford by far the best approach for the study of the dillicult

      problems presented by Isa 40-66 Chs 56-66

      are generally recognized as post-exilic In Isa

      56 and the following chapters there are repeated refer ences to the temple and its service, indicating that it had already been restored. Moreover, these references are

      not confined to the latter part of the book The

      fact, on the one hand, that there are few, if any, allu sions to contemporary events in these chapters, and on the other hand, that little or nothing is known of the condition and hopes of the Jews during this period (the closing years of the Bab exile) makes the dating of these

      prophecies possible, although far from certain

      Also, the assumption that the author of these chapters jived in the J5ab exile is not supported by a close exam ination of the prophecies themselves. Possibly their author was one of the few who, like Zerubbabel, had been born in Babylon and later returned to Pal. He was also dealing with such broad and universal problems that he gives few indications of his date and place of abode; but. all the evidence that is found points to Jerus as the

      place where ho lived and wrote The prophet s

      interest and point of view center throughout in .Jerus, and he shows himself far more familiar with conditions in 1 al than in distant Babylon. Most of his illustra tions are drawn from the agricultural life of Pal. His vocabulary is also that of a man dwelling in Pal, and in this respect is in marked contrast with the synonyms employed by Ezekiel, the prophet of the Bab exile."

      That is to say, two of the most recent investi gators of the Book of Isa reach conclusions quite at variance with the opinions advocated in 1890, when Delitzsch so reluctantly allowed that chs 40-




      66 may have sprung from the period of Bab exile. Now, it is found that these last 27 chs were written after the exile, most probably in Pal, rather than in Babylonia as originally claimed, and are no longer considered addressed primarily to the suffer ing exiles in captivity as was formerly urged.

      (4) The present state of the question. The present state of the Isa-question is, to say the least, con fusing. Those who deny the integrity of the book may be divided into two groups, which we may call moderates and radicals. Among the moderates may be included Drs. Driver, G. A. Smith, Skinner, Kirkpatrick, Koenig, A. B. Davidson, Barnes and Whitehouse. These all practically agree that the following chs and vs are not Isaiah s: 11 10-16; 12; 13 114 23; 15 116 12; 21 1-10; 24-27; 34-35; 36-39; 40-66. That is to say, some 44 chs out of the whole number, 66, were not written by Isaiah; or, approximately 800 out of 1,292 vs are not genuine. Among the radicals are Drs. Chcyne, Duhm, Hackmann, Guthe, Marti, Kennett and Gray. These all reject approximately 1,030 vs out of the total 1,292, retaining the following only as the genuine product of Isaiah and his age: 1 2-26. 29-31; 2 6-19; 3; 4 1; 5 1-14.17-29; 6- 7 1-8.22; 9 810 9; 10 13 14.27-32; 17 1-14; 18; 20; 22 1-22; 28 1-4.7-22; 29 1-; 30 1-17; 31 1-4. That is, only about 262 vs out of the total 1,292 are allowed to be genuine. This is, we believe, a fair statement of the Isa-question as it exists in the hands of divisive critics today.

      On the other hand there have been those who have defended and who still defend the essential unity of Isaiah s entire book, e.g. Strachey (1874), Nagelsbach (1877), Bredenkamp (1887), Douglas (1S95), W. H. Cobb (1883-1908), W. H. Green (1892), Vos (1898-99), Thirtle (1907), Margoliouth (1910) and (). T. Allis (1912).

      (5) Reasons for dissecting the book. The funda mental axiom of criticism is the dictum that a prophet always spoke out of a definite historical situation to the present needs of the people among whom he lived, and that a definite- historical sit uation shall be pointed out for each prophecy. This fundamental postulate, which on the whole is reason able and perfectly legitimate if not overworked, underlies all modern criticism of OT prophecy. It is not possible, however, always to trace a mere snatch of sermonic discourse to a definite historical situation apart from its context. Moreover, the prophets often spoke consciously, not only to their own generation, but also to the generations to come. Isaiah in particular commanded, "Bind thou up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples" (8 16); that is, preserve my teachings for the future. Again in 30 8, he says, "Now go, .... inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." And also in 42 23, "Who is there among you that will give ear to this? that will hearken and hear for the time to come ?"

      Certain false presuppositions often govern critics in their disintegration of the book. Only a few examples need be given by way of illustration: (a) According to some, "the conversion of the heathen" lay quite beyond the horizon of any 8th- cent. prophet; consequently. Isa 2 2-4 and all similar passages which foretell the conversion of those outside the chosen people are to be relegated to an age subsequent to Isaiah, (b) To others, "the picture of universal peace" in Isa 11 1-9 is a symptom of late date, and therefore this section and all kindred ones must be deleted, (c) To others, the thought of "universal judgment" upon "the whole earth" in 14 26 and elsewhere quite tran scends Isaiah s range of thought, (d) To others still, the apocalyptic character of chs 24-27 repre sents a phase of Heb thought which prevailed in

      Israel only after Ezekiel. (e) Even to those who are considered moderates "the poetic character" of a passage like ch 12, and the references to a "return" from captivity, as in 11 11-16, and the promises and consolations such as are found in ch 33 are cited as grounds for assigning these and similar passages to a much later age. Radicals deny in toto the existence of all Messianic passages among Isaiah s own predictions, relegating all Messianic hope to a much later age.

      But to deny to the Isaiah of the 8th cent, all catholicity of grace, all universalism of salvation or judgment, every highly developed Messianic ideal, every rich note of promise and comfort, all sublime faith in the sacrosanct character of Zion, as some do, is unwarrantably to create a new Isaiah of greatly reduced proportions, a mere preacher of righteousness, a statesman of not very optimistic vein, and the exponent of a cold ethical religion without the warmth arid glow of the messages which are actually ascribed to the prophet of the 8th cent.

      As a last resort, certain critics have appealed to 2 Ch 36 22.23 as external evidence that chs 40-66 existed as a separate collection in the Chronicler s age. But the evidence obtained from this source is so doubtful that it is well-nigh valueless. For it is not the prediction of Isa concerning Cyrus to which the Chronicler points as Jeremiah s, but the "70 years" of Bab supremacy spoken of in ver 21, which Jeremiah actually did predict (cf Jer 25 11; 29 10). On the other hand, chs 40-66 were cer tainly ascribed to Isaiah as early as 180 BC, for Jesus Ben-Sirach, the author of Ecclus, speaks of Isaiah as the prophet who "saw by an excellent spirit that which should come to pass at the last , and comforted them that mourned in Zion" (Ecclus 48 20 ff; cf Isa 40 Iff). Furthermore, there is absolutely no proof that chs 1-39, or chs 40-66, or any other section of Isaiah s prophecies ever existed by themselves as an independent collection; nor is there any substantial ground for supposing that the promissory and Messianic portions have been sys tematically interpolated by editors long subse quent to Isaiah s own time. The earlier prophets presumably did more than merely threaten.

      (6) Arguments for one Isaiah. It is as unreason able to expect to be able to prove the unity of Isa as to suppose that it has been disproved. Internal evidence is indecisive in either case. There are arguments, however, which corroborate a belief that there was but one Isaiah. Here are some of those which might be introduced:

      (a) The circle; of ideas, which are strikingly the same throughout the entire book: For example, take the characteristic name for God, which is almost peculiar to Isaiah, "the Holy One of Israel." This title for Jeh occurs in the Book of Isa a total of 25 t, and only 6 t elsewhere in the OT, one of which is a || passage in K. This unique epithet, "the Holy One of Israel," interlocks all the various portions with one another and stamps them with the personal imprimatur of him who saw the vision of the majestic God seated upon His throne, high and lifted up, and heard the angelic choirs singing: "Holy, holy, holy, is Jeh of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory" (6 3). The presence of this Divine title in all the different sections of the book is of more value in identifying Isaiah as the author of all these prophecies than though his name had been inserted at the beginning of every chapter, for the reason that his theology his conception of God as the Holy One is woven into the very fiber and texture of the whole book. It occurs 12 t in chs 1-39, and 13 t in chs 40-66; and it is simply unscientific to say that the various alleged authors of the disputed portions all employed the same title




      through imitation (cf 1 4; 5 19.1.M; 10 JO; 12 ti; 17 7; 29 I .i; 30 11. 12. 15; 31 1 ; 37 J:i; also 41 ll.lbVJO; 43 M.ll; 45 11; 47 1; 48 17; 49 7; 54 5; 55 5; 60 .i.ll; elsewhere, only in 1 \\\\\\\\ 19 J-J; 1 s 71 22; 78 11; 89 is; JYr 50 2 .; 51 5). Another unique idea which occurs with consid erable repetition in the Book of Isa is the thought of a "highway" (cf 11 Hi; 35 S; 40 M; 43 19; 49 11; 57 li; 62 10). Another characteristic idea is that of a "remnant" (cf 1 9; 10 20.21.22; 11 II. 1(1; 14 22.:;i); 15 9; 16 11; 17)5; 21 17; 28 5; 37 ol; 46 o; cf 65 8.9). Another striking trait of the hook is the position occupied by "/ion" in the prophet s thoughts (cf 2 . !: 4 5; 18 7; 24 2:{; 28 Iti; 29 S; 30 I .i; 31 .: 33 5. 20; 34 S; 46 1M; 49 11; 51 :;.li; 52 1 ; 59 20; 60 11; 62 1.11; 66 S). Still another is the oft-repeated expression, "pangs of a woman in travail (cf 13 S; 21 . !; 26 17.1s; 42 11; 54 1; 66 7). Those, and many others less dist inct ive, psychologically stamp t he hook wit h an individuality which it is difficult to account for, if it he broken up into count less fragments and dis- tributed, as some do, over the centuries.

      (l>) The literary style; As negative evidence, literary style is not a very safe argument; for, as Professor McCurdy says, "In the case of a writer of Isaiah s environments, style is not a sure cri terion of authorship" (History, Prophecy <tn<l the Mon nun ///.s, 1 1 , . ! 1 7, n . ) . \\\\ et it is cert ainly remark able that the clause "for the mouth of Jeh hath spoken it" should be found o t in the Book of Isa, and nowhere r/.sr -In the ()T (Cf 1 20; 40 5; 58 L4). And it is noteworthy that the phrase, "streams of water," should occur twice in Isa and nowhere <l*c (cf 30 25; 44 4 in the Hob). And very peculiar is the tendency on the prophet s part to emphatic reduplication (cf 2 7.X; 6 :;: 8 9; 24 l(i.2:>; 40 r 43 11.25; 48 15; 51 12; 57 19; 62 10). Iti fact, it is not extravagant to say that Isaiah s style differs widely from that of every other ( )T prophet, and is as far removed as possible from that of Eze- kiel and the post-exilic prophets.

      (r) Historical references: Take, for example, first, the prophet s constant reference to Juda.h and Jerus, his country and its capital (1 7-9; 3 S - 24 19; 25 2; 40 2.9; 62 4); likewise, to the temple and its ritual of worship and sacrifice. lull l-lo, when all was prosperous, the prophet complained that the people were profuse and formal in their ceremonies and sacrifices; in 43 2.3.24, on the con trary, when the country had been overrun by the Assyrian and Sennacherib had besieged the city, the prophet reminds them that they had not brought to Jeli the sheep of their burnt offerings, nor honored Him with their sacrifices; while in 66, not only is the existence of the Temple and the ob servance of the ritual presupposed, but- those are sentenced who place their trust in the material temple, and the outward ceremonials of temple- worship. As for the "exile," the prophet s attitude to it throughout is that of both anticipation and realization. Thus, in 57 1, judgment is only threat ened, not yet inflicted: "The righteous is taken away front tin- a-il to come." That is to say, the exile is described as still future. On t he other hand, in 3 S, "Jerus is ruined, and Judah is fallen," which seems to describe the exile as in the past; yet, as everybody admits, these are the words of Isaiah of the Nth cent. In 11 11.12, the prophet says, "The Lord will set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people from the four corners of the earth." To interpret such astatement literally and mechanically without, regard to Sth-cent. conditions, or to Isaiah s mani fest attitude to the exile, leads to confusion. No prophet realized so keenly or described so vividlv the destiny of the Hebrews.

      (il) The predictive element : This is the strongest, proof of the unity of the Book of Isa. Prediction is the very essence of prophecy (cf Dt 18 22); Isaiah was preeminently a, prophet of the future. With unparalleled suddenness, he repeatedly leaps from despair to hope, from threat, to promise, and from the actual to the ideal. What Professor Kent, says of "Deutero-Isaiah" may with equal justice be said of Isaiah himself: "While in touch with his own age, the great unknown prophet lives in the at mosphere of the past and the future" (,SY/v//o/<,s, A /(/.s7/r.s, mill Apocalypses of Israel s Prophets, 2S). Isaiah spoke to his own age, hut he also addressed himself to the ages to follow. His verb lenses are characteristically futures and prophetic perfects. Of his hook A. B. Davidson s words are particu larly true: "If any prophetic hook be examined .... it will appear that the ethical and religious teaching is always secondary, and that the essential thing in the hook or discourse is the prophet s out look into the future" (111)11, art. "Prophecy and Prophets," IV, 119).

      Isaiiili was exceptionally given to predicting: thus (a) before this Syro-Ephraimitic w;ir (734 BO;, he predicted that within (>;> years Kphraim should be broken to pieces (7 8); and that before the child Maher-shalal-hash-baz should have knowledge to cry, ".My father," or "My mother." the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sa maria should be carried away (8 4; cf 7 1<>>. These arc, however, but two of numerous predictions, as shown above, among his earlier prophecies (cf 1 27.2.S; 2 2-4" 6 13; 10 20-23; 11 0-10; 17 14),

      (H) Shortly before the downfall of Samaria in 722 BO, Isaiah predicted that Tyre should be forgotten 70 years, and l hat after the end of 70 years her merchandise should be holiness to ,leh (23 1.">.1S).

      (y) In like manner prior to the siege of Ashdocl in 711 BO, he proclaimed that within :J years Moab should be brought into contempt (16 14), and that within a year all the glory of Kedar should fail (21 1 .

      (&) And not long prior to the siege of Jerus by Sen nacherib in 701 BO, he predicted that in an instant. suddenly, a multitude of Jerusalem s foes should be as dust, (29 5); that yet a very little while and Lebanon should be turned into a fruitful field (29 17;: and that Assyria should be dismayed and fall bv the sword, but not of men (30 17.31; 31 S;. And more, that for clays beyond a year, the careless women of Jerus should be troubled (32 10.10-20); and that the righteous in /ion should see Jerus a quiet habitation, and return and come with singing (33 17 If: 35 4.10); but that Sen nacherib, on the contrary, should hear tidings and return without shooting an arrow into the citv (37 720 2 ) 33 35).

      In like manner, also, aft<-r the siege of Jerus by Sen nacherib in 701 BO was over, the prophet seems to have, continued to predict; and. in order to demonstrate to the suffering and unbelieving remnant about him the deity of Jeh and the folly of idolatry, pointed to the predictions which ho had already made in the earlier years of his ministry, and to the fact that they had been fulfilled. Thus, he says, "Who hath declared it from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime that we may say. He is right ?" (41 21-23.26); "Behold the former things are come, to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth 1 tell you of them" (42 D.23); "Who among them can declare this, and show us former things [i.e. tilings to come in the imme diate future]? .... I have declared, and I have saved and I have showed" (43 9.12); "Who, as I, .shall call, and shall declare it . . . . ? And the tilings that aro coming, and that shall come to pass, let them [the idols]

      declare Have I not declared unto tliee of old,

      and showed it ? And ye are my witnesses

      That saith of Oyrus, He, is my shepherd, and shall per form all my pleasure, even saying of Jerus, She shall lie built; and of the temple. Thy foundation shall ho laid" (44 7.S.27.2S) ; " It is 1. Jeh, who call thee by thy name,

      even the Cod of Israel I have called thee by

      thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not

      known me Ask mo of the things that aro to

      come I have raised him [Cyrus] up in right eousness, and .... he shall build my city, and he shall let my exiles go free" (45; " Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; .... calling a ravenous bird [< yrus] from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to (46 10.11); "1 have declared the former tilings

      from of old and 1 showed them: suddenly I did

      them, and they came to pass I have declared

      . . . .from of old; before it came to pass I showed

      thee; lest thou shouldest say. Mine idol hath dono

      them (48 3.5); "I have showed thee new things from




      this time, even hidden things Yea, from of old

      thine ear was not opened Who among them hath

      declared these things ? .... I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him; .... from the beginning 1 have not

      spoken in secret" (48 6-8. 14-10;. Such predictions are explicit and emphatic.

      (e) Cyrus a subject of prediction: From all the above-mentioned explicit and oft-repealed pre dictions one thing is obvious, namely, that great emphasis is laid by the prophet on prediction throughout the entire Book of Asa. And it must be further allowed that "Cyrus" is represented by the author as predicted, from any point of view. The only question is, Does the prophet emphasize the fact that he himself is predicting the coming of Cyrus? or that former predictions concerning Cyrus arc 1 now, as the prophet writes, coming to pass before his readers eyes? Canon Cheyne s remark upon this point is instructive. He says: "The editor, who doubtless held the later Jewish theory of prophecy, may have inferred from a number of passages, esp. 41 26; 48 3.6.14, that the first ap pearance of Cyrus had been predicted by an ancient prophet, and observing certain Isaianic elements in the phraseology of these chapters, may have identi fied the prophet with Isaiah" (Intro to the, Bool; /if Im, 23SJ.

      Dr. G. A. Smith likewise allows that Cyrus is the ful filment of former predictions.

      He says: " Xor is it possible to argue, as some have tried to do, that the prophet is predicting these things as if they had already happened. For as part of an argument, for the unique divinity of the God of Israel, Cyrus, alive and irresistible, and already accredited with success, is pointed out as the unmistakable proof that furiiii i- prophecies of a deliverance for Israel are already coming to pass. Cyrus, in short, is not pre sented as a prediction, but as a proof that a prediction is being fulfilled" (II DB, art. "Isaiah," 4<:{). And further lie says: "The chief claim, therefore, which chs 40 If make* for the God of Israel is His power to direct the history of the world in conformity to a long-predicted and faithfully followed purpose. This claim starts from the proof that Jeh has long before predicted events now happening or about to happen, with Cyrus as their center. But this is much more than a proof of isolated predictions, though these imply omniscience, it is a declaration of the unity of history sweeping to the high ends which have been already revealed to Israel an exposition, in short, of the Omnipotence, Consistence, and Faithfulness of the Providence of the one true God" (ib, 496).

      It is obvious, therefore, in any case, whether these chapterijrfire early or late, that Cijrus is the subject of prediction. It really makes little difference at which end of history one takes his stand, whether in the 8th cent. BC with Isaiah, or in the Oth cent. BC with "Deutero-Isaiah." Cyrus, to the author of these chs, is the subject of prediction. In other words, whether indeed the authoi is really pre dicting Cyrus in advance of ail apparent fulfilment, or Cyrus is the fulfilment of some ancient prediction by another, does not alter the fact that Cyrus was the subject of prediction on the part of somebody. Accordingly, as was stated at the outset, the whole question is, which does the prophet emphasize, (a) the fact that lie himself is predicting? or, (b) that former predictions by someone else arc now before his eyes coming to pass? The truth is, the prophet seems to live in the atmosphere; of the past and the future as we ll as in the present, all of which are, equally vivid to his prophetic mind. This is a pecul iar characteristic of Isaiah. It is seen in the ac count he gives of his inaugural vision (ch 6), of which Delitzsch remarks that it is "like a predic tion in the process of being fulfilled." The same is true of chs 24-27. There the prophet repeatedly projects himself into the; future 1 , and spe aks from the; standpoint of the fulfilment of his predictions. It is esp. true of c hs 40-48. At one; time the prophet emphasizes the fact that he is predicting, and a little; later he; describes his predictions as coming to pass. When, accordingly, a decision is made; as to when

      the author predicted Cyrus, it is more natural to suppose that he was doing so long before Cyrus actual appearance. This, in fact, is in keeping with the test of true 1 prophecy contained in Dt 18 22: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jeh, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jeh hath not spoken; the- prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be> afraid of him." Besiele s, there is a similar explicit pre diction in the OT, namely, that of King Josiah, who was foretold by name two centuries before he came (1 K 13 2; cf 2 K 23 If). Hi).

      Dr. W. H. Cobb in the Journal of Bib. Literature and Exegesis, 1901, 79, pleads for a "shrinkage of Cyrus," because Cyrus figures only in chs 40-48, and is then dismissed. Dr. Thirfle, em the other hand, argues that the name "Cyrus" is a mere appellative 1 , be ing originally not Kdresh (Cyrus), but horesh ("we)rkman," "artifice-r," "image- breaker"), anel that 44 27. 2,X is a gloss (cf OT Problt/its, 244-64). But in oppe>sition to these vie ws the present writer prefers to write Cyrua large-, and to allenv frankly that he is the subject of extraordinary prediction. For the- very point of the author s argument is, hat he is pivelie-t ing e veMits whie-h Je h aleme; is e-apable e>f forete-lling or bringing te> pass; in other words, that prese-ie ne-e is the proof of Je h s deity. Isaiah live el in an age; when Jeh s secrets were first revealeel privately unto His serv ants the prophe-ts (cf Am 3 7). Politie-al Condi tions were unsettle el and kaleidoscopic, and\\\\there was eve iy incentive te> pmlie-t. That Isaiah actu ally uttered wemele rful predictions is atte\\\\sted, furthermore, both by Jesus Be v n-Sirach in Ecclus 48 20-25 (written c ISO BC), anel by Je>s in his Ant, XI, i, 1, 2 ((lilting from c 100 AD); and these are ancient traditions we>rthy e>f cre ele-nce.

      Recently, Mr. Oswald T. Allis, after a thorough anel exhaustive critical investigation of "the numerico-climactic strue-tuiv" of the- poe>m in Isa 44 24-2S, cone luele\\\\s that "the most .striking and signifie-ant features of the pen-m fave>r the- vie-w that while the utte-rance was significant in and of itself, it was chiefly significant in view e>f the exceptional circumstance under whie-h it was spoke-n, i.e\\\\ in view of its early date. The chronological arrangement of the poe in assigns the Restoration and Cyrus to the future. The perspective of the poem, te)ge>ther with the abrupt change of pe rsem in the 2el strophe, argues that the future is a remote future. And finally the carefully construct eel double climax attaches a signinYance te> the ele-finite ne>ss of the utte-rance which is metst e asily ace ounte d fe>r if this future was so remote that a definite elise-le>sure con cerning it would be of extraordinary import ane:e." Anel he furthe>r allege-s that "it, is impossible, if justice is deme to the plain declarations e>f Se-rip- ture, to limit the prophetic horizon of the prophet Isaiah to the pre cxilie 1 , pe riexl anel that .... when the form of the pex in is re cognizenl, the-re is every reason to assign it to a preexilie prophet, to Isaiah, since the form of the poe-m is admirably calculated to emphasize the fae-t that Cyrus anel the Restora tion be>long to n distant future, anel to make it cle ar that it is just because of this fae-t that the 1 elemute> nessof the prophe-cy, the mention of Cyrus by name, is so re inarkable> anel of such unique significance (Bib. and Theol. Studies, by the; numbers e>f the Faculty of Prince ton Theological Seminary, Cen tennial vol, 1912, 62S-29).

      Afte-r all, why should ine-n objee t to prediction on so large a scale 1 ? Unless the re is elefinite iu ss abemt any give-n pmliction, and unle>ss it tran- sce nels ordinary prognostication, there- is no especial value- in it. Should it be- objee-.te-d, henveve-r, that pre-dictiem of se> minute- a characteT is "abhorrent te> reason," the; answe-r is alreaely at hanel; it may



      be abhorrent to reason, but it is a handmaid \\\\nfaith. / <(///( // /.s to do irith the future, even ax prediction /m.s /o ,!<> u-it/i. tin- future; nnd the OT v.s preeminently a hook u hich encourages fnith. There; is really no valid objection to tlic prediction of Cyrus. For the one outstanding differentiating characteristic of Israel s religion is predictive, prophecy. The Hebrews certainly predicted the coming of a Mes siah. Indeed, the Hebrews were the only people of antiquity whose "Golden Age" lay in the future rather than in the past. Accordingly, to predict the coming of a Cyrus as the humnn agent of Israelis salvat ion is but t he reverse side of the same prophet s picture of the Dirine agent, namely, the obedient, SuiTering Servant, of Jeh, who would redeem Israel from its sin. Deny to Isaiah the son of Amoz the prediction concerning Cyrus, and it is but logical to go farther and to deny to him the Messianic hope which is usually associated with his name. Deny to Isaiah the son of Amoz the predictions concern ing a return from captivity, and the prophecies of his book are robbed of their essential character and unique perspective. Emasculate those portions of the Book of Isa which unveil the future, and they are reduced to a mere mticiniiim ex ennln, and their religious value as Divine oracles is largely lost.

      LITKU \\\\Tt-RK. So much has boon written on Isaiah s prophecies that only a selected list can he given here:

      I. Commentaries on Isa: Owen C. Whltehousc, Th,

      G. A. Smith, The Expositor s Bible, 2 vols, 1888-90; Franz Delitzsch, Clark s Foreign Theological Library, 2 vols, 1892; C. von Orelli. Clark s Foreign Thcolo//ieal Librarij, 1895; T. K. Cheyne, The Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols 1892- G W. Wade, Westminster Commentaries, 1911; G. II. Box, The. Book of Isa, 1909; (i. B. Gray, ICC, I, chsi-xxvii. 191L ; 1 1, chs xxviii-lxvi (forthcoming), by G. II. (iray and A. S. Peake; J. E. McFadyen, "Book of the Prophecies of Isaiah" (The, Bihle for Home and School), 1910: G. Campbell Morgan, The Analyzed Bible, 2 vols, 1910; Alex. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture, 2 vols, 190(1; H. G. Mitchell, Isaiah: A Study of chs 1-12 1897; Xiigelsbach in Lange s Bibclwerk, Eng. ed, 1878; J. A. Alexander, 1805; H. Ewald, Eng. ed, 1876-81; John Calvin. Eng. ed, 1850; It. Lowth, 1778; Vitringa, 1732; W. Gesenius. 1820-21; F. Hitzig, 1833; C. J. Bredenkamp, 1887; A. Dillmann, 1890, as revised by Kittel. 1898; B. Duhm, in Nowack s Handkommentar zum AT, 1892; K. Marti, 1900; A. Condamin (Rom Cath.j, 1905.

      II. Intro/Suction and Criticism: S. R. Driver, Isaiah, His L\\\\fe and Times, in "The Men of the Bible Series." 1888; T. K. Cheyne, Intro to the Book of Isa, 1895; W. R. Smith. The Prophets of Israel, 2d ed, 1890; A. F. Kirk- patrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets, 1892; J. \\\\V. Thirtle, OT Problems, 1907; W. E. Barnes, An Exam, of Isa 24-27, 1891; (i. Douglas, Isaiah One and His Book One, 1895; .1. Kennedy, .1 Popular Argument for the Unity of Isa, 1891; E. Koenig, The Exiles Book of Consolation, 1899; G. C. Workman, The Sen-ant of Jch, 1907; M. G. Glaze- brook, Studies in the Book of Isa, 1910; R. H. Kennett, The Coin/)osition of the Book of Isa in the Light of History and Archaeoloi/i/, 1910; R. R. Ottlcy, Isa arrordiny to the Sept, 1904; Hackmann, Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia, 1893; .1. Meinhold, Die Jesajaerzdhlungen, Jesaja 36-39, 1898; (). T. Allis, " The Transcendence of Jeh, God of Israel, Isa 44 24-28." in Bib. and Theol. Studies, Princeton s Centennial Commemoration vol, 1912, 579- <>:!!: .1. Hastings, The Great Texts of the Bible, 1910; C. S. Robinson, The dospel in Isa, 1895; E. Sievers, Me- trischr Stndien. 1901; G. I>. Robinson, The Book of Isa, 1910; II. G uthc, Da* Z nknnftshild des Jesaia, 1885; Feldmann, Drr Kmeht (iottes, 1907; W. Urwick, The Srrrant of Jeh. 1877; K. Cramer, The Historical Back ground of Isa 56-66, 1905; A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903.

      III. Arts, in Journals and Dictionaries: W. H. Cobb in JHL, 1891, II; 1895, I and II; 1898.1; 1901.1; 190S, I; F. Brown, JHL, 1890. I; W. H. Cobb, in the BS, 1882; G. A. Smith, art. "Isaiah" in HDB, 1899; T. K. Cheyne, in the KB, 1901. and in the Enc Brit, llth ed, 1910; Jas. Robertson, in the Illustrated Bible Diet., 1908; E. Koenig, in the Standard Bible Diet., 1909; A. Klostermann and J. A. Kelso. in The \\\\ew Sch-Herz, 1910; A. Kloster mann in the HE. 1900; G. Vos. Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1S98; I). S. Margoliouth, in The Temple Diet., 1910; C. A. Briggs, art. " Analysis of Isa 40-62 " in Harper Memorial Yulnint.



      ISCAH, iz ka, is ka (H2C 11 ! , yixkuhy. Daughter of Haran and sister of Milcah the wife of Nahor (Gen 11 29). Tradition identifies her with Sarai, Abram s wife; but without sufficient reason.

      ISCARIOT, is-kar i-ot. See JUDAS ISCARIOT.

      ISDAEL, is da-el ( Io-8aT|X, Isduel): In 1 Esd 5 33; called "Giddel" in Ezr 2 56.

      ISH (1ZPX, is/0: In the following Heh proper names, a prefix meaning "man of," or, collectively, "men of": Ish-bosheth, Ishhod, Ish-tob (but RV correctly "the men of Tob"). Sec also KSHHAAL; ESHBAN; ISCARIOT.

      ISHBAAL, ish bii-al. See ISH-BOSHETH.

      ISHBAH, ish ba (nSt i , yixhbah): A member of the tribe of Judah, father of Eshtemoa (1 Ch 4 17).

      ISHBAK, ish bak (p2EJ1 , yishbak] : A name in the list of sons of Abraham by Keturah (Gen 25 2 !l 1 Ch 1 32). Those names probably represent tribes; the tribe of Ishbak has not been certainly identified.

      ISHBI-BENOB, ish-bl-be nob pin ^Slp , yishbl bh ndbh): One of the four "born to the giant in Gath" who were slain by David and his men (2 S 21 15-22). Ishbi-benob was slain by Abishai, and David s life saved by the act (vs 16.17).

      ISH-BOSHETH, ish-bo sheth (mCS TZTS , ish- boshctfi, "man of shame"; lo-(3oo-0, Icsbosthe): Called b?? 1 ^^, esJibtfal, "man of Baal" (1 Ch 8 33), and ^l, yishun, "man of Jeh"(?), perhaps for iiTB^S, Ish yo (1 S 14 49). Cf ESHBAAL and ISHVI (AV "Ishui"). We probably have the right meaning of the name in Eshbaal and Ishvi, the words Baal and Jeh being frequently interchanged. The change to Ish-bosheth, "man of shame," in 2 S, where the story of his shameful murder is re lated, may be better explained as reference to this (see MEPHIBORHETH, whose name was also changed from Merib-baal for similar reasons), than to find here a suggestion of Baal-worship, but see HPN. 121, where the change is explained as a correction of the scribes, in consequence of prophetic protests.

      One of the sons of Saul (1 Ch 8 33; 9 39; IS 14 49) who, when his father and brothers were slain in the battle of Gilboa (1 S 31 1 ff), was pro claimed king over Israel by Abner, the captain of Saul s host, at Mahanaim (2S28ff). Ish- bosheth was 40 years old at this time and reigned over Israel 2 years (2 S 2 10). Judah, however, proclaimed David its king. The consequence was war (2 S 2 12 ff). The house of David pre vailed against the house of Saul (2 S 3 1), but the war did not come to a close until Abner, angry on account of the rebuke he suffered from I. for his unlawful intimacy with Rizpah, Saul s concubine, joined David (2 S 3 Off). David s condition to return to him Michal, his wife, before peace could be made, was fulfilled by I. (2 S 3 14 f), but it was not until after Abner s death that I. seems to have given up hopes of retaining his power (2 S 4 1 ff). The shameful murder of I. by his own captains is recorded in 2 S 4 5 ff . David punished the mur derers who had expected reward and buried I. in the grave of Abner at Hebron (2 S 4 12 f).


      ISHHOD, ish hod OimpX, ish hodh, "man of majesty"): A man of the tribe of Manasseh (1 Ch 7 18. AV "Ishod").




      ISHI, ish I pyijh, yish\\\\ "salutary"):

      (1) A Jerahmeclito (1 Ch 2 31); the genealogy may denote his membership by blood, or only by adoption, in the tribe of Judah.

      (2) A Judahite (1 Ch 4 20).

      (3) A Simeonite, whose sons led 500 of their tribe against the Amalekites in Mt. Seir (1 Ch 4 42).

      (4) One of the chiefs of Manasseh E. of the Jor dan (1 Ch 5 24).

      ISHI, ish I, i shi pttTX, ishi, "my husband"; LXX 6 dvT|p fxov, ho antr mou) : The name symbolic of Jeh s relation to Israel which Hosea (2 16) de clares shall be used when Baali, "my lord," has become hateful on account of its associations with the worship of the Baals.

      ISHIAH, i-shl ya. See ISSHIAH. ISHI J AH, i-shi ja. See ISSHIJAH.

      ISHMA, ish ma (X CTpi , yishma\\\\ from the root yusham, "to lie waste," therefore meaning "deso late"): A brother of Jezreel and Idbash, "the sons of the father of Etam" (1 Ch 4 3). They were brothers of Hazzelelponi.

      ISHMAEL, ish ma-el (jWttt , j/zs/iwa eV, "God heareth," or "God may," "shall hear"; Io-(Aaif|\\\\, Ismati) :

      (1) The son of Abraham by Hagar, the Egyp slave of his wife Sarah. The circumstances con nected with his birth reveal what seems to us to be a very strange practice. It was customary among ancient peoples to correct the natural defect of barrenness by substituting a slave woman. In our narrative, this is shown to be authorized and brought about by the legitimate wife with the understanding that the offspring of such a union should be regarded as her own: "It may be that I shall obtain children by her," lit. "that 1 shall be builded by her" (Gen 16 2).

      The hopes of Sarah were realized, for Hagar gave

      birth to a son, and yet the outcome was not fully

      pleasing to Abraham s wife; there was

      1. Birth one serious drawback. As soon as

      Hagar "saw that she had conceived," her behavior toward her mistress underwent a radi cal change; she was "despised in her eyes." But for the intervention of the angel of Jeh, the boy might have been born in Egypt. For, being dealt with hardly (or humbled) by Sarah, the handmaid fled toward that country. On her way she was told by the angel to return to her mistress and submit herself "under her hands." She obeyed, and the child who was to be as "a w r ild ass among men" was born when his father was 86 years old (Gen 16 7-16). At the age of 13 years the boy was circumcised (Gen 17 25) in accordance with the Divine com

      mand received by Abraham: "Every

      2. Circum- male among you shall be circum cision cised" (Gen 17 10). Thus young Ish-

      mael was made a party to the cove nant into which God had entered with the lad s father. The fact that both Abraham and his son were circumcised the same day (Gen 17 26) un doubtedly adds to the importance of Ishmael s par taking of the holy rite. He was certainly made to understand how much his father loved him and how deeply he was concerned about his spiritual welfare. We may even assume that there was a time when Abraham looked upon Ishmael as the promised seed. His error was made clear to him when God promised him the birth of a son by Sarah. At first this seemed to be incredible, Abraham being 100 years of age and Sarah 90. And yet, how could he dis believe the word of God? His cherished, though

      mistaken, belief about Ishmael, his doubts regarding the possibility of Sarah s motherhood, and the first faint glimmer of the real meaning of God s promise, all these thoughts found their expression in the fervid wish: "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" (Gen 17 18). Gradually the truth dawned upon the patriarch that God s thoughts are not the thoughts of men, neither their ways His ways. But we have no reason to believe that this entire changing of the mental attitude of Abraham toward Ishmael reacted unfavorably on his future treatment of this son "born of the flesh" (cf Gen 21 11). If there were troubles in store for the boy likened by the angel of Jeh to a wild ass, it was, in the main, the youngster s own fault.

      When Isaac was weaned, Ishmael was about 16

      years of age. The weaning was made an occasion

      for great celebration. But it seems the

      3. Banish- pleasure of the day was marred by the ment objectionable behavior of Ishmael.

      "And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyp .... mocking" (Gen 21 9). Her jealous motherly love had quickened her sense of obser vation and her faculty of reading the character of children. We do not know exactly what the word used in the Heb for "mocking" really means. The LXX and the Vulg render the passage: "When Sarah saw the sen of Hagar .... playing with Isaac," and St. Paul followed a later tradition when he says: "He that was born after the flesh perse cuted him that was born after the Spirit" (Gal 4 29). Lightfoot (in his notes to the Ep. to the Gal) says: "At all events the word seems to mean mock ing, jeering." At any rate, the fact remains that Sarah objected to the bringing up of the son of promise together with the "mocker," and so both mother and son were banished from the tents of Abraham.

      Now there came a most critical time in the life of young Ishmael. Only some bread and a bottle of water were "put on the shoulder" of Hagar by Abraham when he expelled her with her son. Aim lessly, as it seems, the two walked about in the wilderness of Beersheba. The water was soon spent, and with it went all hope and energy. The boy, being faint with thirst and tired out by his constant walking in the fierce heat of the sun, seemed to be dying. So his mother put him rapidly down in the shade of some plant. (We do not share the opinion of some writers that the narrative of Gen 21 8 ff represented Ishmael as a little boy whom his mother had carried about and finally flung in the shade of some shrub. Even if this passage is taken from a different source, it is cer tainly not in conflict with the rest as to the age of Ishmael.) After this last act of motherly love what else could she do to help the boy? she re tired to a place at some distance and resignedly ex pected the death of her son and perhaps her own.

      For the 2d time in her life, she had a marvelous experience. "God heard the voice of the lad" and comforted the unhappy mother most wonderfully. Through His angel He renewed His former promise regarding her son, and then He showed her a well of water. The lad s life was saved and, growing up, he became in time an archer. He lived in the wilderness of Paran and was married by his mother to an Egyp wife (Gen 21 21).

      When Abraham died, his exiled son returned to

      assist his brother to bury their father (Gen 25 9).

      In the same chapter we find the names

      4. His of Ishmael s 12 sons (vs 12 ff) and a Children brief report of his death at the age of

      137 years (ver 17). According to Gen 28 9 he also had a daughter, Mahalath, whom Esau took for his wife; in Gen 36 3 her name is given as Basemath.


      Israel, History of



      The charade! i Arabian niiiiia an

      5. De scendants

      1 his descendants s ve-ry accurately 1 by the angel of ; a wild ass among against every

      man, and every man s hand against him" (Gen 16 12). These- nomads are, indeed, roaming the wilds of the desert, jealous ot their m- depe-nde-nce-, quarrelsediie- and advent urous. We may well think of their progenitor as ol a proud, undaunted and rugged son oMhe desert, the very counterpart eif the poor boy fatigue- and exposure unele-r tli ne-ss of Beersheba.

      The ,)erson and the history of Ishmael, the son of Abra- ham. "born after the flesh," is of special interest to lu st udent of the XT because St. Paul uses him, ill the Kp. to the Gal. as a type of those .lews who din"- to the paternal religion in such a NT manner as to be unable todiscern the tran

      sient character of the- < )T institutions, and ,-sp those- of the Mosaic law. By doing so they could not be made to see the true meaning of the law, and instead of embracing the, grace of (ioel as the only means of ful filling the law thev most bitterly fought the central eloc- trine of Christianity and even persecuted its advocates.

      1 ike Ishmael they were born of llagar, the- handmaid e>r slave woman; liki- him, they were Abraham s sons only "after the llesh," and their ultimate fate is foreshadowed in the casting out of Hagur and her son. They could not expect to maintain the connection with the true Israel and even incase they should acclaim Christ their Messiah they wen- not to be the leaders of the church or the ex pounders ol its teae-hings (Cat 4 lil-i .sj.

      (2) The son of Nothaniah (Je-r 40 S 41 IS; cf

      2 K 25 2:5-2.")). It is a dreary story of jealousy and treachery which Jeremiah has recorded in chs 40, 41 of his boeik. After the destruction of Jerus and the- deportation of the- better class of Jewish eitize-ns, it was necessary to provide for some sort of a government in the depopulated country. Pub lic orde-r had to be restored and maintained; the cre>ps of the- fields were ondange-rod and had to be taken care of. It was thus only common political prudence- that eliclate-d to the king of Babylem the- sotting up of a ge>vernor for the mnnant of Judah. He chose- Gcelalinh, the sem of Aliikam, for the diffi cult petition. The new ofHoe-r se-lecte-d for his ]ilace- of residence- the city of Mizpah, whe-ro lie was soon joine-d by Jere-miah. All the- captains of 1 lie- Jewish country forces came to Mizpah with their men and put the-mse-lves unde-r Gedaliah s orders (Jer 40 i:-i). Ishmael the sem of Nothamah, the son of Elishama "of the seed royal" (2 K 25 25) was among the-ir number all of which must have- been rather gratifying to the new gove-rnor. But he- was destined te> bo cruelly disappointed. A traitor was among the captains that had gathe-red around him. Yet the- governor might have- pro- vonte-d his dastardly se-homo. Johanan, the- sem of Kareah, and other loyal captains warned him e)f the treachery of lshmae-1, telling him he- was induced by Baalis, tlic Ammonite king, to assassinate- the govenmr. But the- governor s faith in Ishmael was not to be shaken; he- even lookeel upon Joha- nan s report as false and calumnious (Jer 40 1C)).

      About 2 months after the destruction of Je-rus, Ishmael was ready 1e> strike the mortal blow. With 10 men he came to Mizpah, and there-, at a banquet given in his honor, he killed Ge-daliah nnel all tin- Jews and Chaldaeans that were with him. He- suc ceeded in keeping t he- mat ter see- ret , for, 2 days aft e-r the he>rriblo deed, he- persuaded a parly of 80 pious Jews to enter the city and killed all hut 10 of t lie-in, throwing their bodies into a pit. Those; men we-re coming from the- ruins of the Temple- with t he- offer ings which they hail intended to leave at Jerus. Now t hey had found out , te> 1 heir gre-nt .list raction, that the- city was laid waste and the Temple de- streiyed. So they passe-el by Mizpah, the-ir beards shaven, tlie-ir e-lot lies rent , and with cuts about their

      persons (Jer 41 f>). We may, indeed, ask indig nantly, Why this new atrocity? The answer may be found in the fact that Ishmael did not kill all of the men. lie spared 10 of them because they promised him some hidden treasures. This shows his motive. He was a desperate man and just then carrying out a desperate undertaking. Ho killed those peaceful citizens because of their money, and money ho needed to realize his plans. They were those of a traitor to his country, inasmuch as he intended to deport the inhabitants of Mi/pah to the land of his high confederate, the king of the Am monites. Among the captives were Jeremiah and the daughters of the Jewish king. But his efforts came to naught. When Johanan and the other captains were 1 old of Ishmaol s unheard-of actions, they immediately pursued the desperate adven turer and overtook him by the "great waters that are in Gibe-on." Unfortunately, they failed to capture Ishmael; for lie managed to escape with eight men to the Ammonites. See, further, GKDA- LIAH.

      0!) A descendant of Benjamin and the son ol Azol (1 Ch 8 3S; cf 9 44).

      (4) The father of Zebadiah who was "the ruler of the house of Judah, in all the king s [Jehoshaphat, 2 Ch 19 S] matters" (2 Ch 19 11).

      (." The son of Jehohanan, and a "captain of hundreds," who lived at the time of Jehoiada and Joash (2 Ch 23 1).

      ((i) One of the sons of Pashhur the priest. He was one of those; men who had married foreign women and wore compelled to "put away their wives" (Ezr 10 22). WILLIAM liArii

      ISHMAEL ( lo-jia^X, Ivttntl):

      (1) AY "Ismaol" (Jth 2 23), the son ol Abraham by Hagar.

      (2) 1 Esd 9 22 (AV, RV "Ismaol" ), corresponding to Ishmael in Ezr 10 22. See preceding art.

      ISHMAELITES, ish ma-el-Its (D /// e /I//0 : The supposed descendant s of Ishmael, t he son of Abraham and Hagar, whom Abraham sent away from him after the birth of Isaac (Gen 21 14-21). The sons of Ishmaol are given in don 25 1:5.14; they wore twelve in number and gave rise- to as many tribes, but the term Ishmaelite has a broaden- signification, as appears from Gen 37 2S. ;-!(>, where "it is identified with Midianite. From Gen 16 12 it maybe: inferred that it. was applied to the Bedawin of the ele-sert region E. of the Jordan generally, for the character- there assigned to Ish mael, "His hand shall he against every man, and e-veuy man s hand against him," fits the habits of Bedawin in all ages. Such was the- character of the Midianites as deseribe-d in Jgs 7, who are again identifieel with the Ishmaelites (8 24). These ref erences show that the Ishmaelites were- not confined to the de-scendants of the son of Abraham and Hagar, but refer to the elese>rt tribes in general, like "the ehildre-n of the east" (Jgs 7 12).

      II. POUT KK

      ISHMAIAH, ish-ma ya (rPTaTp 1 ] , yialinm\\\\i/ah, "Jeh is hearing") :

      (1) A man of Gibeon, chief of David s 30 groat warriors, who came te> him at Ziklag (1 Ch 12 4, AV "Ismaiah").

      (2) Chief of the* armed contingent of the tribe of /ebuhm, which serve-el David in the- monthly order e>f the tribes (1 Ch 27 10).

      ISHMEELITES, ish mc-ri-its nbsycir 1 : , ////!-

      H/ Vfi). Se-e> IsH.MAKI.lTKS.

      ISHMERAI, ish me-rl Cnpirn , yi^nn Tnij, from w/m;/ 1 , meaning "to hedge about," i.e-. "te> guard,"



      and therefore a "guard," "protector"): A descend ant of Benjamin, son of Epaal, resident of Jems. one of the "heads of fathers houses throughout, their generations, chief men" (1 Ch 8 IS).

      ISHOD, I shod, ish od (TTUpX , lh</id<l/,): AY 1 Ch 7 18 for ISHHOD (q.v.).

      ISHPAH, ish pa (HElp. , yish/iali, "firm," "strong"): A man of the tribe of Benjamin, of the house of Beriah (1 Ch 8 1(5).

      ISHPAN, ish puii CJElpi, yixhpan, lit. "he will hide"): Descendant of Benjamin, son of Shashak, one of the chief men, heads of fathers houses"; lived at Jerus (1 Ch 8 22).

      ISH-SECHEL, ish sc-kel (5rTS TTX , 7.s/t sekhel, "man of discretion"): Ezra, at one time in need of ministers for the house of God, sent unto Iddo the chief at, the place Casiphia." "And according to the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of discretion [in "Ish-sechel"], of the suns of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel" (E/r 8 IS). This is the only reference to Ish-sechel.

      ISH-TOB, ish tob pTJ t^X , Zs/t Wbh, ARY the men of Tob"): A place in Pal, ])robably a small kingdom, large enough, however, to supply at least 12, 000 men of valor to the children of Ammon in their struggle against Joab, David s general (2 S 10 (i.S). See ISH.

      ISHUAH, ish fi-a, ISUAH, is fi-a, (rniTn , yish- irn/i, lit. "he will level"). See IsHUAi; IsHVAHJ ISH vi.

      ISHUAI, ish n-l, ISHUI, ish n-i

      level"). See Isnvt.

      ISHVAH, ish va (nTtTI , yishwah, "even," "level"; AV Ishuah and Isuahj : Second son of Asher (Gen 46 17; 1 Ch 7 30). As only the families of his brothers Ishvi, etc, are mentioned in Xu 26 -4-1, the supposition is that lie left no issue.

      ISHVI, ish vl Hip 1 :, j/w/iH-7, "equal"):

      (1) The third son of Asher (Gen 46 17; 1 Ch 7 30), and founder of the family of thelshvites (Xu 26 H, AV "Jesuites"), AV "Isui," "Jesui," and "Ishui."

      (2) The name is also found among the. sons of Saul (1 S 14 49), AV "Ishui."

      ISLAND, I land, ISLE, il ([1] i , 7, "island" or "isle"; ARV has "coast" or "coast -land" in Isa 20 (>; 23 2.(>; RYni lias "coast -lands" in Cm 10 5; Isa 11 11; 24 15; 69 IS; Jer 25 22; K/k 39 ( Dnl 11 IS; Zeph 211; RYm has "sea-coast" in Jer 47 4. [2J pi. C^X , lyim, AV "wild l)easts of the islands," R V "wolves," RVm "howling c.rcat ures" [Isa 13 22; 34 14; Jer 50 3!)]. (3J v^ iov, itcsion, "small island" [Acts 27 Hi]. [4] vrjeos, //, "island" [Acts 13 (5; 27 20; 28; Rev 1 9; 6 14; 16 20]): Except as noted above, I in RV is tr 1 "isle" or "island." ARVAD (q.v.), a Phoen island-city N. of Tripoli, Svria, is mentioned in Gen 10 IS; 1 Ch 1 Hi; E/k 27 S.ll. This and Tyre were the only important islands on the coast, both of them very small. We find references to Kittim or Chittim, Cyprus (Gen 10 4; Nu 24 24; 1 Ch 1 7; Isa 23 1.12; Jer 2 10; Ezk 27 6; Dnl 11 30); to Ehshah, perhaps Carthage (Gen 10 4; 1 Ch 1 7 Ezk 27 7); to "isles of the nations" (Gen 10 ,v Zeph 2 11); to "isles of the sea" (Est 10 1; Isa

      11 11; 24 !.->; Ezk 26 IS); to "Tarshish and the isles" (1 s 72 10; cf Isa 66 1!)); to "isle [KVm "sea-coast"] of Caphtor" (Jer 47 4). Communica tion with these islands or distant coasts is kept up by the Tyrians (Ezk 27 3.1")). The Jews were not a maritime people, and in early times their geo graphical knowledge was very limited. Of 32 OT passages referring to "island" or "isle," 2o are in Isa, Jer, and Ezk. In the NT, besides the passages noted above, and Patmos (Rev 1 9), various islands are mentioned by name in connection with the voy ages of St. Paul, e.g. Cyprus, Crete, Lesbos, Samds, Samothrace, Chios, Melita, Sicily (Syracuse, Acts 28_12). "Jackals" is a perfectly possible tr of lyim (AV "wild beasts of the islands," RV "wolves," RVm "howling creatures"). See COAST GEOGRAPHY; JACKAL; WOLF.

      ALFKKD ELV D\\\\v

      ISLES OF THE GENTILES ((ien 10 5): ARV "isles [in "coast-lands"] of the nations," said of the territories of the sons of Japheth. The reference is to the coasts of the Western Mediterranean, with their islands (cf "isles of tin- sea," l .>\\\\ 10 1; Ezk 26 IS, etc). See TAHLK OF NATIONS.

      ISMACHIAH, is-ma-kl a (TP3SP1, yiymakh- ijnlnl, "Jeh will sustain";: One of the "overseers under the hand of Conaniah and Shimei his brother, by the appointment of llezekiah the king, and Azariah the ruler of the house of God" (2 Ch 31 13).

      ISMAEL, is ma-el. See ISH.MAKL.

      ISMAERUS, is-ma-e rus ( lo-fidiipos, I xnidCros) : AV "Omaerus" (1 Ksd 9 34), corres])onding to Amram in 1%/r 10 34.



      1. Sources

      (\\\\) TJie OT

      (2) Joseplius

      (,:}) The Monuments

      2. Religious Clmracter of (he History

      I. Oiuiiixs OF IsKAKi. IN J UK-MOSAIC TIMKS

      1 . Original Home

      2. Ethnographical Origin

      :j. Patriarchal Origins and History

      (1) Patriarchal Conditions ( ; en 14

      (2) Ideas of (iod

      (3) JJescent into Kgyj)t II. NATIONALITY UNDER MOSES

      1. Israel in Kf?.vpt

      (1) Chronology

      (2) Moses

      2. Historical Character of the Kxodus

      (1) Egyptian Version of the Kxodus

      (2) Geographical Matters

      (3) The Wilderness Sojourn

      (4) Entrance into Canaan III. PERIOD OF THK JrixiKs

      1. General Character of Period

      2. The Dim-rent .Judges

      3. Chronology of the Period

      L Jocose Organization of the People I\\\\ . THE KINGDOM: ISRAEL JUDAH

      1. Samuel

      2. The Kingdom of Saul

      3. David

      4. Solomon

      5. Division of the Kingdom

      0. Sources of the History of the Kingdom 7. Chronological Matters


      1. Contrasts and Vicissitudes of the Kingdoms

      2. The Successive Keigns Jeroboam I, etc

      3. The Literary Prophets


      1. Influence of the Exile

      2. Daniel

      3. Elephantine Papyri





      1. Career of Cyrus

      > First Keturn under ZerubbabH

      i 1 ) Building of the Temple

      (2) lliiwai and /eehariali X K/,ra ami Nehemiah



      1. Spread of Hellenism 2. The Hasmoneuns :!. Herod IX. TIIF. ROMANS

      l Division of Territory

      . Destruction of Jerusalem l>y the K,..nans

      Later Insurrection of Bar-< orhna ;{. Spiritiliil Life of Period Appearance of Jesus ( hnst

      LlTKH VITK K

      Introductory. ?}" dii<-f and best source from which we can learn who this people was and what

      wns its history is the Bible it sell, csp. 1 Sources the OT, which tells us the story of tins

      people from its earliest beginnings. ( 1 ) In the T. The origins of Israel are narrated in (letr the establishment of the theocracy, in the other books of the Pent ; the entrance into Canaan, in t lie Hook of Josh; the period preceding 1 he kings, in the Hook of Jus; the establishment of the mon archy and its development, in the Hooks of b, and the opening chapters of the Books of K, which latter report, also the division into two kingdoms and the history of these down to their overthrow. Books of Ch contain, || with the books already men tioned, a survey of the historical development from Adam down to" the Hab captivity, but confine tins account to the theocratieal center of this history and its sphere. Connected with Ch are found the small Hooks of Ezr and Nch, which probably origi nally constituted a part of Ch, but which pass over the "Exile and begin at once with the story of the Return. Then, too, these two books contain only certain episodes in the history of the Return, which were of importance for the restoration of the Jewish theocracy, so that the story found in them is any thing but complete. With the 5th cent. BC the Bib. narrative closes entirely. For the succeeding centuries we have nothing but some scattered data; but for the 2d pre-Christian cent, we have a new source in the Hooks of the Mace, which give a con nected account of the struggles and the rule of the \\\\sinoneans, which reach, however, only from 174 to 135 BC.

      The historical value of the OT books is all the greater the nearer the narrator or his sources stand in point of time to the events that are recorded; e.g. the contents of the Hooks of K have in general greater value as historical sources than what is reported in the Books of Ch, written at a much later period. Vet it is possible that a later chronicler could have made use of old sources which earlier narrators had failed to employ. This is the act nal state of affairs in connection with a considerable number of matters reported by the Bib. chroniclers, which supplement the exceedingly meager extract > furnished by the author of the Books of K. Then further, the books of the prophets possess an ex traordinary value as historical sources for the specia reason that they furnish illustrations of the histori cal sit nat ion and event s from t he lips of cont empora- ries. As an example we can refer to the externalh flourishing condition of the kingdom of Judahundei King I zziah, concern ing which the Books of K repoi practically nothing, but of which Ch give (let ail> which are confirmed by the testimony of Isaiah.

      (2) ,/ />/(?/. A connected account of the his tory of Israel has been furnished by Flavins Jose phus. His work entitled Jcu-ink Anli</nilii 8, how ever, as far as trustworthiness is concerned, is agaii considerably inferior to the Books of Ch, since tin later traditions of the Jews to a still greater exten

      influenced his account. Only in those eases in which he could make use of foreign older sources, uch as the Egyp Manet ho or Phoen authors, does ,e furnish us with valuable material. Then for the ast few centuries preceding his age, he falls out a ert ain want . Esp. is he 1 he best ant horit y for the vents which IK; himself passed through and which ie reports in his work on the Jeivish H are, even if te is not free; from certain personal prejudices sec JOSKPIIUS, FLAVIUS). For the customs and isages of the later Jewish times the traditions de- l( ,sited in the. Tahn are also to be considered. Much ss than to Jos can any historical value be credited othe MexandrianJew, Philo. Tne foreign authors, g. the C.r and the Lat historians, contain data ,nly for the story of the nations surrounding Israel, nit not for the early history of Israel itself.

      (3) The Monuments Qn the other hand, the arly history of Israel has been wonderfully en riched in recent times through the testimonies of the monuments. In Pal itself the finds in historical data and monuments have been, up to the present time rather meager. Yet the excavations on the sites of ancient Taanach, Megiddo, Jericho, Gezer and Samaria have brought important material to li-ht and we have reasons to look for furl her archae ological and literary finds, which may throw a clear light on many points that have remained dark and uncertain. Also in lands round about Pal, impor tant documents (the Moabite Stone; Phoen inscrip tions) have already been found. Esp. have the discovery and interpretation of the monuments found in Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia very materi ally advanced our knowledge of t he hist ory ot Israel. Not only has the connection of the history ot this people with universal history been clearly illumi nated by these finds, but the history of Israel itself has gained in tangible reality. In some detail matters, traditional ideas have given way to clearer conceptions; e.g. the chronology of the (H , through Assyriological research, has been set on a sater foundat ion. But all in all, these archaeological dis coveries have confirmed the confidence that has been placed in the Bib. historical sources.

      It is true that the rules applied to profane history cannot, without modification, be applied to the his torical writings of the Hebrews. Ihe 2. Religious Bib. narrators are concerned about Character something more than the preservation of the of historical facts and data. Just as

      History little is it their purpose to glorify their people or their rulers, as this is done on the memorial tablets of the Egyp, the Assyr, and the Bab kings. Looked at merely from the standpoint of profane history, there are many omis sions in the OT historical books that are found objectionable. Somet imes whole periods are passed over or treated very briefly. Then, too, the political pragmatism, the secular connection in the move ments of the nat ions and historical events, are often scarcely mentioned. The standpoint of the writer is the religious. This appears in the fact that this history begins with the creation of the world and report s primitive traditions concerning the origin of mankind and their earliest history in the light ot the revelation of the God of Israel, and that it makes this national history a member in the general historical development of mankind. Nor was this first done by the author of the Pent in its present shape. Already the different documentary sources found combined in the Pent, namely E, J and P, depict the history of Israel according to the plan which the Creator of the world had with this people. Also, when they narrate the national vicissitudes of Israel, the writers are concerned chiefly to exhibit clearly the providential guidance of God. They give special prominence to those events in which



      the hand of God manifests itself, and describe with full detail the lives of those agents of whom Jeh made use in order to guide His people, such as Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon and others. But it is not the glory of these men themselves that the writers aim to describe, but rather their im portance for the spiritual and religious greatness of Israel. Let us note in this connection only the extreme brevity with which the politically success ful wars of David are reported in 2 S; and how frag mentary are the notices in which the author of the Books of K reports the reigns of the different kings; and how briefly he refers for all the other details of these kings to books that, unfortunately, have been lost for us. But, on the other hand, how full are the details when the Bible gives us its account of the early history of a Samuel or of a David, in which the providential guidance and protection of Jeh appear in such a tangible form; or when it describes the building of the temple by Solomon, so epoch-making for the religious history of Israel, or the activity of such leading prophets as Elijah and Eli.sha. Much less the deeds of man than the deeds of God in the midst of His people constitute the theme of the narrators. These facts explain, top, the phenomenal impartiality, otherwise unknown in ancient literatures, with which the weaknesses and the faults of the ancestors and kings of Israel are reported by the Bib. writers, even in the case of their most revered kings, or with which even the most dis graceful defeats of the people are narrated.

      It cannot indeed be denied that this religious and fundamental characteristic is not found to the same degree in all the books and sources. The oldest narratives concerning Jacob, Joseph, the Judges, David and others reveal a naive and childlike natur alness, while in the Books of Ch only those things have been admitted which are in harmony with the regular cultus. The stories of a Samson, Jeph- thah, Abimelech, Barak, and others impress us often as the myths or stories of old heroes, such as we find in the traditions of other nations. But the author of the Book of Jgs, who wrote the introduc tion to the work, describes the whole story from the standpoint of edification. And when closely ex amined, it is found that the religious element is not lacking, even in the primitive and naive OT narra tive. This factor was, from the outset, a unique characteristic of the people and its history. To this factor Israel owed its individuality and existence as a separate people among the nations. But in course of time it became more and more conscious of its mission of being the people of Jeh on earth, and it learned to understand its entire history from this viewpoint. Accordingly, any account of Israel s history must pay special attention to its religious development. For the significance of this history lies for us in this, that it constitutes the preparation for the highest revelation in Christ Jesus. In its innermost heart and kernel it is the history of the redemption of mankind. This it is that gives to this history its phenomenal character. The persons and the events that constitute this history must not be measured by the standards of everyday life. If in this history we find the provi dential activities of the living God operative in a unique way, this need not strike us as strange, since also the full fruit of this historical development, namely the appearance of Jesus Christ, transcends by far the ordinary course of human history. On the other hand, this history of Israel is not to be regarded as a purely isolated factor. Modern re searches have shown how intimately this history was interwoven wit h that of ot her nations. Already, between the religious forms of the OT and those of other Sem peoples, there have been found many relations. Religious expressions and forms of

      worship among the Israelites often show in lan guage and in cultus a similarity to those of the an cient Canaanitcs, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians. But it is a mis take to believe that the history and the religion of Israel are merely an offspring of the Bab. As the Israelites clung tenaciously to their national life, even when they were surrounded by powerful nations, or were even scattered among these na tions, as in the Exile, thus too their religion, at least in its official representatives, has been able at all times to preserve a very high originality and independence under the influence of the Divine Spirit, who had filled it.

      /. Origins of Israel in Pre- Mosaic Times. The

      Israelites knew at all times that Canaan was not

      their original home, but that their

      1. Original ancestors had immigrated into this Home land. What was their earlier and

      earliest home? Tradition states that they immigrated from Haran in the upper Eu phrates valley. But it is claimed that they came to Haran from T r of the Chaldees, i.e. from a city in Southern Babylonia, now called Mugheir. This city of Vr, now well known from Bab inscriptions, was certainly not the original home of the ancestors of Israel. They rather belonged to a purely Sem tribe, which had found its way from Northern Arabia into these districts. A striking confirma tion of this view is found in a mural picture on the rock-tombs of Benihassan in I pper Egypt. The foreigners, of whom pictures are here given (from the time of the Xllth Dynasty), called Amu, namely Bedouins from Northern Arabia or from the Sinai peninsula, show such indisputable Jewish physiognomies that they must have been closely related to the stock of Abraham. Then, too, the leader of the caravan, Ebsha a (Abishua), has a name formed just like that of Abraham. When, in later times, Moses fled to the country of the Midianites, he doubtless was welcomed by such tribal relatives. The Israelites at all times laid stress on their ethnographical connection with other nations.

      They knew that they were intimately

      2. Ethno- related to a group of peoples who have graphical the name of Hebrews. But they Origin traced their origin still farther back

      to the tribal founder, Shem. Lin guistics and ethnology confirm, in general, the closer connection between the Sem tribes mentioned in Gen 10 21 ff. Undeniable is this connection in the cases of Assur, Aram, and the different Arabian tribes. A narrower group of Semites is called Hebrews. This term is used in Gen in a wider sense of the word than is the case in later times, when it was employed as a synonym for Israel. According to its etymology, the word signified "those beyond," those who live on the other side of the river or have come over from the other side. The river meant is not the Jordan, but the Euphrates. About the same time that the ancestors of Israel were immi grating into Canaan and Egypt, other tribes also emigrated westward and were called, by the Ca- naanites and by the Egyptians, Hbhrirn. This term is identical with Habiri, found in the Am Tab, in which complaint is made about the inroads of such tribes. The Israelites cannot have been meant here, but related tribes are. Possibly the Egyp Apriu is the same word.

      The Israelites declared that they were descended from a particular family. On account of the patriarchal char acter of their old tribal life, it is not a

      3. Patri- matter of doubt that, as a fact, the tribe arrVial did grow out of a single family. The tri- arcudi bal fathcr Abraham, was without a doubt Origins and the head of the small tribe, which through History its large family of children developed into

      different tribes. Only we must not forget that such a tribe could rapidly be enlarged by receiving



      into it also serfs and clients (cf ( len 14 M). These last- mentioned also regarded the head of the tribe as their fat her and considered themselves as his "sons." without really being his descendants. Possibly the tribe that immigrated first to llaran and from there to Canaan was already more numerous than would seem to be the case according to tradition, which takes into considera tion onlv the leading personalities. Secondly, we must remember that the Israelites, because of t heir pat riarehal life, had become accustomed to clothe all the relations of nations to nations in the scheme of the family. In this way such genealogies of nations as are found in < len 10 and 11 originated. Mere peoples, cities and countries have also been placed in the genealogies, without the author himself thinking of individual persons in this connection, who had borne the names, e.g. of Mi/.raim (Kgypt), Cush (Kthiopiai. etc, and were actually sons of Hani. The purpose of the genealogy in this form is to express only the closer or more 1 remote relationship or connection to a group of nations. (ien 25 1 tf also is a telling example, showing how independently these groups are united. A new wife (Keturah) does not at this place lit into the family history of Abraham. But the writer still wants to make mention of an Arabian group, which was also related to Israel by blood, but in fact stood more distant from the Israelites than did the Ishmaelites. Out of this systematic further development of the living tradition, however, one difficulty arises. It is not in all places easy, indeed not always possible, to draw the line between what is reliable tradition and what is a freer continuation. Hut it is a misinterpretation of the his torical situation, when the entire history of the patri archs is declared to be incredible, and when in such sharply defined personalities as Abraham, Jacob, .Joseph, and other s, only personifications of tribes are found, the later history of which tribes is said to be embodied in the lives of these men; e.g. the name Abraham cannot have been the impersonal name of a tribe or of a god. It is found as the name of a person on old Hall tablets (Abu ramu) , but originally in the nomadic tribe was doubtless pronounced, nlilii rain. i.e. "My father [God] is exalted." The same is true of the name Jacob (really Jakob-el) ; cf Joseph (Joseph-el), Ishmael, and others, which find their analogies in old Arabian names.

      (1) Poiriarchal cnnil/liottx (!cn 14. Further, the conditions of life which arc presupposed in the history of the Patriarchs are in perfect agreement with those which from the Am Tab we learn existed in Canaan. While formerly it was maintained that it would have been impossible for a single tribe to force its way into Canaan at that time when the country was thickly populated, it is now known that at that very time when the ancestors of the Israelites entered, similar tribes also found their way into the land, sometimes in a peaceable way, sometimes by force. Egypt for the time being had control of the land, but its supremacy was at no place very strong. And the ih/inm, as did others who forced their way into the country, caused the inhabitants much trouble 1 . Esp. does ("Ien 14, the only episode in which a piece of universal history finds its way into the story of the tribal ancestors, turn out to be a document of great value, which reflects beautifully the condition of affairs in Asia. Such expeditions for conquest in the direction of the Mediterranean lands were undertaken at an early period by Hal) rulers, Sargon I of Akkad and his son \\\\aram Sin. The latter undertook an expe dition to the land of Magan along the exact way of the expedition described in (!en 14, this taking place in the days of Amraphel, i.e. Hammurabi. The fact that the latter was himself under an Ela- mitic superior is in perfect agreement with the story of the inscriptions, according to which the famous Hammurabi of Habylon had first freed himself from the supremacy of Elam. The fact that Ham murabi, according to accepted chronology, ruled shortly after the year 2000 HC, is also in agreement with Bib. chronology, which places Abraham in this very lime. These expeditions into the country Mart u, as the Babylonians call Syria, had for their purpose chiefly to secure booty and to levy tribute. That the allied kings themselves took part in this expedition is not probable. These were punitive expeditions undertaken with a small force.

      This ch 14 of Gen seems to be a translation of an old cuneiform tablet. As a rule the stories of the patri archal age for a long time were handed down orally, and

      naturally were modified to a certain extent. Then, too, scholars have long since discovered different sources, out of which the story in its present form has been compiled. This fact explains some irregularities in the story: e.g. the chronological data of the document P, which ar ranges its contents systematically, do not always har- inoni/e with the order of events as reported by the other t wo leading documents, K and.), t he lirst of which is per haps the Kphraimitie and the second the Judaic version of t he story. Hut. under all circumstances, much greater than the difference are the agreements of the sources. They contain the same picture, of this period, which certainly iias not been modified to glorify the partici pants. It is easily seen that the situation of the fathers, when they were strangers in the land, was anything but comfortable. A poetical or perfectly fictitious popular account would have told altogether different deeds of heroism of the founder of the people. The weaknesses and the faults of the fathers and mothers in the patri archal families are not. passed over in silence. Hut the fact that. Jeh. whom they trusted at all times, helped them through and did not suffer them to be destroyed, but. in them laid the foundation for the future of His people, is the golden cord that, runs through the whole history. And in this the difference between the indi vidual characters finds a sharp expression; e.g. Abra ham s magnanimity and tender feeling of honor in refer ence to his advantage in worldly matters find their ex pression in narratives which are ascribed to altogether different sources, as Gen 13 S if (J); 14 22 IT (special source ; 23 7 f f (P). In what an altogether different way Jacob insists upon his advantage! This consist ency in the way in which the different characters are portrayed must awaken confidence, in the historical character of the narratives. Then, too, the harmony with Kgyp manners and customs in the story of Joseph, even in its minutest details, as these have been empha sized particularly by the Egyptologist Ebers, speaks for this historical trustworthiness.

      (2) f/li fis of God. Further, the conception of God as held by these fathers was still of a primitive char acter, but. it contains the elements of the later re ligious development (see ISRAEL, KKLKUOX OF).

      (3) Dcsrcnt into E</y/>t. During a long period of famine the sons of .Jacob, through Divine provi dence, which made use of Joseph as an instrument, found refuge in Egypt, in the marshes of which country along the lower Nile Sem tribes had not seldom had their temporary abodes. The land of (loshen in the X.E. part of the Delta, Ed. Xaville ( The Shrine of Saft-el-Henneh ami UH- Linn/ of (loxfu >/, London, 18S7) has shown to be the region about Phakusa (Saft-el-Henneh). These regions had at that time not yet been made a part of the strictly organized and governed country of Egypt, and could accordingly still be left to such nomadic tribes. For the sons of Jacob were still wandering shepherds, even if they did, here and there, after the manner of such tribes, change to agricultural pursuits (Gen 26 12). If, as is probable, at that time a dynasty of Sem Hyksos was ruling in lower Egypt, it is all the more easily understood that kindred tribes of this character were fond of settling along these border districts. On account of the fertility of the amply watered districts, men and animals could increase rapidly, and the virile tribe could, in the course of a few centuries, grow into a powerful nation. One portion of the tribes pastured their flocks back and forth on the prairies; another builded houses for themselves among the Egyptians and engaged in agricultural pursuits and in garden ing (X u 11 ")). Egyp arts and trades also found their way among this people, as also doubtless the art of writing, at least in the case of certain indi viduals. In this way their sojourning in this country became a fruitful factor in the education of the people. This stay explains in part the fact that the Israelites at all times were more receptive of culture and were more capable than their kins men, the Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites, and others in this respect. Moses, like Joseph, had learned all the mysteries of Egyp wisdom. On the other hand, the sojourn in this old, civilized country was a danger to the religion of the people of Israel. According to the testimony of Josh 24 14; Ezk207ff; 238.19, they adopted many


      heathen customs from their neighbors. It was salutary for them, that the memory of this sojourn was embittered for them by hard oppression.

      //. Nationality under Moses. It is reported in K\\\\ 1 S t luit a ne\\\\v Pharaoh ascended the throne, who knew nothing of Joseph. This 1. Israel doubtless means that a new dynasty in Egypt eame into power, which adopted a new policy in the treatment of the Sem neighbors. The expulsion of the Hyksos had pre ceded this, and the opposition to the Semitics had become more acute. The new government devel oped a strong tendency to expansion in the direct ion of theN.E. Under these circumstances it is not sur prising that the laws of the empire were vigorously enforced in these border districts and that an end was made to the liberties of the unwelcome shepherd 1 ribes. This led to constantly increasing measures of severity. In this way the people became more and more unhappy and finally were forced to emigrate.

      (1) CliriHinlcxji/. It is still the current convic tion that the Pharaoh of the oppression was Rameses II, a king who was extraordinarily am bitious of building, whose long reign is by Kduard Meyer placed as late as 1310 to 1244 BC. His son Merenptah would then be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But on this supposition, Bib. chronology not only becomes involved in serious difficulties, since then the time of the Judges must be cut down to unduly small proportions, but certain definite data also speak in favor of an earlier date for the Exodus of Israel. Merenptah boasts in an inscrip tion that on an expedition to Syria he destroyed the men of Israel (which name occurs here for the first

      1 ime on an Egyp monument). And even the father of Rameses II, namely Seti, mentions Asher among those whom he conquered in Northern Pal, that is, in the district afterward occupied by this tribe. These data justify the view that the Exodus already took place in the time of the XVlIIlh Dynasty, a thing in itself probable, since the energetic rulers of this dynasty naturally have inaugurated a new method of treating this province. The oppression of Israel would then, perhaps, be the work of Thot li mes III (according to Meyer, 1501-1447 BC), and the Exodus would take place under his successor, Amenophis II. In harmony with this is the claim of Manet ho, who declares that the "Lepers," in whom we recogni/e the Israelites (see below), were expelled by King Amenophis.

      The length of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, according to Gen 15 13 (P), was in round numbers 400 years; more exactly, according to Kx 12 40 f (P), 430 years. But the last-mentioned passage in LXX reads, "the sojourn of tin; sons of Jacob, when they lived in Egypt and in the land of Canaan." (The same reading is found in the Sam text, only that the land of Canaan precedes that of Egypt.) Since, according to this source (P), the Patriarchs lived 215 years in Canaan, 1 he sojourn in Egypt would be reduced also 215 years. This is the way in which the synagogue reckons (cf (Jal 3 17), as also Jos (Ant, II, xv, 2). In favor of this shorter period appeal is made to the genealogical list s, which , however, because they are incomplete, cannot decide the matter. In favor of a longer duration of this sojourn we can appeal, not only to Gen 15 13 (LXX has the same!), but also to the large number of those who left Egypt according to Nu 1 and 26 (P), even if t he number of 600,000 men there ment ioned , which would presuppose a nation of about two million souls, is based on a later calculation and gives us an impos sible conception of the Exodus.

      (2) Moses. While no account has been preserved concerning the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, the history of the Exodus itself, which signifies the birth of Israel as a nation, is fully reported. In this

      I crisis Moses is the prophetical mediator through whom the wonderful deed of God is accomplished. All the deeds of God, when interpreted by this prophet, become revelations for the people. Moses himself had no other authority or power than that which was secured for him through his office as the organ of God. He was the human instrument to bring about the synthesis between Israel and Jeh for all times. He had, in doing this, indeed pro claimed the old God of the fathers, but under the new, or at any rate hitherto to the people unknown, name of Jeh, which is a characteristic mark of the Mosaic revelations to such an extent, that the more accurate narrators (E and P) begin to make use of this name only from this period of time on. In the name of this absolute sovereign, God, Moses claims liberty for Israel, since this people was Jeh s firstborn (Ex 4 22). The contest which Moses carries on in the name of this God with Pharaoh becomes more and more a struggle between this God and the gods of Egypt, whose earthly repre sentative Pharaoh is. The plagues which come over Egypt are all founded on the natural conditions of the country, but they occur in such extraordinary strength and rapidity at Moses prediction, and even appear at his command, that they convince the people, and finally Pharaoh himself, of the omnipotence of this God on the soil of this country. In the same way the act of deliverance at the Red Sea can be explained as the cooperation of natural causes, namely wind and tide. But the fact that these elementary forces, just at this critical time, proved so serviceable to the people of God and de structive to their enemies, shows unmistakably the miraculous activity of God. This the Israelites experienced still further on the journey through the desert, when they were, entirely dependent on Di vine leadership and care. The outcome of these experiences, and at 1 lie same time its grandest demonstration, was the conclusion of the covenant at Mt. Sinai. From this time on Jeh was Israel s God and Israel was the people of Jeh. This God claimed to be the only and absolute ruler over the tribes that were now inwardly united into one nation. From this resulted as a matter of course, that Moses as the recognized organ of this God was not only the authority, who was to decide in all dis putes concerning right, but also the one from whom a new and complete order of legal enactments pro ceeded. Moses became the lawgiver of Israel.

      Even if the history of tho origin of the OT covenant is unique in character, it is nevertheless profitable to take note of an analogy which is found in a related people and which is adapted to make much in Israel s history clearer. Mohammed also, after he had at the critical point of his career persuaded his followers to migrate from their homes, soon after, in Medina, concluded a covenant, according to which he, as the recognized speaker of Allah, claimed for himself the right to decide in all disputes. He, too, in his capacity as the prophet of (iod, was consulted as an infallible authority in all questions pertaining to the cult us, the civil and the crimi nal laws, as also in matters pertaining to politics and to war. And his decisions and judgments, uttered in the name of Allah, were written down and afterward col lected. This Koran, top, became the basis of sacred law. And by causing the hitherto divided and antagonistic tribes to subject themselves to Allah, Mohammed united these his followers into a religious communion and in this way, too, into a national body. Mohammed has indeed copied the prophecy of earlier times, but the work of Moses was original in character and truly inspired by God.

      The historical character of the exodus out of

      Egypt cannot be a matter of doubt, though some

      suspect that the entire nation did not

      2. Histori- take part in the inarch through the

      cal Char- Red Sea, but that certain tribes had

      acter of the before this already migrated toward

      Exodus the East. We must not forget that

      the song of victory in Ex 15 does not

      mention a word about Pharaoh s being himself de-



      stroyed in going through the Sea. It is only the late 1 Ps 136 ir> that presupposes this as a certainty. That an entire nation cannot emigrate in a single night cannot be maintained in view of the fact that, the inhabitants of the same \\\\Vdili-T uiniln! , through which Israel inarched, so late as the last century, emigrated in a single night and for .similar reasons (cf Sayce, Mininti/i nix, 249).

      (1) Ei/i//)li/in n rxinii of tin<hix. The fact that the Kgyp monuments report nothing of this episode, so disgraceful to that people, is a matter of course, in view of the oflicial character of these accounts and of their policy of passing over in abso lute silence all disagreeable facts. And yet in Un popular tradition of the people, which Manetho has handed down, there lias been preserved some evidence of this (-vent . It is.indeed 1 rue t hat what this author reports about, the Ilyksos (see above 1 ) does not belong here, as this people is not, as .Jos thinks, ident ical wit h the Israelites. However (( A />, I, xxvi, /iff), he narrates a story which may easily be the tradition concerning the exodus of the chil dren of Israel as changed by popular use. King Amenophis, we an- told, wanted to sec- the gods. A seer, who bore the same name, promised that his wish would be gratified under the condition that the country would be cleansed of lepers and all others that were unclean; and it is said that he accord ingly drove SO, 000 such persons into the stone quarries E. of the Nile. As the seer was afraid that these measures would be displeasing to the gods and bring upon the land a subjection of 13 years to the supremacy of foreigners, lie gave up to these lepers the former city of the Ilyksos, Avaris by name. Here they appointed a priest by the name of Osarsiph, later called Moses, as their chief, who gave them a special body of laws and in these did not spare the sacred animals. He also carried on war against the Egyptians, the Hyksos helping him, and he even governed Egypt for 13 years, after which he and his followers were driven out into Syria. Similar stories are found in Chaero- mon, Lysimachus, and others ( <"!/;, I, xxxii, 30; cf Tacitus, ///.s7. v.3-.">). When we remember that it is nonsense to permit lepers to work in stone quarries and that the Egyptians also otherwise call the Semites Aatu, i.e. "plague," 1 hen this story must be regarded as referring to such a non-Egyp nation. Ilecalaeus of Abdera has a report of this matter which is much more like the Bib. story, to the effect, namely, that a plague which had broken out in Egypt, led the people to believe 1 that thegods were angry at the 1 Egyptians because they had neg lected the 1 religious cultus; for which reason they expelled all foreigners. A part of these is said to have migrated under the leadership of Moses to Judaea and there to have founded the city of Jems (cf Diodorus Siculus xl.3; cf xxxvi.l).

      ( !) (luxjnijihieid mutters. The Red Sea, through which the Israelites went under the leadership of Moses, is without a doubt the northern extension of this body of water, which in former times reached farther inland than the present Gulf of Suez; cf Edouard Naville, The Store-City of Pithom <m<l the Route, of the, Exotlu*, lXSf>; and The Route of the Exodus, 1S!)1. This savant is entitled to the credit of having ident ified the st at ion Sukkot h on the basis of the monuments; it is the modern Tell-Maahuta and identical with Pithom, which was the name of the sanctuary at that, place. Later the city was called Heroopolis. The route accordingly went through the modern Wadi-Tumilat to the modern Bitter Sea. N. of Suez. It is a more difficult task to trace the route geographically on the other side of the Sea. For it is a question whether "the Mountain of Jeh," which formed the goal of the journey, is to be located on the Sinai peninsula, or

      in the land of the Edomites, or even on the western coast of Arabia. A. H. Sayce; and others reject the traditional location of Sinai em the- peninsula named after this mountain, and declare; that the Israelite s marched directly eastwarel toward the (iulf eif Akaba. The- reasons for this are femnel in the work eif Sayce-, The Verdict of the, Monuments, 203 ff. Hut e-ve-n if em this supposition a number e>f diffi cult ie-s fall away, there nevertheless are many argu ments in favor of the traditional locatiem e>f Sinai, esp. the grandeur of the chain itself, fe>r which a rival we>rth mentioning has ne>t been discovereel in the land of the Eelomites e>r in Northwestern Arabia. The- Sinai trave-le-r, E. H. Palmer, has also shenvn how splendielly the surroundings of the Sinai chain, esp. the- Jcbcl M HMI with the R<ts Sufsafch, is adapted for the; purpose e>f cone-hiding a covenant.

      (3) The icilticrHcxti sojourn. The duration of the sojourn in the "ele-se-rt" is everywhere (as in Am 5 2/>) give-n as 40 ye-ars. In harmony with this is the- fact that only a few e>f those who had ce>me out e>f Egypt lived to enter Canaan. The greater part of these- 40 years the Israelites seem to have spent at Kaelesh. At any rate, there was a sanctuary at that place, at which Moses administered justice, while the different tribes probably were scatte-re-d over t he prairies and over the; t illable dist nets. The central sanctuary, which Mose-s established, was the Tabernacle, which contained the Ark of the Cove nant, the sanctissimum. This sacred ark with the cherubim abe>ve it represents the throne e>f God, who is t nought to be enthroned above the cherubim. The ark itse>lf is, as it were, His foe>tstool. As in Egyp sanctuaries not infrequently the most sacred laws are deposited beneath the fen-t of the; statue of the- gexls, thus the sacred fundamental laws of God (the De-e ale>gue), on two tablets, were deposited in this ark. This Ark of the Covenant prcsuppe)ses an invisible God, who cannot be represented by any image 1 . The other laws and ordinances of Moses covereel the entire public and private legislation, given whenever the need for these maele it necessary 1e> determine such matters. In giving these laws Moses cemnected his system with the olel traditional principles already current among the tribes. This fact is confirmed by the legal CH, which contains remarkable parallels, esp. to Ex 20 23 19. But Mose-s has elevated the old traditional laws of the t ribe\\\\s anel has given them a more humane character. By putting every enactment in the light of the reli- giem of Jen, and by eliminating eve-rything not in harmony with this religion, he has raised the people spiritually anel me>rally to a higher plane.

      Among the people, the undercurrents of super- stition anel of immorality were indeed still strong. At the outset Moses had much to contend with in the opposition of the badly mixed mass of the peo ple. And the fact that he was able for the period of 40 years to hold the leadership of this stubborn pe-eiple without military force is a phenomenal work, which shows at all hands the w r onderful co operation of Jeh Himself. However, he did not indeed succeeel in raising the entire people to the plane of his knowledge of God and of his faith in Ge)d. This generation had to die in the wilderness, because it lacked the sanctified courage to take pos session of the land of promise. But the foundation had been laiel for the theocracy, which must not in any way be identified with a hierarchy.

      (4) Entrance into Canaan. It was Joshua, the successor of Moses, who was enabled to finish the work and to take possession of the land. Not far from Jericho he led the people over the Jordan and captured this city, which had been considered im pregnable. After that, with his national army, he conquered the Canaanitish inhabitants in several decisive battles, near Gibeon and at the waters of




      Merom, and then went back and encamped at Gilgal on the Jordan. After this he advanced with his tribe of Ephraim into the heart of the land, while the southern tribes on their part forced their way into the districts assigned to them. \\\\Yithout reasons this account has been attacked as unre liable, and critics have thought that originally the different tribes, at their own initiative, either peace ably or by force, had occupied their land. But it is entirely natural to suppose that the inhabitants of the country who had allied themselves to resist this occupation by Israel, had first to be made sub missive through several decisive defeats, before they would permit the entrance of the tribes of Israel, which entrance accordingly often took place without a serious struggle. That the occupation of the land was not complete is shown in detail in Jgs 1. Also in those districts in which Israel had gained the upper hand, they generally did not wage the war of annihilation that Moses had commanded, but were content with making the Canaanites, by the side of whom they settled, bondmen and sub jects. This relation could, in later time, easily be reversed, esp. in those cases in which the original inhabitants of the country were in the majority. Then, too, it must be remembered that the latter enjoyed a higher state of civilization than the Is raelites. It was accordingly an easy matter for the Israelites to adopt the customs and the ideas of the Canaanites. But if this were done, their religion was also endangered. Together with the sacred "holy places" (bumuth) of the original in habitants, the altars and the sanctuaries there found also came into possession of the Israelites. Among these there were some that had been sacred to the ancestors of Israel, and with which old mem ories were associated. As a consequence, it readily occurred that Israel appropriated also old symbols and religious ceremonies, and even the Baals and the Astartes themselves, however little this could be united in principle with the service of Jeh. But if the Israelites lost their unique religion, then their connection with the kindred tribes and their na tional independence were soon matters of history. They were readily absorbed by the Canaanites.

      ///. Period of the Judges. In such a period of weakened national and religious life, it could easily happen that Israel would again lose 1. General the supremacy that it had won by the Character sword. It was possible that the of Period Canaanites could again bring into their power larger parts of the land. Also energetic and pushing nomadic tribes, such as the Ammonites, the Moabites, or other warlike peoples, such as the Philis, could bring the country under subjection, as actually did occur in the period of the Judges. The Book of Jgs reports a number of such instances of the subjection of Israel, which did not extend over the whole land, and in part occurred in different sections of the country at the same time. Judah and Simeon, the two tribes in the south, as a rule took no part in these contests, and had their own battles to fight ; and the same is true of the tribes E. of the Jordan, among whom Northern Manasseh and Ephraim were in closest alliance. After a longer or shorter period of op pression, there followed in each case a revival of the national spirit against such oppression. And in all these cases the popular hero who became the liber ator appealed to the religious consciousness that formed a bond of union between all the Israeli! ish tribes and their common God Jeh. In however wild a manner the youthful vigor of the people may have found its expression on these occasions, they are nevertheless conscious of the fact that they are waging a holy war, which in every case also ended with the victory over the heathen spirit and false

      worship that had found their way into Israel. The most precious historical monument from these times is the song of Deborah (Jgs 5), which, like a mirror, reflects faithfully the conditions of affairs, and the thoughts of that age.

      Jgs 17-21 belong to the beginning of this period. The first of these old stories narrates the emigration of a large portion of the tribe of Dan to the extreme north of the country and the origin of idolatry in that region (chs 17, 18). But the second story, too, both in form and contents, is, at least in part, very old and its historical value is amply protected against the attacks of modern critics by Hos 9 9; 10 9. This story reports a holy war of revenge against the tribe of Benjamin, which was unwilling to render satisfaction for a nefarious crime that had been committed at Gibeah in its territory. In the feeling of close solidarity and of high responsibility which appears in connection with the punishment of this crime, we still see the influence of the periods of Moses and Joshua.

      First it is narrated of a king of Aram-naharaim that he had oppressed Israel for a period of 8 years

      (Jgs 3 8). This probably means a 2. The king of the Mitanni (Sayce, Monu-

      Different mcnts, 297, 301), who at that time Judges were trying to force their way through

      Canaan into Egypt. It was Othniel, the Kenazite, belonging to a tribe that was related to Judah, who delivered Israel. A second liber ator was the Benjamite Ehud, who delivered the southeastern portion of the country from the servi tude of Eglon, the king of the Moabites, by putting the latter to death (Jgs 3 12 ii)_. On a greater scale was the decisive battle against the Canaan- it ish kings in the north, when these had formed an alliance and had subjected Israel for a period of 20 years. At the appeal of Deborah, Barak con quered Sisera, the hostile king and leader of a mighty army of chariots, in the plain of Ivishon (Jgs 4,5). In t he same region t he bat t le of Gideon was fought with the plundering Bedouin swarms of the Midianites, who had repeatedly oppressed Israel (chs 6-8). Abimelech, an unworthy son of the God-fearing hero, after the death of his father, had established a local kingdom in Shechem, which stood for only a short time and came to a disgraceful end. Little more than the names are known to us of Tola, of the tribe of Issachar, and of Jair, in Gilead (10 1 f f). More fully is the story of Jephthah told, who delivered the country from the Ammonites coming from the east (ch 11), with which was also connected a struggle with the jealous Ephraimites (ch 12); and still more fully are the details reported of the; personal contests of the Nazirite Samson, belonging to the tribe of Dan, against the Philis making their inroads from the south, and who for many years proved to be the most dangerous enemies of Israel.

      All these heroes, and a few others not so well known, are called judges, and it is regularly re ported how long each of these "judged" Israel. They were not officials in the usual sense of the term, but were liberators of the people, who, at the inspiration of Jeh, gave the signal for a holy war. After the victory they, as men of Jeh, then enjoyed distinction, at least in their own tribes; and in so far as it was through their doing that the people had been freed, they were the high est authorities in political, legal, and probably, too, in religious questions. They are called judges in conscious contradistinction from the kingly power, which in Israel was recognized as the exclusive prerogative of Jeh, so that Gideon declined it as improper when the people wanted to make him king (8 22 f). The people recognized the Spirit of Jeh in the fierce energy which came over these


      If) 18

      mm and impelled them to arouse their people out i>f their disgraceful lethargy. For this reason, too, they could afterward he trusted in making their juilicial decisions in liarniony with the mind and t he Spirit of !od. as t his had heeti done already by the pniphet ess l)eliorah in the time ol oppression. Yet, :it least in t he case of Samson (notwithstand ing 16 :>1 I, it is not prohahle that he ever was en gaged in the administration of ju>tice. It is not even reported of him that he fought at the head ol the people, hut he carried on his contests with the 1 hilis in hehalf of himself individually, even if, as one consecrated of God, he were a witness for the

      power of ( iod.

      The chronology of the period of the Judges ex-

      hibits some peculiar difficulties. If we add together

      the data that are given in succession

      3. Chro- in the Hook of Jgs, we get from Jgs nology of 3s -16 31, 410 years altogether. But the Period this numher is too large to make it har-

      moni/e with the 4S() years mentioned in 1 K 6 1. Jewish tradition (e.g. Sril/in- (Haiti) accordingly does not include t he years of oppression in this sum, hut makes them a part of the period of the individual judges. In this way about 111 years are eliminated. Hut evidently the redactor of t lie Hook of Jgs did not share 1 his view. Modern critics are of the opinion that the writer lias dove tailed two chronological methods, one of which counted on the, basis of periods of forty years each, while the other was more exact and contained odd numbers. In this way we can shorten 1 his period as does the Sedher *0lam. At any rate, it is just ifiable, and is suggested by 10 7, to regard the oppression by the Ammonites (10 SIT) and the oppression by the I hilis (13 Iff) as contemporaneous. And other events, too, which in the course of the narra tive are related as following each other, may have taken place at the same time or in a somewhat different sequence, as the author used different sources for the different events. But for this very reason his story deserves to be credited as historical. Such characters as Deborah, Jcphthah, Ehud, (iideon, Abimelech and Samson are described as tangible, historical realities. Even if, in the case of the last-mentioned, oral tradition has added decorative 1 details to tin 1 figure, yet Samson cannot possibly be a mere mythological character, but must have been a national hero characteristic of this period, in whom are represented the abundance of physical and mental peculiarities characteristic of the youthful nation, as also their good-natured indifference and carelessness over against their treacherous enemies.

      The lack of a central political power made itself

      felt all the more in the period of the Judges, since,

      because of the scattered condition of

      4. Loose the people in the country that had Organiza- been so minutely parceled out, and tion of the because of the weakening of the reli- People gious enthusiasm of the preceding age,

      the deeper unity of heart and mind was absent. It is indeed incorrect to imagine that at this time there was a total lack of governmental authority. A patriarchal organization had been in force from the beginning. The father of the family was the lawful head of those belonging to him: and a larger clan was again subject to an "elder," with far-reaching rights in the adminis tration of law, but also with the duty to protect his subordinates, and in case of want to support them. I nfort unat ely we are nowhere informed how these elders were chosen or whether their offices were hereditary. Only a very few passages, such as Isa 3 (if, throw a certain light on the subject. This institution of the elders Moses had already found established and had developed farther (Ex

      18 1. } IT). It was retained in all the periods of Israel s history. When the people began to live together in larger centers, as a natural consequence bodies of such city elders were established. The tribes, too, had "elders" at their head. But for a united action of the whole nation this arrange ment did not suffice; and esp. in the case of war the people of Israel felt that they were at a dis advantage compared with their enemies, who had kings to lead them. For this reason the desire for a king steadily grew in Israel. The dictators of the period of 1 he Judges satisfied their needs only for the t hue being.

      IV. The Kingdom: Israel- Judah. In the time when the Israelites were oppressed by the Philis the need of a king was esp. felt. As Samson had come to his death in servitude, the people them selves thus, at the close of this period of glorious victories, were under the supremacy of a warlike; race, which had only in recent times settled on the western coast of Pal, and from this base was forcing its conquests into the heart of the country.

      After the most disastrous defeats, during which

      even the Ark of the Covenant was lost, there arose

      for the people, indeed, a father and a

      1. Samuel deliverer in the person of Samuel, who

      saved them during the most critical period. What his activity meant for the uplift of the people cannot, be estimated too highly. He was, above all, during peace the faithful watchman of the most sacred possessions of Israel, a prophet such as the people had not seen since the days of Moses; and he doubtless was the founder of those colonies of prophetical disciples who were in later times so influential in the development of a theo- cratical spirit in Israel. He guarded the whole nation also with all his power, by giving to them laws and cultivating piety in the land.

      But as Samuel, too, became old and the people

      concluded for good reasons that his rule would have

      no worthy successors, their voice

      2. The could no longer be silenced, and they Kingdom demanded a king. Samuel tried in of Saul vain to persuade the people to desist

      from their demand, which to him seemed to be an evidence of distrust in the provi dence of Jeh, but was himself compelled, by inspi ration of God, to submit to their wishes and anoint the new king, whom Jeh pointed out to him. It is indeed maintained by the critics that there are several accounts extant in S concerning the selection of Saul to the kingdom, and that these accounts differ in this, that the one regards the kingdom as a blessing and the other as a curse. The first view, which is said to be the older, is claimed to be found in 1 S 9 1-10.16, and 11; while the second is said to be in 8; 10 17-27; 11 12-14. Whatever may be the facts in regard to these sources, this is beyond any doubt , t hat Samuel, the last real theocratic leader, established the kingdom. But just as lit tie can the fact be doubted, that he took this step with inner reluctance, since 1 in his eyes this innovation meant the discarding of the ideals of the people 1 te> which he himself had remained true during his lifetime. The demand of the 1 people was the outgrowth of worldly motives, but Jeh brought, it about, that the "Anointed of Jeh signified an advance in the history of the kingdom of God.

      Saul himself, at first, in a vigorous and efficient manner, solved the immediate problems and over came the 1 enemies e*f his people. But he soon began 1e> conceive of his kingdom after the manner of heathen kingdoms and diel ne>t subject himself to Jeh and His appe>intexl representative. There soon arose an open conflict between him and Samuel; and the fact that the Spirit of God had departed


      from him appears in his melancholy state of mind, which urged him on to constantly increasing deeds of violence. That under these circumstances God s blessing also departed from him is proved by the collapse of his life s work in his final failures against the Philis.

      In contrast with this, David, his successor, the

      greatest king that Israel ever had, had a correct

      conception of this royal office, and

      3. David even in his most brilliant successes

      did not forget that he was called to rule only as "the servant of Jeh" (by which name he, next to Moses, is called oftenest in the Bible). As a gifted ruler, he strengthened his kingdom from within, which, considering the heterogeneous char acter of the people, was not an easv matter, and extended it without by overpowering jealous neigh bors. In this way it was he who became the real founder of a powerful kingdom. The conquest of Jcrus and its selection as the capital city also are an evidence of his political wisdom. It is indeed true that he, too, -had his personal failings and that he made many mistakes, which caused him political troubles, even down to his old age. But his humil ity at all times made him strong enough again to subject himself to the hand of Jeh, and this humility was based on the attitude of his spirit toward Jeh, which shows itself in his Pss. In this way he really came to be a connecting link between (!od and his people, and upon this foundation the prophets built further, who prophesied a still closer union of the two under a son of David.

      While Saul was a Benjamite, David was of the tribe of Judah, and was for a short lime the king of this tribe in Hebron, before the other tribes, lie- coming tired of the misrule of a descendant of Saul, also voluntarily chose him as their king. He soon after this established as the center of his new king dom the city of Jcrus, which really was situated on the territory that had been assigned to Benjamin; and he also set this city apart as tin 1 religious center of the people by transferring the Ark of the Cove nant to this place. In this way David, through his wisdom and his popular bravery, succeeded in uniting the tribes more firmly under his supremacy, and esp. did he bring the tribe of Judah, which down to this time had been more for itself, into closet- connect ion with the others. Israel under David became a prominent kingdom. This position of power was, as a matter of fact, distasteful to their neighbors round about . The Philis tried to destroy the ambitious kingdom, but were themselves re peatedly and definitely overpowered. But other neighboring people, too, who, notwithstanding the fact that David did not assume an offensive atti tude toward them, assumed a hostile attitude toward him, came to feel his superiority. Particularly severe and tedious was the war against the allied Ammonites and Syrians; and although the Edom- ites, too, regarded this as a favorable time for at tacking Israel, this struggle also ended in a complete triumph for David. The surrounding countries became subject to him from the Mediterranean Sea to Hamath (2 S 8 9), and from the territory of the Lebanon, the inhabitants of which assumed a friendly attitude, to the borders of Egypt, which also recognized the new rule.

      Solomon, 1 he son of David, developed inwardly the powerful kingdom which he had inherited. To

      his father he seemed to be the right

      4. Solomon man for this because of his peaceful

      temperament and his high mental abilities. He justified the hopes placed in him. Out of love to Jeh he built the temple on Mt. Zion, regulated the affairs of state and the administra tion of justice, and by commercial treaties with the Phoenicians (King Hiram) brought about great

      prosperity in the land. His was the "golden" period in Israel. The culture and civilization, too, of the people were materially advanced by Solomon as he widened their horizon and introduced the lit erature of Proverbs, which had up to this time been more extensively cultivated by the neighboring people (Edom, Arabia, Egypt). He even developed this literature into a higher type. On the other hand, the brilliant reign of Solomon brought serious dangers t o the new kingdom. His liberal-mindedness in the treatment of his foreign wives, in permit ting them to retain their heathen worship, probably because he thought that in the end it was the same Divinity which these women worshipped under a different form, endangered the theocracy with its serious cultus and its strict morality. Through this conduct the king necessarily forfeited the sym pathy of the most pious Israelites. At the same time, his love for magnificent structures surpassed the measure which was regarded as correct for the "Anointed of Jeh." Then, too, his efforts, in them selves justifiable, to establish a more perfect organ ization of the monarchy, produced a great deal of dissatisfaction. Solomon did not understand, as did his fat her, how to respect the inherited liberty-loving tendencies of his people. The heavy services and taxation, to which t he people were compelled to sub mit, wc^re deeply felt , most of all by the Ephraimites, who at times had exhibited a jealous spirit, and could not forget their lost hegemony.

      So long, indeed, as the wise Solomon and his ad visers were at the helm, the various rebellious tend encies could not make themselves

      5. Division felt. But after his death the catas- of the trophe came. His son, Rehoboam, at Kingdom the Diet in Shechem, at which the

      Ephraimites placed before him a kind of capitulation before his coronation, showed that he did not at all understand the situation. His domineeiing attitude brought things to a head, and he must have been glad that at least the tribe of Judah remained faithful to him. The northern tribes chose for their king Jeroboam (I), who before this had already taken part in rebellious agitations, as the- kingdom had been predicted to him by the prophet Ahijah (1 K 11 2 ft). Israel was torn into two parts.

      With this rupture the powerful kingdom estab lished by David had reached its end. In regard

      to this flourishing period in Israel s

      6. Sources history we are, on the whole, well of the His- informed through the sources. Esp. tory of the in 2 S 9-20 and 1 K 2, 3, we have Kingdom a narrator who must have been a con temporary of the events recorded.

      Klostermann surmises that this may have been Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok (2 S 15 27); while Duhin, Budde, Sellin and others believe it to have been the priest Abiathar. Less unity is in evidence in the first Book of S, containing the history of the youth of David, which evidently was often de scribed. The Books of Ch have only secondary value for the life of David. These books narrate in full detail the story of the preparations made by David for the erection of the temple and of his organization of the Levites. In regard to the reign of Solomon, the Books of K report more fully. Concerning the later kings, they generally give only meager extracts from more complete sources, which excerpts, however, have been shown to be reliable. The interest which the narrator has in telling his story is the religious. Esp. does he carefully note the fact as to the relation of the different kings to the cultus. Special sources have been used in com piling the detailed stories of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha, which are inserted in the history of the two kingdoms. On the other hand, the Books



      of Ch pass over cut irely all reference to 1 lie work of the prophets of the Northern Kingdom, as they ignore t he cut ire history of t he Ephruimit ie kingdom since the interest of these hooks is centered on the sanctuarv in .lerus. Also in the case of the Judaean history, the much older Books of K deserve the precedence. Yet \\\\ve o\\\\ve to the writer ot Ch a number of contributions to this history, esp. whore lie has made a fuller use of the sources than has been done by the author of the Books of K. The suspicion that everything which Ch contains, beyond what is to be found in K, is unhistoncal, has turned out to be groundless. Thus, e.g., it would be impossible to understand the earlier prophecies of Isaiah under Jot ham at all, if it did not appear from Ch to what prosperity and influ ence the people of , lerus had by that time again attained. For it is only Ch t hat give us an account of the flourishing reign of his predecessor I x.xiah. who is treated but briefly in K.

      The chronology of the earlier portions of the period of the Kings is dependent on the date of the

      division of the kingdom. This date 7. Chrono- can be decided on the basis of the logical careful chronological data of the

      Matters Books of K, which do not indeed agree

      in all part iculars, but are to be adjusted by the Assyr chronology. If we, with Kamp- hausen, Oettli and Kittel, regard the year 937 BC as the time of the division of the kingdom, then Solomon ruled from 5)77 to 937; David, from 1017 to 1)77. The length of the reign of Saul is not known, as the text of 1 S 13 1 is defective 1 . It is very probable that we can credit him with about twenty years, according to Jos (.I///, X, viii, 4), i.e. from about 1037-1017. In this case David transferred the seat of government to Jems about the year 1010, and the complet ion of theerectionof the temple of Solomon took place in 9(>(>. But this basal date of 937 is not accepted as correct by all scholars. Klostermann places 1 he date of the rupture of the kingdom in the year 978; Koehler, in 973. For later chronological data, Assyr sources are an im portant factor. The Assyrians were accustomed to call each year after the name 1 of an official (limit), and eponym lists are extant for 228 years. In these reference is made to an eclipse of the sun, which astronomically has been settled as having taken place on July 1~>, 7(>3. We 1 have in this list then the period from 893 to (it Hi. On this basis, it is made possible to determine the exact dates of the different military expeditions of the Assyr rulers and their conflicts with the kings of Judah and Israel, on the presupposition, however, that the Assyr inscriptions here used really speak of these kings, which in a number of cases is denied. Valuable help for determining the chronology of this period is the fall of Samaria in the year 722 and the expedition of Sennacherib against Jems in 701, and then the fall of Jems in ,587 and ~>8(>. The distribution of the years between these dates to the individual kings is in places doubtful, as the numbers in the text are possibly corrupt, and in the synchronistic data of the Books of K mistakes may have been made.

      V. Period of the Separated Kingdoms. The two separated kingdoms differed materially. The

      kingdom of Ephniim was the more 1. Contrasts powerful of the two. It embraced, and Vicis- according to an inaccurate usage of situdes of the words, 10 tribes; and to this the King- kingdom the vassals, such as Moab, doms as a rule remained subject, until

      they emancipated themselves. But, on the other hand, this Northern Kingdom was less firm spiritually. Even the resident city of the king changed frequently, until Omri founded

      the city of Samaria, which was well adapted for this purpose. The dynasties, too, were only of short duration. It occurred but rarely that one family was able to maintain its supremacy on the throne through several generations. A revolu tionary character remained fixed in this kingdom and became its permanent weakness. On the other hand, the smaller and often overpowered kingdom of Judah, which faithfully adhered to the royal line of David, passed through dangerous crises and had many unworthy rulers. Bui the legitimate; royal house, which had been selected by Jeh, constituted spiritually a firm bond, which kept, the people united, as is seen, e.g., by a glance at the addresses of Isaiah, who is thoroughly filled with the con vict ion of the importance of the house of David, no matter how unworthy the king who happened to rule 1 might appear to him. In a religious respect, also, 1 he arbit rary break with Zion proved to be fatal for the Northern Kingdom.

      J<r(iliiKini. It is true that faithful prophets of Jeh, such as the Abijah of Shiloh mentioned above,

      and Shemaiah (1 K 12 22 ff), pro- 2. The Sue- claimed that the fateful division of the cessive kingdom was a Divinely intended

      Reigns judgment from Jeh. But they soon

      wen 1 compelled to reach the conclusion that Jeroboam did not regard himself as a servant of Jeh, but as a sovereign who, through his own power and through the favor of the people, had secured the rule, and hence could arbitrarily decide all matters in reference to the cult us and the sacred sanctuaries of the people. According to his own will, and for political reasons, he established the new national sanctuary at. Bethel, and another at Dan. At both shrines he caused Jeh to be wor shipped under the image of a calf, which was to const it ute a paganizing opposition to the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Zion, even if it was the idea that Jeh, the ( Jod of the Covenant, was to be worshipped in 1 hese new images. In doing t his, 1 he king followed ancient national customs, which had broken with the purity of the Mosaic religion (concerning image- worship in Dan we have heard before. See GOLDEN CALF). His sojourn in Egypt, too, where he had lived as a fugitive, had doubtless furnished the king incentives in this direction. He created a priest hood that was submissive to his wishes, and dis regarded the opposition of the few prophets who protested against the policy of the king. His suc cessors, too, walked "in the ways of Jeroboam." The independent prophets, however, did not die out, but, rather, prophecy developed its greatest act ivity in this verv Northern Kingdom. As a rule, in its work it stood in opposition to the government, but at times it succeeded in gaining the recognition of the rulers.

      Omri. The earliest times of the divided king doms are, from a political point of view, character ized by the fact that the kingdoms on the Euphrates and the Tigris, namely Assyria and Babylon, still had enough to do with themselves, and did not yet make any inroads into the Mediterranean lands; but, rather, it was the Syrians who first caused a good deal of trouble to the Northern Kingdom. Jero boam did not succeed in founding a dynasty. Already his son Nadab was eliminated by a usurper Baasha. The latter s son too, Elah, was murdered, after a reign of two years. It was not, however, his murderer Zimri, or Tibni, who strove to secure the kingdom for himself, but Omri who became king (1 K 16), and who also attained to such prominence abroad that, the cuneiform inscriptions for a long 1 hue after call Israel "the land of Omri." His ability as a ruler was seen in the fact that the establish ment of Samaria as the capital city was his work. The inscription on the Mesha stone reports that he



      also established the sovereignty of Israel vigorously on the east side of the Jordan.

      Ahab. His son Ahab, too, was an energetic and brave ruler, who succeeded in gaining a number of victories over the Syrians, who were now beginning to assume the offensive in a determined manner. Then, too, he was politic enough to win over to his interests the kingdom of Judah, with which his predecessors had lived in almost, constant warfare. In this policy he succeeded, because the noble and large-hearted king Jehoshaphat was more receptive to such fraternal relations than was good for him. An expedition jointly undertaken by these two kings against Syria brought Jehoshaphat into ex treme danger and ended with the death of Ahab.

      Ahab s fate was his wife Jezebel, the daughter of the Phoen king Ethbaal (Ithobal, according to Jos, Ant, VIII, xiii, 2 and CAp, I, IS), who had been a priest of Astarte. This intermarriage with a fanatical heal hen family brought untold and end less misfortune over all Israel. This bold and scheming woman planned nothing less than the overthrow of the religion of Jeh, and the substi tution for it of the Baal and the Astarte cultus. As a first step she succeeded in having the king tolerate this religion. The leading temple in the new resi dent city, Samaria, was dedicated to the Baal cultus. Already this introduction of a strange and lascivious ethnic religion was a great danger to the religion and the morals of the people. Hosts of Baal priests, ecstatic dervishes, traversed the country. Soon the queen undertook to persecute the faithful worshippers of Jeh. The fact 1 hat t hese men protested against the tolerance of this foreign false religion was interpreted as disobedience on their part to the king. Many faithful prophets were put to death. At this critical period, when the existence of the religion of Jeh was at stake, the prophet Elijah, the Tishbite, appeared on the stage, and through a bitter struggle reestablished the worship of Jeh. However, the fateful influence that this woman exerted was thereby not yet de stroyed. It extended to Judah also.

      Rchoboam. In the kingdom of Judah, apart from the apostasy of different tribes, which left him only the vigorous tribe of Judah and portions of Benja min, Dan, Simeon, and Levi, Rehoboam experienced also other calamities, namely, a destructive invasion and tribute imposition by King Shishak of Egypt (Egyp Sheshonk, founder of the XXIId Dynasty; 1 K 14 25 f; cf 2 Ch 12 2fT). While under Sol omon the relations of Israel to the Egyp court had in the beginning been very friendly, this was changed when a new dynasty came to the throne. After Jeroboam had failed in his first, revolutionary project, he had found refuge at the court of Shishak (1 K 11 40). It is possible that Jeroboam made the Egyp king lustful for the treasures of Jerus. The Egyptians did not, as a matter of fact, stop at the Ephraimitic boundaries, but in part also in vaded the territory of Jeroboam; but their chief objective was Jerus, from which they carried away the treasures that had been gathered by Solomon. On the temple wall of Karnak this Pharaoh has inscribed the story of this victory and booty. _ From the names of the cities found in this inscription, we learn that this expedition extended as far as Megiddo and Taanach.

      Abijah. Rehoboam was succeeded by his son Abijah, or Abijahu, according to Ch (the Abijam of K is hardly correct). He ruled only 3 years. But even during this short reign he was compelled to engage in a severe struggle with Jeroboam (1 K 16 6; see details in 2 Ch 13).

      Asa. In every respect the reign of the God fearing Asa, who sought to destroy the heathenism that had found its way into the cultus, was more

      fortunate. He also experienced Jeh s wonderful help when the Cushite Zerah made an incursion into his land (2 Ch 14 8 If), i.e. probably Ospr- kon I, who, however, did not belong to an Ethiopian dynasty. Possibly he is called an Ethiopian be cause he came into the country with Nubian troops. Less honorable was his conduct in the conflict with Baasha. When he was sorely pressed by the latter he bought, through the payment of a large tribute, the assistance of the Syrian king, Ben-hadad 1, who up to this time had been an ally of Baasha. This bribing of foreigners to fight against their own covenant people, which was afterward often re peated, was rebuked by a bold prophet in the presence of the pious king, but the prophet was compelled to suffer abuse for his open testimony (2 Ch 16 7ff).

      Jehoshaphat. A much more noble conduct charac terized the dealings of Jehoshaphat in relat ion to the Northern Kingdom. His fault was that he entered too fully into the selfish offers of friendship made by Ahab. The worst step was that, in order to confirm his covenant, he took for his son Jehoram as wife, Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel. Jehoshaphat was a chivalrous ally, who also joined Ahab s son, Jehoram, in a dangerous war against the Moabites; as this people under their king Mesha had made themselves free from Israel and had taken the offen sive against them. For the inner affairs of the king dom his reign was more fortunate. lie was a God fearing and an energetic prince, who did much to elevate the people in a material and a religious way and perfected its political organization. Nor did he fail to secure some notewort hy successes. How ever, the fact that, t he warning words of t he prophets who rebuked him because of his alliance with the half-heathenish house 1 of Omri were not the fanati cal exaggerations of pessimistic seers, appears at once after his death.

      Jehoram. His son Jehoram, after the manner of oriental despots, at once caused his brothers to be put to death, of which doubtless his wife Athaliah was the cause. This woman transplanted the policy of Jezebel to Judah, and was scheming for the down fall of the house of David and its sanctuary. Under- Jehoram the power of Judah accordingly began to. sink rapidly. Edom became independent. The Philis and the Arabians sacked Jerus. Even the royal princes, with the exception of Ahaziah, the youngest son of Athaliah, were expelled. When the latter ascended the throne she had the absolute power in her hands.

      Jehu. During this time the judgment over the house of Omri was fast approaching. The avenger came in the person of the impetuous Jehu, who had been anointed king by one of the disciples of Elisha in the camp of Ramoth in Gilead. According to 1 K 19 16, the order had already been given to Elijah to raise this man to the throne; but the com pliance with this command appears to have been delayed. As soon as Jehu became aware that he was entrusted with this mission, he hastened to Jezreel, where Ahaziah, king of Judah, was just paying a visit to Jehoram, and slew them both. With heartless severity he extended this slaughter, not only to all the members of the house of Omri, together with Jezebel, but also to those numerous members of the Davidic royal house who fell into his hands. He likewise destroyed the adherents of Baal, whom he had invited to their death in their sanctuary at Samaria. Deserved as this judgment upon the house of Jeroboam was (2 K 10 30), which Jehu, according to higher command, carried out, he did this in an unholy mind and wit h hardness and ambitious purpose. The puritanical Rechab- ites had sanctioned his action; but as more and more the true character of Jehu began to reveal



      itself, lie lost 1 lie syn i] >at hies of the pious, and Hosea announced to his lioii.-e t he vengeance for his bloody eruiies at Je/reel (I los 1 1).

      Tfii- Axxi/riutix. In Jehu s reign occurred the inroads toward 1 he W. on t lie part of I he Assyrians. This people already in t he time of A hah, under t heir king. Shalmaneser II, had forced their \\\\vay as far as Karkar on the Orontes, and had there fought ;i hat t le in S.~> 1 \\\\vil h t he Syrians and t heir allies, among whom Ahal) is also mentioned, with 2,000 chariots and 10,0(10 soldiers. If this is really Ahah, the king of Israel, which is denied by some, then he, :it that time, fought against As>yria in conjunction wit h t he Svrians, who ot herwise had been so bit terly attacked bv him. The Assyrians boast of this vic tory, but seem to have "won it at a. heavy price, as they did not press on farther westward. When in 842 Shalmaneser came a second time, .Jehu \\\\vas certainly not among the allies of the Syrians. The Assyrians do not seem, on this occasion, to have been opposed by so powerful a league, and were able to attack the Syrians whom they conquered at Sanlru (Hermon, Anti-Lebanon) in a much more determined manner. They laid siege to Damascus and laid waste the surrounding country. The Ifaiiran and Bashan were made a desert. In their inarch of victory they pressed forward as far as the Mediterranean. Phoenicia and other countries brought tribute. Among these nations Shal maneser expressly mentions Jahua ("Jehu, the son of < >mri" [ !] ), who was compelled to deliver up gold and silver bars and other valuable possessions. Hut this expensive homage on the part of Jehu did not help much. Shalmaneser came only once more (S30) into this neighborhood. After this the As.-yrians did not appear again for a period of 35 years. All the more vigorously did the Syrians and other neighboring people make onslaughts on Israel. How fearfully they devasted Israel appears from Am 1.

      Ji luxitinz. Under his son Jehoahaz the weakness of Israel became still greater. In his helplessness, the Lord finally sent him a deliverer (2 K 13 3 if). This deliverer was none other than the Assyr king, Adad-nirari III (Sl2 7S.">), who, through a military incursion, had secured anew his supremacy over Western Asia, and had besieged the king of Damas cus and had forced him to pay an immense tribute. In this way Israel, which had voluntarily rendered submission to him, was relieved of its embarrass ment by the weakening of Syria.

      ,l< Itnnxli, the son of Jehoahaz, experienced more; favorable conditions. He- also conquered Amaziah, the king of Judah; and his son, Jcrohainn //, even Micceeded in restoring the old boundaries of the kingdom, as the prophet Jonah had predicted (2 K 14 21 if). His reign was the last flourishing period of the kingdom of Ephraim. See, further, ISRAEL,

      KlMiDOM OF.

      Atlniliiih. The kingdom of Judah, in t lie mean while, had passed through severe crises. The most severe was caused by that Athaliah, who, after the murder of her son Ahaziah by Jehu, hail secured absolute control in Jerus, and had abused this power in order to root out the family of David. Only one son of the king, Joash, escaped with his life. He, a boy of one year, was hidden in the temple by a relative, where the high priest Jehoiada, who belonged to the party opposed to the heathen- minded queen, concealed him for a period of (> years. When the boy was 7 years old Jehoiada, at, a" well- timed moment, proclaimed him king. His eleva tion to the throne, in connection with which event the terrible Athaliah was put to death, introduced at the same time an energetic reaction against the heathendom that had found its way even into Judah, and which the queen had in every way favored.

      Joash was predestined to be a theocratic king. And, in reality, in the beginning of his reign of -10 years, he went hand in hand with the priests and the prophets of Jeh. After Jehoiada s death, however, lie tolerated idolatrous worship among the princes (2 ( h 24 171 fj, and by doing so came into con flict with the faithful prophet Zechariah, the son of his benefactor Jehoiada, who rebuked him for his wrong, and was even stoned. A just, punishment for t his guilt was recognized in the misfortune which overtook the king and his country. The Syrian king, Ila/ael, when he was engaged in an expedi tion against Gath, also took possession of Jerus and made it pay tribute, after having apparently in flicted a severe defeat, on the people of Judah, on which occasion many princes fell in the battle and Joash himself was severely wounded. Toward the end of his reign there was also much dissatisfac tion among his subjects, and some of his courtiers finally murdered him (2 K 12 20 f).

      Annizidli. However, his son Amaziah, who now ascended the throne, punished the murderers. The king was successful in war against the Edomites. This made him bold. He ventured to meet. Joash, the king of Israel, in battle and was defeated and captured. The people of Judah suffered the deepest humiliation. A large portion of the walls of Jerus was torn down (2 K 14 11 ff). Ama/iah did not feel himself safe even in his own capital city, be cause of the dissatisfaction of his own subjects, and he fled to Lachish. Here he was murdered. So deep had Judah fallen, while Jeroboam II succeeded in raising his kingdom to an unthought-of power.

      t zziah. But. for Judah a turn for the better soon set in under Ilzziah, the same as A/ariah in K, the son of Amaziah, who enjoyed a long and prosperous reign.

      Prosperous as Israel outwardly appeared to be dur ing the reigns of these two kings, Jeroboam II and I zziah, the religious and moral condi- 3. The tions of the people were just as little

      Literary satisfactory. This is the testimony Prophets of the prophets Amos and Hosea, as also of Isaiah and Micah, who not much later began their active ministry in Judah. It is indeed true that these were not the first prophets to put into written form some of their prophetic utterances. The prophecies of Obadiah and Joel are by many put at an earlier date, namely Obadiah under Jehoram in Judah, and Joel under Joash in Judah. At any rate, the discourses of the prophets from this time on constitute an important con temporaneous historical source. They illustrate esp. 1 he spiritual condition of the nation. Through out these writings complaints are made concerning the heathen superstitions and the godless cultus of the people, and esp. the corruption in the admin istration of the laws, oppression of the poor and the helpless by the rich and the powerful, and pride and luxury of all kinds. In all these things the prophets see a terrible apostasy on Israel s part. But also the foreign policy of the different kings, who sought, help, now of the one and then of the other of the world-powers (Egypt, Assyria), and tried to buy the favor of these nations, the prophets regarded as adultery with foreign nations and as infidelity toward Jeh. As a punishment they an nounced, since all other misfortunes sent upon them had been of no avail, an invasion through a con queror, whom Amos and Hosea always indicate shall be Assyria, and also deportations of the people into a heathen land, and an end of the Jewish state. Improbable as these threats may have seemed to the self-satisfied inhabitants of Samaria, they were speedily realized.

      Successors of Jeroboam II. After the death of Jeroboam, the strength of the Northern Kingdom


      collapsed. His son Zechariah was able to maintain the tlirone for only 6 months, and his murderer Shallum only one month. The general Menahem, who put him out of the way, maintained himself as king for 10 years, but. only by paying a heavy tribute to the Assyr ruler Pul, i.e. Tiglath-pileser III, who ruled from 745-727 (cf 2 K 15 19 f).

      Pekah. His son Pekahiah, on the other hand, soon fell by the hands of the murderer Pekah (2 K 15 25), who allied himself with Syria against Judah. The latter, however, invited the Assyrians to come into the country; and these, entering in the year 734 BC, put an end to the reign of this usurper, although he was actually put to death as late as 730 BC.

      Hoshca. The last king of the Northern Kingdom, Hoshea (730-722 BC), had the Assyrians to thank for his throne; but he did not keep his fidelity as a vassal very long. As soon as Tiglath-pileser was dead, he tried to throw off the Assyr yoke. But his successor Shalmaneser IV (727-723 BC), who already in the first year of his reign had again subdued the rebellious king Elulaios of Syria, soon compelled Hoshea also to submit to his authority. Two years later Iloshea again joined a conspiracy with the Phoenicians against Assyria, in which they even counted on the help of theEgyp king, who in the Bible, is called So or Seve (Egyp name is Shabaka). Now the Assyrians lost all patience. They at once came with their armies. Hoshea seems to have voluntarily submitted to the power of the Great King, who "then made him a captive. The people, however, continued the struggle. Samaria, the capital city, was besieged, but did not fall until the 3d year (722 BC) into the hands of the enemy. Shalmaneser, in the mean while, had died and Sargon II had become his suc cessor. The city was indeed not destroyed, but a large portion of the inhabitants, esp. the leaders, were deported and transplanted to Northern Meso potamia and to Media. Sargon states that the number of deported Israelites was 27,2 ( .H). Promi nent persons from other cities were also doubtless to be included in those deported. On the other hand, the Assyr king settled Bab and Syrian prison er^ of war in Samaria (721 BC), and in the year 715 BC, Arabs also. But the country, to a great extent, continued in a state of desolation, so that Esar- haddon (680-668 BC) and Ashurbanipal (667-(>2(> BC) sent- new colonists there, the last mentioned sending them from Babylonia, Persia and Media (cf 2 K 17 24 if). In these verses the Bab city of Cut hah is several times mentioned, on account of which city the Jews afterward called the Samari tans Cuthites. This report also makes mention of the religious syncretism, which of necessity re sulted from the mixture of the people 1 . But we must be careful not to place at too small figures the number of Israelites who remained in the country. It is a great exaggeration when it is claimed, as it is by Friedrich Delitzsch, that the great bulk of the inhabitants of the country of Samaria, or even of Galilee, was from this time on Babylonian.

      Uzziah and Jotham. The kingdom of Judah, however, outlived the danger from Assyria. As King Uzziah later in his life suffered from leprosy, he had Jotham as a co-regent during this period. The earliest discourses of Isaiah, which belong to this period (Isa 24, 5), show that in Jerus the people were at that time still enjoying the fruits and prosperity of a long period of peace. But immediately after the death of Jotham, when the youthful Ahaz began to rule, the onslaught of the allied Syrians and Ephraimites took place under Rezin, or better Rezon, and Pekah. This alliance

      Surposcd to put an end to the Davidic reign in erus, probably for the purpose of making this

      people, too, a member of the league against the dan gerous Assyrians. The good-sized army of Judah seems to have fallen a victim to the superior power of the allies before the situation described in Isa 7 could be realized, in which the siege of the city is described as already imminent. The Edomites also at that time advanced against Judah. Elath, the harbor city on the Red Sea, from which Uzziah, too, as had been done by Solomon long before, sent out trading vessels, at that time came into their power. For 2 K 16 6 probably speaks of Edom and not of Aram (cf 2 Ch 28 17). In his anxiety, Ahaz, notwithstanding the advice of Isaiah to the contrary, then appealed to the king of Assyria, and the latter actually put in his appearance in 734 BC and overcame the power of Syria and Ephraim, as we have seen above. However, the intervention of this world-power brought no benefit- to Judah. Without this disgraceful appeal to a heathen ruler, Jeh, according to the promise of Isaiah, would have protected Jerus, if Ahaz had only believed. And the Assyrians did not prevent the Philis and the Edomites from falling upon Judah. The Assyrians themselves soon came to be the greatest danger threatening Judah. Ahaz, however, was an unstable character in religious affairs, and he copied heathen forms of worship, and even sacrificed his son to the angry sun-god, in order to gain his favor. The tribute that the people had to pay to Assyria was already a heavy burden on this little kingdom. Hezekiah. His noble and God-fearing son, Hezckiah (724-(> ( .)6 BC), was also compelled to suffer from the consequences of this misgovernment . The temptation was great to enter into an alliance! with his neighbors and the Egyptians, so strong in cavalry, for the purpose of ridding Judah of the burdensome yoke of the Assyrians. In vain did Isaiah warn against such unworthy self-help. At the advice of the ministers of Hezekiah, anel because of the trust put in Egypt, the tribute was finally refused to the Assyrians. Hezekiah also sought to establish closer connections with Merodach- balaelan, the king of Babylon and the enemy of the Assyrians, when the latter, after a dangerous sick ness of the king, had sent messengers io Jerus in order to congratulate him on the restoration of his health. This story, found in 2 K 20, belongs chronologically before 2 K 18 13 ff, and, more accu rately, in the 14th year of Hezekiah mentioned in 18 13. However, the expedition of Sennacherib which is mistakenly placed in that year, look place several years later: according to the Assyr monu ments, in the 1 year 701 BC.

      Sennacherib. In the year 702 BC Sennacherib, with a powerful army, marched over the Lebanon anel subdued the rebellious Phoenicians, and marched along the seacoast to Philistia. The in habitants of Ekron had sent their king, Paeli, who sympathized with the Assyrians, to Hezekiah. Sennacherib came 1 to punish Ekron and Ascalon. But he was particularly anxious to overpower Judah, which country his troops devastated and depopulated. Now Hezekiah recognized his dan ger, and offered to submit to Sennacherib. The latter accepted his submission conditionally on the payment of a burdensome tribute, which Hezekiah delivered faithfully (2 K 18 14-16). Then Sen nacherib was no le)nge r satisfied with the tribute alone, but sent troops who were to despoil Jerus. Isaiah, who surely had not sanctioned the falling away from the Assyr supremacy and had prophe sied that the inhabitants of Jerus would suffer a severe punishment, from that moment, when the conqueror had maliciously broken his word, spoke worels of comfort anel advised against giving up the city, no matter how desperate the situation seemed to be (Isa 37 1 ff). The city was then not given


      up, and Sennacherib, on Recount of ;i number of things that occurred, and finally because of a pesti lence which broke out in his army, was compelled to retreat. He did not return to Jerus, and later met his deat li by violent hands. This deliverance of Jerus through the miraculous providence of Clod was the greatest triumph of the prophet Isaiah. Within his kingdom Hezekiah ruled successfully. He also purified the cultus from the heathen influ ences that had forced their way into it., and was a predecessor of Josiah in the abolition of the sacri fices on the high places, which had been corrupted by these influences.

      Manossc/i. Unfortunately, his son Manasseh was little worthy of succeeding him. He, in every way, favored the idolatry which all along had been growing secretly. He inaugurated bloody perse cutions of the faithful prophets of Jeh. According to a tradition, which it must be confessed is not supported by undoubted testimony, Isaiah also, now an old man, became, a victim of these perse cutions. Images and altars were openly erected to Baal and Astarte. Even in the temple-house on Mt. Zion, an image of Astarte was standing. As a result of this ethnic cultus, immorality and sen suality found their way among the people. At the same time the terrible service of Moloch, in the valley of Hinnom, demanded the sacrifice of chil dren, and even a son of the king was given over to this worship. The Book of Ch, indeed, tells the story of a terrible affliction that Manasseh suffered, namely that an Assyr general dragged him in chains to Babylon for having violated his promises to them, but that he was soon released. This is not at all incredible. He seems to have taken part in a rebellion, which the brother of the Assyr king, who was also vice-king in Babylon, had inaugu rated. This sad experience may have forced Ma nasseh to a certain kind of repentance, at least, so that he desisted from his worst sacrileges. But his son Amon continued the old ways of his father, until after a brief reign he was put to death.

      Josiah. Much more promising was his young son Josiah, who now, only 8 years old, came to the throne. It is quite possible that, in view of such frequent changes in the disposition of the successors to the throne, his mother may have had great in fluence on his character. Concerning Josiah, see 2 K 22 1 ff . With increasing clearness and con sistency, he proceeded to the work of religious reformation. A special impetus to this was given by the finding of an old law book in the temple, the publication of which for the first time revealed the fearful apostasy of the times. The finding of this book in the temple, as narrated in 2 K 22 3 ff , took

      Elace in connection with the restoration of that uilding on a larger scale, which at that time had been undertaken. And very probably Edouard Naville is right in believing, on the basis of Egyp analogies, that this document had been imbedded in the foundation walls of the building. Whether this had been clone already in the days of Solomon is not determined by this fact. From the orders of Josiah we can conclude that the book which was found was Dt, which lays special stress on the fact that there shall be a central place for the cultus, and also contains such threats as those must have been which frightened Josiah. But under no circum stances was Dt a lawbook that had first been written at this time, or a fabrication of the priest Hilkiah and his helpers. It would rather have been possible that the discovered old law was rewritten in changed form after its discovery and had been adapted to the language of the times. The people were obliged to obey the newly discovered law and were in structed in it.

      Jeremiah. The prophet Jeremiah also, who a

      few years before this had been called to the pro phetic office, according to certain data in the text, participated in this proclamation of the law of the covenant throughout the land. This change for the better did not change the tendency of his pro phetic discourses, from what, these had been from the beginning. He continued , to be the accuser and the prophet of judgment, whfo declared that the destruction of the city and of the temple was near at hand. He looked too deeply into the inner cor ruption of his people to be misled by the external transformation that was the result of a command of the ruler. And only too soon did the course of events justify his prediction. With the person of the God-fearing Josiah, the devotion of the people to the law was also buried and the old curse every where broke out again.

      The Chaldaeans. In a formal way Jeremiah was probably influenced by the incursions of the Scyth ians, which occurred during his youth, and who about this time marched from the plain of Jezreel toward Egypt (cf Herodotus i.103 ff); which event also made a gloomy impression on his contemporary Ezekiel, as appears from his vision of Gog in the land of Magog. However, we are not to suppose that Jeremiah, when describing the enemy coming from the north, whom he saw from the time of his call to the prophetic office, meant merely this band of freebooters. The prophet had in mind a world- power after the type of the Assyrians, who always came from the north into Canaan. The Assyrians indeed were in process of disintegration, and Nine veh fell under the attacks of the Medes and the Persians in the year 607-606 BC. The heir of the Assyr power was not Egypt, which was also striving for universal supremacy, but was the Babylonian, or rather, more accurately, the Chaldaean dynasty of Nabopolassar, whose son Nebuchadnezzar had overpowered the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 BC. From this time on Jeremiah had pointed out the Chaldaeans and Nebuchadnezzar, who soon afterward became their king, as the agents to carry out the judgment on Jerus.

      Already a few years before this Juclah s good star had gone down on the horizon. When Pharaoh- necho II came to Pal by the sea route, in order to march northeast through the plain of Jezreel, to give the final and fatal blow to the sinking kingdom of the Assyrians, King Josiah opposed him on the plain of Megiddo, probably because of his obliga tions as a vassal to the king of Assyria. In the battle of Megiddo (609 BC), Josiah was mortally wounded. No greater calamity could have be fallen Judah than the death of this king, who was deeply mourned by all well-meaning people, and who was the last of the house of David that was a credit to it.

      The successors of Josiah. Ry popular election the choice now fell on Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, called by Jeremiah (22 11) Shallum. But he found no favor with N echo, who took him pris oner in his camp at Riblah and carried him to Egypt (2 K 23 30 ff). The Egyp king himself selected Jehoiakim, hitherto called Eliakim, an older son of Josiah, who had been ignored by the people, to be king in Jerus, a prince untrue to Jeh, conceited, luxury-loving and hard-hearted, who, in addition, through his perfidious policy, brought calamity upon the land. He formed a conspiracy against Nebuchadnezzar, to whom he had begun to pay tribute in the 5th year of his reign, and in this way brought it about that the Syrians, the Moabites and the Ammonites, who had taken sides with the Assyrians, devastated the land of Judah, and that finally the king of Babylon himself came to Jerus to take revenge. It is not clear what was the end of this king. According to 2 Ch



      36 6, compared with 2 K 24 6, he seems to have died while yet in Jerus, and after he had already fallen into the hands of his enemies. His son Jehoiachin did not experience a much better fate. After ruling three months he was taken to Babylon, where he was a prisoner for 37 years, until he was pardoned (2K 24 8 ff; 2527ff). Together with Jehoiachin, the best portion of the inhabitants of Jerus, about 10,000 men, esp. the smiths and the builders, were deported.

      Zcdi kidh, the last king of Juddh. Once more the Babylonians set up a king in Jerus in the person of Zedekiah, an uncle of Jehoiachin, and accordingly a son of Josiah, called Mattaniah, who afterward was called Zedekiah. He governed for twelve years (597-586 BC), and by his life, morally and religiously corrupt, sealed the fate of the house and of the kingdom of David. The better class among the leading and prominent people had been ban ished. As a result, the courtiers of the king urged him to try once again some treacherous schemes against the Bab rulers and to join Egypt in a con spiracy against them. However earnestly Jeremiah and Ezekicl warned against this policy, Zedekiah nevertheless constantly yielded to his evil advisers and to the warlike patriotic party, who were de termined to win back in battle the" independence of the country. While he at first, through an embassy, had assured the Great King of his loyalty (Jer 29 3), and still in the 4th year of his reign had person ally visited in Babylon as a mark of his fidelity (Jer 61 59), he was induced in the 9th year of his reign to make an alliance with the Egyptians against the Babylonians and to refuse to render obedience to the latter. Nebuchadnezzar soon came and sur rounded the city. At the announcement that an Egyp army was approaching, the siege was again raised for a short time. But the hope placed by Zedokiah on his ally failed him. The Babylonians began again to starve out the city. After a siege; of 18 months, resistance proved futile. The king tried secretly to break through the circle of be siegers, but in doing so was taken prisoner, was blinded by the Bab king and taken to Babylon. The majority of the prominent men and state officials, who were taken to the encampment of the con queror in Riblah, were put to death. The con quered city of Jerus, esp. its walls and towers, together with the temple, were totally destroyed. N -arly all the inhabitants who could be captured after the slaughter were dragged into captivity, and only people of the lower classes wen; left be hind in oider to cultivate the land (2 K 25 11). Gedaliah, a noble-minded aristocrat, was appointed governor of the city, and took up his residence in Mizpah. At this place it seemed that a new kernel of the people was being gathered. Jeremiah also went there. However, after two months this good beginning came to an end. Gedaliah was slain by Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah, an anti-Chaldaean, a fanatical and revengeful descendant of the house of David. The murderer acted in cooperation with certain Ammonitish associates and fled to the king of Ammon. The Jews in later times considered the murder of Gedaliah as an especially great national calamity, and fasted on the anniversary of this crime. And as the people also feared the revenge of the Babylonians, many migrated to Egypt, com pelling Jeremiah, now an old man, to accompany them, although he prophesied to them that no good would come of this scheme. They first stayed at the border city Tahpanhes, near Pelusium, and then scattered over Upper and Lower Egypt.

      VI. Time of the Babylonian Exile. The in habitants of Judah, who had been deported by Nebuchadnezzar at different times, were settled by him in Babylonia, e.g. at the river Chebar (Ezk

      1 1), near the city of Nippur. From Hilprccht s excavations of this city, it has been learned that

      this river, or branch of the Euphrates 1. Influence river, is to be found at this place, and of the is not to be confounded with the river

      Exile Chaboras. In the same way, the many

      contract-tablets with Jewish names which have been found at Nippur, show that a large Jewish colony lived at that place. Of the fate of these banished Jews for a period of 50 years, we hear almost nothing. But it is possible to learn what their condition was in exile from the Book of Ezk and the 2d part of Isa. Land was assigned to them here, and they were permitted to build houses for themselves (Jer 29 5 ff), and could travel around this district without restraint. They were not prisoners in the narrow sense of the word. They soon, through diligence and skill in trade, attained to considerable wealth, so that most of them, after the lapse of half a century, were perfectly satisfied and felt no desire to return home. Fo r the spiritual development of the people the exile proved to be a period of great importance. In the first place, they were separated from their native soil, and in this way from many temptations of heathenism and idolatry, and the like. The terrible judgment that had come over Jerus had proved that the prophets had been right, who had for a long time, but in vain, preached genuine repentance. This did not prove to be without fruit (cf Zee 1 6). While living in the heathen land, they naturally became acquainted with heathendom in a more crass form. But even if many of the Jews were defiled by it, in general the relations of the Israel ites toward the idol-worshipping Babylonians were antagonistic, and they became all the more zeal ous in the observance of those religious rites which could be practised in a foreign land, such as rest on the Sabbath day, the use of meats, circumcision, and others. But with marked zeal the people turned to the spiritual storehouse of their traditions, namely their sacred literature. They collected the laws, the history, the hymns, and treasured them. It was also a noteworthy progress that such prophets as Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel received prophetic visions while on heathen soil. The people also learned that the heathen, in the midst of whom they lived, became receptive of the higher truths of Israel s religion. Esp. does the 2d part of Isa, chs 40-66, show that they began to understand the missionary calling of Israel among the nations of the world.

      The Book of Dnl reports how a God-fearing and

      law-abiding Jew, through his prophecies, attained

      to prominent positions of influence at

      2. Daniel the courts of different rulers. From

      the Book of Ezk we learn that the; prophets and the elders cared for the spiritual wants of the people, and that they held meetings, at which indeed it was not permitted to offer sacrifices, but at which the word of Jeh was proclaimed. Here we find the beginnings of what afterward was the synagogue-system.

      A remarkable picture of the Jewish diaspora in

      Upper Egypt is furnished by recently discovered

      papyri at Elephantine. From these it

      3. Ele- appears that in the 6th cent. BC, not phantine only a large and flourishing Jewish Papyri colony was to be found at this place,

      but also that they had erected here a fine temple to Jeh where they brought their sacrifices to which they had been accustomed at home. In an Aram, letter, still preserved and dating from the year 411 BC, and which is addressed to the governor Bagohi, in Judaea, these Jews complain that their temple in Yeb (Elephantine, near Syene) had been destroyed in the same year. It also states that



      this temple had hern spared on one occasion by Cambyses, who was in Egypt from 525 to .721 BC. The answer of Bagohi also has hren preserved, and he directs that the temple is to he huilt again and that meal offerings and incense are again to he in troduced. Probably intentionally, mention in this let ler is made only of t he unhloody sacrilices. while in the lirst letter hnrnt sacrifices also are named. The sacrif ices of animals hy t he Jews would probably have aroused too much the answer of the devotees ot the divine ram, which was worshipped at Syene. I p to the present time we knew only of the much later temple of t lie high priest ( >nias 1 V at Leontopohs ( It 10 liC). CfJos, Ant, NIL iii, 1-3; H.I, VII, x, 2, 3.

      VII. Return from the Exile and the Restoration. In the meanwhile i here was a new readjustment of political supremacy among the world- 1. Career powers. The Pers king, Koresh of Cyrus (Cyrus), first made himself free from the supremacy of Media which, after th(> capture of the city Kchatana, hecame a part of his own kingdom i5H) BC). At that time \\\\a- honidus was the king in Bahylon (555-5oS BCj, who was not displeased at the collapse of the kingdom of the Medes, hut soon learned that the new ruler turned out to he a greater danger to himself, as Cyrus subjugated, one after the other, the smaller kingdoms in the north. But Nahonidus was too unwarlike to meet Cyrus. He confined himself to sending his son with an army to the northern houndaries of his kingdom. On the other hand, the king of the Lydians, Croesus, who was related hy marriage to King Astyages, who had been sub dued by Cyrus, began a war with Cyrus, after lie had formed an alliance with Egypt and Sparta. In the year 5-16 BC, he crossed the river Halys. Cyrus approached from the Tigris, and in doing so already entered Bab territory, conquered Croesus, took his capital city Sardis, and put an end to the king dom of Lydia. The pious Israelites in captivity, under the tutelage of Deutero-lsaiah, watched these events with the greatest of interest. For the prophet taught, them from the beginning to see in this king "the deliverer, who was the instrument of ,Jeh for the return of the Israelites out of captivity, and of whom the prophets had predicted. And this expectation was fulfilled with remarkable rapidity. The victorious and aggressive king of Persia could now no longer be permanently checked, even by the Babylonians. It was in vain that King Nahonidus had caused the images of the gods from many of his cities to he taken to Babylon, in order to make the capital city invincible. This city opened its doors to the Pers commander Ugbaru (( lohryas) in 5:]X BC , and a few months later Cyrus himself entered the city. This king, however, was mild and conciliatory in his treatment of the people and the city. He did not destroy the city, but commanded only that a portion of the walls should be razed. However, the city gradually, in the course of t ime, became ruins.

      Cyrus also won the good will and favor of the subjugated nat ions hy respecting their religions. He returned to their shrines the idols of Nabonidus, that had been taken away. But he was particularly con siderate of the Jews, who doubtless had complained to him of their fate and had made known to him their prophecies regarding him as the coming deliverer.

      In the very first year of his reign over Babylon

      he issued an edict (2 Ch 36 22 f; K/r 1 1 ff) that

      permitted the Jews to return home,

      2. First with the command that they should

      Return again erect their temple. For this

      under purpose he directed that the temple-

      Zerubbabel vessels, which Nebuchadnezxar had

      taken away with him, should be

      returned to them, and commanded that those

      Israelites who voluntarily remained in Babylon should contribute money for the restoration of the temple. At the head of those to be returned stood Sheshbazzar, who is probably identical with Zerub- habel. although this is denied by some scholars; and also the high priest, Joshua, a grandson of the high priest, Seraiah, who had been put to death by Nebuchadnezzar. They wen accompanied by only a small part of those in exile, that is by 42,360 men and women and children, male and female servants, esp. from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, but of the last-mentioned tribes more priests than other Levites. After several months they safely arrived in Pal, probably 537 BC. Some of them settled down in Jerus, and others in sur rounding cities and villages. They erected the altar for burnt sacrifices, so that they were again able in t he 7t h mont h to sacrifice on it.

      liin Ii/nif/ the toni>l< . The cornerstone of the temple was also solemnly laid at that time in the 2d year of the Return (Ezr 3 8ff). But the erect ion of the temple must have been interrupted in a short time, since it was not until the 2d year of Darius (520 BC), at the urgent appeal of the prophets Hag- gai and Zechariah, that the work of building was energetically prosecuted. For this reason many scholars deny this cornerstone-laying in the year f)36 BC. However, it still remains thinkable that several attempts were made at this work, since the young colony had many difficulties to contend with. Then, too, the memoirs of Ezra and Xehemiah, which have been worked over by the author of Ch, report the history of these times only in parts. The his torical value of these literary sources has been con firmed by those Aram, papyri found in I pper Egypt. In the year 516 BC, after 4 years of building, the temple was completed and dedicated. After this we have no information for a 3. Ezra period of 5S years. Then we learn

      and that Ezra, the scribe, in the 7th year

      Nehemiah of Artaxerxes I (458 BC), came with a new caravan of about 1,500 men with women and children from Babylon to the Holy Land. He had secured from the king the command to establish again in the land of the Jews the law, in which he was a prominent ex pert, and he tried to do this by earnest admoni tions and instructive discourses addressed to the people. The acme of the activity of Ezra was the meeting of the people described in Xeh 8-10 on the Feast of the Tabernacles, on which occasion the entire nation solemnly came under obligation to observe the law. According to the present position of these chapters this act took place in 444 BC; but it is probable that it happened before the arrival of Nehemiah, whose name would accordingly have to be eliminated in 8 9. This pericope would then belong to the memoirs of Ezra and not to those of Xehemiah. After some years there came to help Ezra, in his work, Xehemiah, a pious Jew, who was a cupbearer to the king, and at his own request was granted leave of absence in order to help the city of Jerus, which he had heard was in dire straits. Its walls were in ruins, as the neighboring nations had been able to hinder their rebuilding, and even those walls of the city that had been hastily re stored, had again been pulled down. Nehemiah came in the year 445-444 BC from Shushan to Jerus and at once went energetically to work at rebuilding the walls. Notwithstanding all oppositions and in trigues of malicious neighbors, the work was suc cessfully brought to a close.

      The hostile agitations, in so far as they were not caused by widespread envy and hatred of the Jews among the neighboring peoples, had a religious ground. Those who returned, as the people of .Jeh, held themselves aloof from the peoples living



      round about them, e-sp. from the mixed peoples of Samaria. Samaria was the breeding-place for this hostility against, Jcrus. The governor at that place, Sanballat, was the head of this hostile league. The Jews had declined to permit the Samaritans to cooperate in the erection of the temple and would have no religious communion with them. The Samaritans had taken serious offence at this, and they accordingly did all they could to prevent the building of the walls in Jerus, which would be a hindrance to their having access to the temple. But Nehemiah s trust in God and his energy over came this obstacle. The policy of exclusiveness, which Ezra and Neherniah on this occasion and at other times followed out, evinces a more narrow mind than the preexilic prophets had shown. In the refusal of intermarriage with the people living around them they went beyond the Mosaic law, for they even demanded that those marriages, which the Israelites had already contracted with foreign women, should be dissolved. But this exclusiveness was the outcome of legal conscientiousness, and at this period it was probably necessary for the self- preservation of the people of Jeh.

      Mnlnclii. From the prophecies of Malachi, who was almost a contemporary of the two mentioned, it can be seen that the marriages with the foreign women had also brought with them a loosening of even the most sacred family ties (Mai 2 14 f). After an absence of 12 years, Nehemiah again returned to Shushan to the court ; and when he later returned to Jerus he was compelled once more to inaugurate a stringent policy against the lawlessness which was violating the sanctity of the temple and of tin; Sabbath commandment. lie also expelled a certain Manasseh, a grandson of the high priest, who had married a daughter of Sanballat. This Manasseh, according to Jos (Ant, XI, viii, 2), erected the sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim, and established the priesthood at that place. This is no doubt correct. These accounts of Jos are often combined without cause with the times of Alexander the Great, al though they transpired about 110 years earlier.

      The history of the Jews in the last decades of the Pers rule is little known. Under Artaxerxes III (Ochus), they were compelled to suffer much, when they took part in a rebellion of the Phoenicians and Cyprians. Many Jews were at, that time banished to Hyrcania on the southern coast, of the Caspian Sea. The Pers general, Bagoses, came to Jerus and forced his way even into the temple (Jos, Anl, XI, vii, 1). He undertook to install as high priest, in the place of John (Jochanan), his brother Joshua (Jesus). The hitter, however, was .slain by the former in the temple. For the first time the office of the high priest appears as more of a political position, something that it never was in the pre exilic times, and according to the law was not to be.

      VIII. The Jews under Alexander and His Suc cessors. As the Jews were then tired of the rule of the priests, they were not dissatished 1. Spread with the victorious career of Alex- of Hellen- ander the Great. He appears to ism have assumed a friendly attitude

      toward them, even if the story reported by Jos (Ant, XI, viii, 4) is scarcely historical. The successors of Alexander were also, as a rule, tolerant in religious matters. But for political and geographical reasons, Pal suffered severely in these; times, as it lay between Syria and Egypt, and was an object of attack on the part of both the leading ruling families in this period, the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucidae in Syria. At the same time Hellenism, which had been so powerfully ad vanced by Alexander as a factor of civilization and culture, penetrated the land of Israel also. Gr culture and language spread soon in Pal and in many

      places was supreme. The more strict adherents of Judaism recognized in this a danger to the Mosaic order of life and religion, and all the more; zealously they now adhered to the traditional ordinances. These wen; called (he hniCuUum, or the Pious ( Ao-t5cuoi, Ihisidtuoi, 1 Mace 2 42; 7 13; 2 Mace 14 6). The world-transforming Hellenistic type of thought spread esp. among the aristocrats and the politically prominent, and even found adherents among the priests, while; the has ulhlni belonged to the le-ss conspicuous ranks of the people.

      A struggle for life and death was caused betwevn these two tendencies by the Syrian king, Antiochus IV"

      (Epiphanes), into whe>se; hands the sover- 2. The eignty of Pal had fallen. He undertook

      nothing less than to root out the hated

      Jewish religion. In the year 10S BO lie neans commanded that the; temple of Jeh in

      Jerus should be dedicated to the Olym pian Jupiter and forbade most stringently the observ ance of the Sabbath and circumcision. A large portion of the people did not resist his oppression, but adapted themselves to this tyrannical heathendom. Others suffered anel died as martyrs. Finally in the year 107 BO a priest, Mattathias, gave tin; signal for a deter mined resistance, at the he-ad of which stood his brave sons, the Hasrnoneans, or Maccabees. First his son Judas undertook the leadership of the faithful. He; sue;e-,ee-eleel in freeing Jerus from the Syrians. He restored the temple on Mt. Zion. The- temple was eleelie-ateel aneiw and was given over to the olel cultus. After a number of victorious campaigns, Judas Maecabaeus died the death of a hero in 101 BO. His brother, Jonathan, who took his place at the; head of the movement, tried te> secure- the; independence of the-, lanel rather through de-liberate planning than through military powe-r. He assumed, in addition to his se-e-ular power, also the? high- priestly dignity. After his death by vie>lene-e in 143 BO, he> was surcevded by Ins brothe;r Simon as the bearer of this double; heme>r. The; Hasmoneans, he>we-ve-r, rapidly became; worldly minded anel lost the sympathies e>f the hiiHtillilm. The sem of Simon, John Hyrcanus (135-100 IJ( ), broke entire-ly with the; Piems, and his family, afte-r his death, came to an e-nel in disgraceful struggles for power. Tin- rule e>f the land fell into the hands e>f Herod, a tyrant of Idumaean ejrigin, who was supporte-el by the Romans. Fre>m 37 BO he; was the; recognized king ejf Juelah. See ASMONEANS; MACCABEES.

      IX. The Romans. After the 1 death of Herod

      (4 BC), the kingdemi, ace-ording to his last will, was

      to be> divideel among his three sons.

      1. Division Archelaus received Judaea; Antipas, of Territory Galilee anel Pcraea; Philip, the; border

      lands in the north. However, Arche laus was soon deposed by the Romans ((> AD), and Juelaea was made; a part of the; province; of Syria, but was put unde>r a special Roman procurateH 1 , who reside-d in Caosami. The-se; procurators (of whenn the best known was Pontius Pilate, 2(5-3(5 AD), had no other objert than to plundeT the land and the; people.

      In this way a e emflict was gradually generated between the- people; and their e>ppressors, which

      ende-d with the dest ructiem e>f Je-rus by

      2. Destruc- the Remians in 70 AD. As early as tion of 40 AD this rupture; almost te)ok place, Jerusalem whe-n the Syrian legate Petronius, at by the the e-ommanel of Caligula, underte>ok Romans to place a statue; of the; emperor in

      the 1 te-mple of Jerus. On this occasion King Agrippa I, who was again ruling the; whole territory e>f He-roel, succeeeled in adjusting the; conflict. His sem Agrippa II was givem a much smaller kingdom (40-100 AD). He, too, sought to prevent the people from undertaking a struggle with the; Romans, but in vain. By his unscrupulous treatment of the; people, the procurator Gessius Florus elrove the Jews into an insurrection. The party of the Zealots gained the upper hand. Florus was compelled to le-ave Je-rtis ((5(3 AD). Even the; good-sizenl army which Cestius Gallus commanded could not ge t control of the city, but was completely overpowe>re;d by the; Je;ws on its retreat at Beth- horon. Now the; entire country rose in rebellion. The Romans, under the le;aeh rship of Vespasian,



      advanced with considerable power and first con- (liiered (ialilec, then under Jos >7 AD). In Jems, in the meanwhile, different parties of the Jews were still fighting each other. Titus, the son of Ves pasian, took the chief command after Vespasian had already conquered the K. Jordan country and the western coast, hut had hastened to Koine in order to become emperor. Titus completely sur rounded the city a few days before the Passover festival in the year 70. On the northern side the Romans first broke through the first and newest city wall, and after that the second. The third offered a longer resistance, and at the same time famine wrought havoc in Jerus. At last the battle raged about the temple, during which this structure went up in flames. According to the full descrip tion by Jos (H.I , VI, iv, . > ff), Titus fried to prevent the destruction of the temple; according to Sul- picius Severus (( /iron. II, 20), however, this de struction was just what he want (Ml. A few forti fied places yet maintained themselves after the fall of Jerus, e.g. Machaerus in the 10. Jordan country, but they could not hold out very long.

      Later insurrection of Hnr-Cnchba. Once again the natural ambition for independence burst out in the insurrection of Bar-Cochba (132-35 AD). Pious teachers of the law, esp. Rabbi Akiba, had enkindled this fire, in order to rid the country of the rule of the (lentiles. However, notwithstanding some temporary successes, this insurrection was hopeless. Both the city and the country were desolated by the enraged Romans still more fear fully, and were depopulated still more than in 70. From that time Jerus was lost to the Jews. They lived on without a country of their own, without any political organization, without a sanctuary, in the Diaspora among the nations.

      The spiritual and religious life of the Jews during the period preceding the dissolution of the state was determined particularly by the 3. Spiritual legalistic character of their ideals and Life of the their opposition to Hellenism. Their Period religion had become formalist ic to a

      great extent since their return from the exile. The greatest emphasis was laid on obe dience to the traditional ordinances, and these latter were chiefly expositions of ceremonial usurpers.

      _ Appearance of Jesus Christ. The crown of the history of Israel-Judah was the appearance of Jesus Christ. Looked at superficially, it may indeed appear as though His person and His life had but little affected the development of the national his tory of Israel. However, more closely viewed, we shall see that this entire history has its goal in Him and finds its realization in Him. After full fruit had developed out of this stock, the latter withered and died. He was to be the bearer of salvation for all mankind.

      LITERATI- in:. The earliest historian of Israel was the Jew. Flavins Josephus, in the 1st Christian cent. His example found few followers in the early church, and we mention only the Chronicle of Sulpiclus Severus The subject is handled theologically by Augustine iii his I), Civitate Dii. It- was only in the 17th cent, that a keen interest was awakened in this subject. Of esp James I sher, Annales Veteriset Xoti Trstn m<-, t ti, London 1605; .J. 15. Bousset, Dim-mirs sur I histoirc universelle Paris. Hisi; Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and the V, Testament Connected in the History of the Jru-? ami Neigkhorin,, Xnti ~ " ^



      calh hi

      T . i *** * i ii*\\\\j ui i, / v/c^. i m*

      Lutheran church furnished the excellent work of Franz Budde Hixtoria Series. Veteris Testament i, Jena, 1715. In the 18th cent., Bengel s school furnished some good histories of Israel, such as M. F. Roos s Einleituno indie bibl. Geschichte, 1700. More popular is the work of J.

      J. Hess. The best Catholic work from this time is J. .(aim s Arrhneoloi/ie, 1S02; while the Rationalistic period furnished Loren/, (Jailer s (ii-xchirlttr d<r lu-hr. \\\\ation, IMK). In the l!Mli cent, the rationalistic and the con servative tendencies run parallel, and a new impulse was given to the study of this history by the phenomenal archaeological finds in Kgypl and in Assyria and Babylon. ! Critical reconstruction of Israel s history characterizes the works of Reuss, (iraf, Kuenen, \\\\Vellhausen. Other works of prominence are the <;,settiehte </<., Voltes dnttm, by Kwald; Kurt/, <!< sch iehte ties nlte/i liumlis (these art: ti- i); Hitzig. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, with critical tendency. The work of August Koehler, I.thrlmek der l.ihlisehen Geschichte, AT, is positive, while Wellhausen s Cesehiehti Isrut-ls is a classic of the advanced school, other works mostly critical art; the histories of Kenan, Kuenen, Stade, \\\\Vinckler, Piepenbring, Cornill, Cuthe, ( he.Mie, and others. Kittel s (irs<-liiehtn der Heliraer (tpij is more moderate 1 in tone. For the XT the richest storehouse is Schiirer s (iesi-hiehte </< * jiiilischcn Volkes i in /.eittilter Jesn Christi (tfl); Ilausrath s Xeulesta- mi-iitliche Xe/ti/esi-hiehti: is also good. From the Jewish standpoint this history has been treated by S. Fried- lander, (!i si-h/rhte r/i x Israel- Voile 1 *; and .1. M. .lost, Geschichte der Israelitm; Moritz Kaphall, J i>t-l/il,li,-(il Upturn of the Jews from the Close of the OT till the Dc- struelion of the, Second Temple, in the Yenr 70.

      Among English works may be especially mentioned Milman s History of the Jars and Stanley s, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, with smaller works by Ottley and others.

      American works on the subject from the critical point of view are a History of the II ib ! i,,oli, by Kent, and a History of the Jewish J eople by Kent and Kiggs in the " Historical Series for Bible Students." published by Messrs. Scribner. Of also MeOurdy, History, J rophecy and the Monuments; Toy, Judnism and Christianity; H. P. Smith, OT History.

      C. VON OllELLI



      1. The Two Kingdoms

      2. The 1st Dynasty

      3. The lid Dynasty

      4. Civil War

      II. PERIOD OF THK SYRIAN WARS 1. The I lid Dynasty 2. World-Politics

      3. Battle of Karkar

      4. Loss of Territory .5. Reform of Religion (J. ({evolution

      7. The IVth Dynasty

      8. Renewed Prosperity

      9. Anarchy


      1. Loss of Independence

      2. Decline

      3. Extinction

      4. Summary LITERATURE

      /. The First Period. The circumstances leading

      up to the foundation of the Northern Kingdom of

      Israel, or the Kingdom of the Ten

      1. The Two Tribes, have been detailed under the Kingdoms heading KIVCDO.M OF JUDAH. From

      a secular point of view it would be more natural to regard the latter as an offshoot from the former, rather than the converse. But not only is the kingdom of Judah of paramount importance in respect of both religion and literature, but its government also was in the hands of a single dy nasty, whereas that of the Northern Kingdom changed hands no less than 8 t, during the two and a half cents, of its existence 1 . Moreover, the South ern Kingdom lasted about twice as long as the other. No sooner had Jeroboam I been elected the first ruler of the newly founded state than he set about

      managing its affairs with the energy

      2. The 1st for which he was distinguished (1 K Dynasty 11 2S). To complete the disruption

      he established a sanctuary in opposi tion to that of Jerus (IIos 8 14), with its own order of priests (2 Ch 11 14; 13 9), and founded two capital cities, Shechem on the W. and Penuel on the E. of the Jordan (1 K 12 25). Peace seems to have been maintained between the rival govern ments during the 17 years reign of Rehoboam, but on the accession of his son Abijah war broke out (1 K 15 6.7; 2 Ch 13 3ff). Shortly afterward Jeroboam died and was succeeded by his son Nadab,



      Israel, King, or

      who was a year later assassinated, and the 1st Dynasty came to an end, after an existence of 23 years, being limited, in fact, to a single reign.

      The turn of the tribe of Issachur came next.

      They had not yet given a ruler to Israel; they could

      claim none of the judges, but they

      3. The lid had taken their part at the assembling Dynasty of the tribes under Deborah and

      Barak of Naphtali. Baasha began his reign of 24 years by extirpating the house of his predecessor (1 K 15 29), just as the Abbasids annihilated the Umeiyads. The capital was now Tirzah (1 K 14 17; Cant 64), a site not yet identified. His Judaean contemporary was ASA (q.v.), who, like his father Abijah, called in the aid of the Syrians against the Northern Kingdom. Baasha was unequal to the double contest and was forced to evacuate the ground he had gained. His son Elah was assassinated after a reign of a year, as he himself had assassinated the son of the founder of the preceding dynasty, and his entire family and adherents were massacred (1 K 16 11). The name of the assassin was Zimri, an officer of the charioteers, of unknown origin and tribe. But the kingship was always elective, and

      4. Civil War the army chose Oniri, the cornmander-

      in-chief, who besieged and took Tir zah, Zimri setting the palace on fire by his own hand and perishing in the flames. A second pre tender, Tibni, a name found in Phoenician and Assyrian, of unknown origin, sprang up. He was quickly disposed of, and security of government was reestablished.

      //. Period of the Syrian Wars. The founder of

      the new dynasty was Oniri . By this time the

      Northern Kingdom was so much a

      1. The Hid united whole that the distinctions of Dynasty tribe were forgot ten. We do not know

      to what tribe Oniri and his successors belonged. With Oniri the political sphere of action of Israel became wider than it had been before, and its internal affairs more settled. His civil code was in force long after his dynasty was extinct, and was adopted in the Southern Kingdom (Mic 6 16). The capital city, the site of which he chose, has remained a place of human habitation till the present day. Within the last few years, remains of his building have been recovered, showing a great advance in that art from those believed to go back to Rehoboam and Solomon. He was, however, unfortunate in his relations with Syria, having lost some towns and been forced to grant certain trading concessions to his northern neighbors (1 K 20 34). But he was so great a king that long after his death the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes was known to the Assyrians as "the house of Omri."

      Contemporarily with this dynasty, there occurred a revival of the Phoen power, which exerted a power ful influence upon the Israelite kings

      2. World- and people, and at the same time the Politics Assyrians once more began to inter fere with Syrian politics. The North ern Kingdom now began to play a part in the game of world-politics. There was peace with Judah, and alliance with Phoenicia was cemented by the marriage of Ahab, it seems after his father s death, with Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal (1 K 16 31). This led to the erection of a temple in Samaria in which the Tyrian Baal w r as worshipped, while side by side with it the worship of Jeh was carried on as before. It seems as if the people had fallen back from the pure monotheism of Moses and David into what is known as henotheism. Against this relapse Elijah protested with final success. Ahab was a wise and skilful soldier, without rashness, but also without decision. He defeated a Syrian coali tion in two campaigns (IK 20) and imposed on

      Ben-hadad the same conditions which the latter had imposed on Omri. With the close of the reign of Asa in Judah, war ceased between the two Israelite kingdoms and the two kings for the first time became friends and fought side by side (1 K 22). In the reign of Ahab we note the beginning of decay in the state in regard to personal liberty and equal justice. The tragedy of Naboth s vineyard would not have happened but for the influence of Tyrian ideas, any more than in the case of the famous windmill which stands by the palace of Sans Souci at Potsdam. A further improvement in the art of building took place in this reign. The palace of Ahab, which has recently been recovered by the excavations carried on by the Harvard University Expedition under Dr. G. A. Reisner, shows a marked advance in fine ness of workmanship upon that of Omri.

      The object of Ben-hadad s attack upon Ahab

      seems to have been to compel him to join a league

      founded to resist the encroachments of

      3. Battle Assyria upon the countries bordering of Karkar upon the Mediterranean. The con federates, who were led by Ben-hadad,

      and of whom Ahab was one, were defeated by Shal- maneser II in the battle of Karkar. The date is known from the inscriptions to have been the year 854-853. It is the first quite certain date in Heb history, and from it the earlier dates must be reck oned by working backward. Ahab seems to have seized the moment of Syria s weakness to exact by force the fulfilment of their agreement on the part of Ben-hadad (1 K 22).

      On the other hand, the king of Moab, Mesha,

      appears to have turned the same disaster to account

      by throwing off his allegiance to

      4. Loss of Israel, which dated from the time of Territory David, but had apparently lapsed

      until it was enforced anew by Omri (MS, 11. 4 ff, but 1. 8 makes Ornri s reign + half Ahab s = 40 years). Ahab s son and successor Jehoram (omitting Ahaziah, who is chiefly notable as a devotee of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron), with the aid of Jehoshaphat and his vassal, the king of Edom, attempted to recover his rights, but in vain (2 K 3). It may have been in consequence of the failure of this expedition that the Syrians again besieged Samaria and reduced it to great straits (2 K 6 24; 7), but the date is uncertain. Jehoram replied with a counter-attack upon the E. of the Jordan.

      It was no doubt owing to his connection with the king of Judah that Jehoram so far modified the

      worship and ritual as to remove the 6. Reform worst innovations which had come 1 to of Religion prevail in the Northern Kingdom (2 K

      3 1-3). But these half-measures did not satisfy the demands of the time, and in the revolution which followed both he and his dynasty were swept away. The dynasty had lasted, ac cording to the Bib. account, less than half a century. The religious reformation, or rather revolution, which swept away almost entirely both royal houses,

      bears a good deal of resemblance to 6. Revolu- the Wahhabi rising in Arabia at the tion beginning of the 18th cent. It took

      its origin from prophetism (1 K 19 16), and was supported by the Rechabite Jonadab. The object of the movement headed by Jehu was nominally to revenge the prophets of Jeh put to death by order of Jezebel, but in reality it was much wider and aimed at nothing less than rooting out the Baal-worship altogether, and enforcing a return to the primitive faith and worship. Just as the Wahhabts went back to Mohammed s doctrine, as contained in the Kor an and the Tradition, and as the Rechabites preserved the simplicity of the early desert life, so Jehu went back to the state of things

      Israel, King, of Israel, Rel. of



      as they were at (he foundation of the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam I.

      .lelm s reforms were carried out to the letter, and

      the whole dynasty of <>mri. which was responsible

      for (he innovations, was annihilated

      7. IVth like its predecessors. The religious Dynasty fervor, however, soon subsided, and

      Jehu s reign ended in disaster. Ha- /ael, whose armies had been exterminated by the forces of Assyria, t urned his at tent ion to t he eastern territory of Israel. In the turbulent land of ( lilead, the home of Elijah, disappointed in its hopes of Jehu, lie quickly established his supremacy ( 2 K 10 :-!2fTi. Jehu also appreciated the significance of the victories of Assyria, and was wise enough to send tribute to Shalmanescr II. This was in the year S 12. I nder his son and successor Jchoahaz the fortunes of Israel continued to decline, until Ifazael imposed upon it the most humiliating conditions (Am 1 3-5; 2 K 13 1 IT).

      Toward t lie end of the reign of Jehoahaz, however, the tide began to turn, under the leadership of a

      military genius whose name has not

      8. Renewed been recorded ( 2 K 13 5j; and the Prosperity improvement continued, after the

      death of Hazael, under his son Je- hoash (Joash), who even besieged and plundered Jems (2 K 14 S IT). But it was not until the long reign of Jeroboam II, son of Jehoash, that the fron tiers of Israel, were, for the first time since the begin ning of the kingdom, restored to their ideal limits. Even Damascus and Ilamath were subdued (2 K 14 2s"). But the prosperity was superficial. Jero boam II stood at the head of a military oligarchy, who crushed the great mass of the people under them. The tribune of the plebs at this time was Amos of Tekoa. His Cassandra-like utterances soon ful filled themselves. The dynasty, which had been founded in blood and had lasted some 90 years, on the accesssion of Jeroboam s son Zachariah gave place to 12 years of anarchy.

      Zachariah was almost immediately assassinated by Shallum, who within a month was in turn assas sinated by Menahem, a soldier of the

      9. Anarchy tribe of Gad, stationed in Tirzah, to

      avenge the death of his master. The low social condition of Israel at this time is de picted in the pages of Hos. The atrocities per petrated by the soldiers of Menahem are mentioned by Jos (Ant, IX, xi, 1).

      ///. Decline and Fall. Meantime Pul or Pulu had founded the second Assyr empire under the

      name of Tiglath-pileser III. Before

      1. Loss of conquering Babylonia, he broke the Independ- power of the Hittites in the W., and ence made himself master of the routes

      leading to the Phoen seaports. As the eclipse of the Assyr power had allowed the expansion of Israel under Jeroboam II, so its revival now crushed the independence of the nation for ever. Menahem bought stability for his throne by the payment of an immense bribe of 1,000 talents of silver, or 82,000,000, reckoning the silver talent at si ,000. The money was raised by means of an assessment of 50 talents each upon all the men of known wealth. The payment of this tribute is mentioned on the Assvr monuments, the date being 738.

      Menahem reigned 10 years. His son Pekahiah was, soon after his accession, assassinated by one

      of his own captains, Pekah, son of

      2. Decline Hemaliah, who established himself,

      with the help of some (iileadites, as king. lie formed an alliance with Rezin of Damas cus against Israel, defeating Ahaz in two pitched battles, taking numerous captives, and even reach ing the walls of Jerus. The result was disastrous

      to both allies. Ahaz called in the aid of the Assyr ians. Tiglath-pileser put an end to the kingdom of 1 )amascus, and deported the inhabitants of Northern and Eastern Pal. The kingdom of Israel was re duced to the dimensions of the later province of Samaria. Pekah himself was assassinated by II o- shea, who became king under the tutelage of the Assyr overlord. The depopulated provinces were filled with colonists from the conquered countries of the East. The year is 7:U.

      Hosheawas never an independent king, but the

      mere vassal of Assyria. lie was foolish enough to

      withhold the annual tribute, and to

      3. Extinc- turn to Egypt for succor. Meanwhile, tion Tiglath-pileser III had been succeeded

      by Shalmaneser IV. This king laid siege to Samaria, but died during the siege. The city was taken by his successor Sargon, who had seized the throne, toward the end of the year 722. The Northern Kingdom had lasted 240 years, which fall into three periods of about SO years each.

      the middle! period being the period of

      4. Sum- the Syrian wars. As it was fully formed mary when it broke off from the Southern

      Kingdom, its history shows no develop ment or evolution, but is made up of undulations of prosperity and of decline. It was at its best imme diately after its foundation, and again under Jero boam II. It was strong under Baasha, Omri and Ahab, but generally weak under the other kings. Every change of dynasty meant a period of anarchy, when the country was at the mercy of every in vader. The fortunes of Israel depended entirely on those of Assyria. When Assyria was weak, Israel was strong. Given the advance of Assyria, the destruction of Israel was certain. This was necessary and was clearly foreseen by ITosea (9 3, etc) . The wonder is that the little state, surrounded by such powerful neighbors, lasted as long as it did. Sec, further, ISRAEL, HISTORY OF, V.

      LITERATURE. The most important works are Ewald, GV.sT/nV/i/r des Vi>l/,-c.< I*nnt (ET by Martineau and Glover); Wellhauscn, Geschichte Ixniflf; Deren- bourg, Esxai Kur U histoire .... ile la Palestine; and there arc many more. K \\\\vald is best known to Eng. readers through the medium of Dcau Stanley s Lectun-x on the History of the Jririxh Church. See further under CHRONOLOGY; ISRAEL, and arts, on individual kings. THOMAS HUXTKK WEIU




      1. Pro-Mosaic Religion of the Ancestors of Israel

      (1) The Traditional View

      (2) The Modern View

      (H) A Higher Conception of the Deity; ilu, i l

      (4) Totemism, Animism, etc

      (5) Conception of God

      (6) Cult us

      2. The Mosaic Covenant with Jehovah

      (1) The Covenant-Idea

      (2) The Covenant-God, Jehovah

      (3) Monotheism of Moses

      (4) Impossibility of Representing .Ieho\\\\ ah by an Image

      (5) Kthieal Character of the God of Moses

      (0) The Theocracy

      (7) The Mosaic Cultus

      :i. The Religion of Israel before the Sth Century BC

      (1) Decay of Religion in Canaan

      (2) The Theocratic Kingdom

      (:!) Religious Ideals of the Psalms from the Time of David

      (4) Wisdom Literature from the Time of Solo mon

      (5) The Sanctuary on Mt. Zion

      (6) The Religion of the Kingdom of Kphraim

      (7) Elijah and Elisha

      4. Development of the Religion of Israel from tlio Sth Cent. BC to the Exile

      (1) The Writing Prophets

      (2) Their Opposition to the Cultus

      (3) Their Preaching of the Judgment

      (4) Their Messianic Promises

      (5) Reformations

      (6) Destruction of Jerusalem



      Israel, King, of Israel, Rel. of

      5. The Babylonian Exile

      (1) Spiritual Purification through the Exile

      (2) Relations to the Gentile World G. Religion of the Post-exilic Period

      (1) Life under the Law

      (2) Hellenism

      (3) Pharisees and Sadducees

      (4) Essenes

      (5) Positive Connections between Judaism and Hellenism

      (6) Apocalyptic Literature


      1. The Living God

      2. The Relation of Man to This God LITERATURE

      /. Introduction. 111 former times it was the rule to draw out of (ho ()T its religious contents only for dogmatic purposes, without making any distinction between the different books. These writings wore all regarded as the documents of the Divine revelation which had been given to this people alone, and not to others. At the present time the first inquiry in the study of these books deals historically with the religious development of the Israelites. This religion was not of a strictly uniform nature, but is characterized by a devel opment and a growth, and in the centuries which are covered by the ( >T books it has passed through many changes. Then, too, in the different periods oi this development there were various religious trends among the people and very different degrees in the extent of their religious knowledge. The common people were at times still entangled in crude heathen ideas, while the bearers of a higher Divine light ranked vastly above them. And even in those; times, when these enlightened teachers secured full recognition, there occurred relapses into lower forms of religion on the part of the masses, esp. because the influence of the nations surround ing Israel at all times made itself felt in the religious life and thoughts of (he latter. And even when the correct teachings were accepted by the people, a malformation of the entire religion could readily occur through a petrifaction of the religious life. It is the business of the science of the history of religion to furnish a correct, picture of this develop ment, which in this article can be done only in the form of a sketch.

      One of the recent results of the science of the history of religion is the knowledge that the religion of Israel itself, and not merely the corruptions of this religion, stood in a much closer connection with other religions than had in former times been sup posed. The wealth of new data from the history of oriental nations lately secured has shown that it is not correct to regard the religion of Israel as an isolated phenomenon, but that considerable light, is thrown upon it from analogous facts from sur rounding regions. Of especial importance in this respect is the study of Assyr and Bab antiquities, with their rich and illustrative monuments, and, by the side of these, also those of Egypt; and, further, although these are indeed much smaller in number, the inscriptions ami monuments of a number of peoples situated much nearer to Israel and ethnologically more closely connected with them, such as the Moabites, Aramaeans, Arabians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, and others. For later times, Parsiism is an esp. important factor.

      These antiquities have shown that between the religion of Israel and the religions of these nations there existed such close connections that a relation ship between them cannot be denied. It is indeed true that these similarities are mostly of a formal nature, but they nevertheless point to similar con ceptions of the Divine Being and of the relation of man to this Being. We find such connecting links in the cultus, in the traditions concerning the creation of the world, concerning the earliest history of man

      kind, etc; further, in the conception of what is legally right and of the customs of life; in the ideas concerning death and the world beyond; concerning the souls of men and the supernatural spiritual world, and elsewhere. These; analogies and related connections have appeared so pronounced to some savants, especially Assyriologists, that they are willing to find in the religion of the Israelites and Jews only a reflection of the Bab, or of what they call the "religion of the ancient Orient." But over against this claim, a closer anil deeper investigation shows that a higher world of thought and ideals at all times permeates the Israelitish religion and gives to it, a unique character and a Divine truth, which is lacking in all other religions and which made Israel s religion capable of becoming the basis of that highest Divine revelation which through Christ came forth from it. We will hen; briefly sketch the progress of the development of this religion, and then formulate a summary of those characteristics which distinguish it from the other religions.

      //. Historical Outline. (1) The traditional view. The sources for this period are meager. Yet what has been reported concerning 1. Pre- the religion of the period of the Pa-

      Mosaic triareh.s is enough to give us a picture

      Religion of of their conception of the Deity. And the Ances- this picture is more deserving of aecopt- tors of ance than is the representation of the

      Israel matter by the traditional dogmatics

      of the church and also that of those modern scholars who are under the spell of the evo lutionary idea, and who undertake to prove in the Bib. history of Israel the complete" envelopment from the lowest type- e>f fetishism and animism to the- heights of ethical monotheism. The views of the e>ld church teache>rs were to the effect that the; doctrine concerning the one true Goel had been communicated by God to Adam in its purity and perfection, ami by him hael be-on handed through an unbroken chain of true oe)nfesse>rs of the faith (Seth, Noah, etc), elown to Abraham. But this view eloes not find confirmation in the; Bib. record. On the contrary, in Josh 24 2.1f>, it is ove>n ex pressly state d of the ancestors of Abraham that they hael worshipped strange gods in Chaldaea. And the ancestors of the people, Abraham, Jacob, and others, elo not appear em the; stage of history with a teachable creed, but thornse-lves first learn te> know gradually, in the; school of life-, the God whom they se>rve, after He; has made; Himself known to them in extraordinary manifestations. Abraham does not yet know that Jeh eloe\\\\s not demanel any human sacrifices. Jacob still has the narrow view, that the plae-e whore he lias slept is the entrance portal to heaven (Gen 28 10.17). Omnipresence and omniscience are not yet, attribute s which they asso ciate with their idea of the Divinity. They still stand on a simple-minded and primitive stage, as far as their knowledge of t he living Gexl is concerned. (2) The, tnfxlcrn ricir. Ove>r against this, modern scholars describe pro-Mosaic Israel as yet entirely entangled in Sem heathen ideas, and eve-n regard the; religion of the pe>oplo in general, in the post-Mosaic period elown to the 8th cent. BC, as little; better than this, since in their opinion the Jeh-religion iiael not thoroughly permeated the ranks of the common people , and hael practically remained the possession of the men, while the women hael con tinued to cultivate the ancient customs and views. W. 11. Smith and Wellhausen have pointed to cus toms and ideas of the pre-Islamic Arabs, and S.I. Curtiss to such in the modern life of oriental tribes, which are claimed to have been the; property of the most ancient Sem heathen tribes, anel these scholars use these as the key fen- the ancient Israelitic rites


      1 .-.32

      .-Hid customs. Kill even if much light is thrown from these sources on the forms of life and cultus as depicted liy the Scripture s, much c;iulioii must lie exercised in the use made of this material. In the first place, neither those Arabs of the (>th cent. AD, nor their successors of today, can he regarded as "primit ive Semites." In the second place, it is a question, even if in the earliest period of Israel such customs are actually found, what they really signified tor the tribe of Abraham. We are here not speaking of a prehistoric religion, but of the religion of that tribe that came originally from l"r of the Chaldees, and migrated first by way of Ifaran to Canaan, and then to Kgypt. In this tribe such primitive cus toms, perhaps, had long been spiritualized. For these Hebrews cannot be regarded as being as uncivilized as are the New Zealanders, or the Indians of North America, or those Bedouins who have never left the desert; for they had lived in Babylonia for a long period, even if, while there, they had with drawn themselves as much as possible from the more cultured life of the cities. The patriarchs were in touch with the civilization of the Babylonians. We do not, indeed, want to lay special stress on the fact, that they lived in Ur and in Haran, two cities of the moon-god, the worship of which divinity shows monotheistic tendencies. But the history of the family of Abraham, e.g. his relation to Sarah and Hagar, shows indisputable influence 1 of Bab legal ideas. Probably, too, the traditions concerning the beginnings of history, such as the Creation, the Deluge, and the like, were brought from Babylon to Canaan by the tribe of Abraham.

      (3) A higher conception of the Deity; /hi, cl. But this tribe had come to Babylonia from North ern Arabia. It is a very important fact that the oldest Arabian inscriptions, namely the Minaean and the Sabaean, lead us to conclude, that these tribes entertained a relatively high conception of the Deity, as lias been shown by Professor Fritz Hommel. The oldest Arabian proper names arc not found combined with names of all kinds of gods, but with the simple ////, el, or (lod, or with ill, "my Clod." Then, too, (lod is often circumscribed by the nouns expressing relationship, such as abhl, "my father," or dhl, "my brother," or nnmii, "my uncle," and others, which express an intimate rela tionship between man and his God. Correspond ing to these are also the old Sem proper names in Canaan, as also the name Abraham, i.e. Abhl- rdni, "my father is exalted," or Ishmael, and many others. We accordingly must believe that the an cestors of Abraham immigrated into Babylon with a comparatively highly developed religion and with a uniform conception of (lod. Here their faith may have been unfavorably influenced, and it is not impossible that the religious disagreement between the patriarch and his neighbors may have been a reason for his migration. Abraham himself is regarded by the Canaanites as a "friend of Clod," who stands in an intimate relationship with his (lod, and he is accordingly to be regarded, not, merely as a secular, but also as a religious tribal head, an I main, a prophetical personality.

      (4) Tntcntixin; animism, etc. Still less is it cor rect to ascribe to this tribe the lowest religious stage possible, namely that of fetishism or of totemism (worship of demons or worship of animals) and the like. Some think they find evidences of the wor ship of animals in Israel. The fact that some Israelites were regarded as descendants of Leah ("wild cow"[?]), others of Rachel ("mother sheep"), is claimed to refer to the fact that these animals were totems of the tribe, i.e. were worshipped as ancestors. But for this claim there is no scintilla of proof. These names of women, esp. in the case of a nomadic tribe, can be explained in a much more

      simple way. The calves I hat appear in later limes as images of ,leh are just as little a proof for the claim that calves were worshipped by the an cestors of Israel as divinities. We read nothing of such an image before the sojourn in Kgypt, and after that time this image 1 was always regarded symbolically. The fact, again, that from the days of Moses, and without a doubt earlier than this, certain animals were not allowed to be eaten, does not justify the conclusion which Professor 15. Stade and others have; drawn from it, viz. that these ani mals were in olden times regarded as divine (t/i/i/n, and for that reason were not permitted to be eaten, and only afterward were avoided as "unclean." The list of unclean animals in Lev 11 and I)t 14 speaks for an altogether different reason for regard ing them as unclean. It is not at all thinkable that these many, and as a rule unclean and low class of animals, were at one time accorded divine honor, while the higher and cleaner class had been ex cluded from this distinction. We have accordingly no reason for finding animal worship here. On the other hand, it is self-evident, in the case of such an old nomadic tribe, 1 hat man stood in a more familiar relationship to his animals, and for this reason the slaughter of these; was a more significant matter than was afterward the case. This was eleme only em extraordinary occasions, and it readily was ac corded a religious consecration. See also TOTKMISM.

      The idea is also emphatically to be rejected, that in the* pre-Mosaic period mere animism prevaileel in Israel the worship of spirits and of demons. It has been tried in vain to show that in the most primitive periexl of Israel s religion the worship of ancestors occupied a prominent place. As Pro fessor Kmil Kautzsch lias emphasized, the argu ments which have 1 been drawn from the mourning customs of the Israelites in favor of this claim (as this is deme by F. Schwally, Das Lt/nti nach </</n Todc, Hitch den. Vorstellungen f/c.s 1 alien Israel nnd r/r.s- ,1 ndentiunx, Cliessen, 1S92) are altogether inade quate, as is also the appeal to the- marriage with a deceased wife s sister, as though the j purpose of the institution was to secure for the deceased who had died without issue- somebody who would attend to his worship. Because of the strongly de-veloped mundane character of the religious life in Israel, it is natural that it was regarded as a calamity if there was no issue who kept alive the- memory of the departed in the tribe. But even if the argu ment from the mourning customs of Israel we re more convincing than is actually the case, and that gifts, such as fooel, oil, and the like, we re placed in the tomb of the departed, as was often done by the Canaanites, yet this would be; in the ancient Israel- it ish religion a matter of subordinate importance, which could readily be explained on the> ground of natural feelings. It could never be made to appear plausible that all religions had grown out of such a cultus. If the teraphim are to be regard e^d as having be en originally images of ancestors, which is (mite plausible, then they would indeed represent a continuous ancestral cultus, as the people evidently kept these image s in their houses in order to attract to themselves blessings, to avert misfortunes and te> secure oracles. But these ele)lls, modeled after the form of human beings, already in the periexl of the Patriarchs we re regardeel as a foreign element anel in contradiction to the more earnest religious sentiments (cf Gen 31 19; 35 2.4).

      That Israel, like all ancient peoples, diel at one time pass through an "animistic" stage of religious development coulel best be proved, if at all, from their conception of the soul. Among the purifi- e at iems those are esp. necessary which are demanded by the presence of a dead body in the same room with the living, as the living are denied by the soul



      of the deceased in leaving (he body (Nu 19 14). Even (he uncovered vessels are defiled by his soul- substance (19 !;">). This, however, is a biological conception, which has nothing to do with the con ception of the Deity.

      Or are those perhaps right, who think that the primitive Israelites had accepted animism in this sense, that they did not as yet worship any actual divinities, but only a multitude of spirits or demons, be these ghosts of departed human beings or the spirits of Nature, local numinaf In favor of this last-mentioned view, appeal is made to this fact, that in the ancient Sem world local divinities with very circumscribed spheres of power are very often to be met with, esp. at springs, trees, oases, at which a demon or divinity is regarded as having his abode, who is described as the bn ( al or master in this place; cf such local names as Baal-tainar, Baal-hermon, and others. Such local spirits would then bo the eidhlni, out of which would grow more mighty divinities of whole cities and countries. To these it would be necessary yet to add those spirits which were worshipped by individual tribes, partly spirits of ancestors, who also could have grown into higher divinities, while the rest of the mass of deities, good and bail, had to content themselves with a lower rank.

      As against this, we must above all consider the fact that in ancient. Israel the demons played a very subordinate role. The contrast in this regard with Babylonia is phenomenal. It is probably the case; that at all periods in Israel there existed a belief in unclean spirits, who perhaps lived in the desert (cf the D^^llJ , s^lrlm), or in the demoniacs, and could otherwise, too, do much harm. But (hey are not described as having much influence on man s life. How few indications of such a view can be found and how little most of these indications prove we can see in the work of II. Duhm, Die. Ix wn Geixter in A T, Tubingen, 1906. After t he Bab exile, and still more after the longer sojourn of the Israel ites in Babylon, their imagination was to a much greater degree than before saturated by the faith in spirits. Then the closer study of such Sem b c *dllin teaches us that they were not originally con ceived in such a narrow sense. They are very often of a solar nature, celestial powers who have, their abode at a particular place, and there produce fertility, but in this special function represent a general power of Nature. The same is the case with the tribal divinities. These are by no means merely the personifications of the small power of a particular tribe, but claim to be absolute beings, which shows that they are regarded as higher di vinities which the tribe has appropriated and adapted to its own political ideas. We accordingly have no right to think that such a divinity was to be regarded as really confined to a particular hill, or even to a certain stone or tree where it was wor shipped. The rock or stone or tree divinities of the ancient Arabs are celestial powers, who have only taken their abode at these places, even if popular superstition did actually identify them with such stones or trees.

      It is therefore a misconception of the actual state of affairs when the conclusion is drawn that stone- worship is meant when Jacob erects a stone monument, the maggebhah at Bethel, and anoints it with oil, and when this is understood to be a low type of fetishism. Stones are to the present day, for the wandering tribes, the signs by which impor tant localities, esp. sacred places, are designated. The symbolical significance of such stones may be quite different, as also the relation which a divinity is thought to sustain to such a stone monument. For this reason, too, the judgment of the Bible con

      cerning such objects is quite different. Only then, when they are symbols of idolatry, as (lie hnmma- nltn., i.e. representations of the sun-god, /wV// hamman, are they everywhere rejected in the OT. In the same way a mighty tree, esp. if it is found near a spring of water, is in the Orient, by its very nature, a proof of the life-producing God. Such a tree naturally suggests that it is a place where divine life can be felt. Trees that have been made sacred by manifestations of the divinities or have been consecrated by the memory of a great personality, esp. the oak, the terebinth, the palm, were regarded as favorite places beneath which the divinity was sought. Only in that case, as was indeed common in Canaan, when the unhallowed powers of Nature were here adored, was this custom reprehensible in the eyes of the prophets. The dshcrlm, too, are of a decidedly heathen character, as these trunks of trees were symbols of the goddess Ashera. Further, it was a favorite custom to worship the divinities on the high places, for the reason that they were regarded as in or attached to the heavens. Only because of the heathen worship which was prac tised on these btimoth were they, in later times, so hateful to the prophets.

      (o) Conception of Cod. In answer to the ques tion, what ideas the patriarchs, the pre-Mosaic leaders of the people of Israel, entertained concern ing God, attention must first of all be drawn to the fact that God spoke to some of these personally, be this in one form of manifestation or in another. These men heard the word of God with their own ears, and that, too, in the most important moments of their lives. In the case of Abraham, these reve lations are fundamental for him and for his people. The prophetic factor, which goes through the entire history of Israel and constitutes the life-principle, that fills its religion and causes its further develop ment, is at the very first beginnings the source whence the knowledge of God is taken. This pre supposes a personal God; and, as a matter of fact, a fixed personality is demanded by the character of such a God. His "I" impresses itself upon man with absolute power and demands his service en tirely. This "I" constantly remains the same, and everywhere evinces the same power, be this in Ilaran or in Canaan or in Egypt, and whether it manifests itself to Abraham or to Isaac or to Jacob. This oneness is not formulated as a didactic propo sition, but as a living reality: only this God existed for His adherents. These appeal to Him at all times with equal success. The manifestations of this God may be of a different kind at different times. He is even entertained, on one occasion, as a personal guest by His friend Abraham, together with two companions (Gen 18 1 ff). On another occasion (Gen 15 17) Abraham beholds Him in symbolical form as a burning and fiery furnace (probably to be regarded as similar to the movable altar discovered by Sellin in Taanach). But these are to be regarded as special favors shown by God. In general it was the rule that God could not be seen without the beholder suffering death. Then, too, the conviction is very old, that what man sees in the case of such theophanies cannot have been God Himself, but that He had manifested Himself tlirough a subordinate agent, an angel (this is par ticularly the case in the document E in Gen). This angel, however, has no significance in* himself, but is only the creature-veil, out of whiclrGod Himself speaks in the first person. In the most elementary manner this formal limitation of God appears in Gen 11 5, where He goes to the trouble of descend ing from heaven in order to look at something on earth; and in 18 21, when He desires to go. to Sodom personally, in order to convince Himself that what He has intended to send upon this city


      is also the right thin^. Il is indeed possible to find in I he first instance some t raits of irony, and possibly in the second case the epic details may have added something. However, God is no longer spoken of in Mich a human way in (lie post-Mosaic times. This shows that the document J at this place con tains material that is very old. All the more is it, to lie noted what exalted conceptions o! (!od pre vail already in these narratives. lie dwells in heaven (11 a; 19 21), something thai has without reason been claimed not to have been the idea enter tained in the older period. He is the (iod of the world, who exercises supremacy over all the nations. He rules with justice, checks pride, avenges injus tice, and I hat, too, not only in a summary manner on whole countries, but also in such a, way that, He takes into consideration every individual and saves the one just man out of the midst of the mass of sinners (18 2.">; 19). In short, He is already the true (iod, although yet incompletely and primi tively grasped in I lis at t ributes.

      This C.od, ruling with omnipotent power in Na ture and history, has entered into a special relation ship with the tribe of Abraham. He has become the Covenant-Clod of the patriarch, according to the testimony of the old document ,] in C.en 15. \\\\Ye accordingly find here already the consciousness that that C Iod who rules over the world has entered into a special relationship with one small nation or tribe. This fact appears also in this, that Abram (den 14) acknowledges the highest Clod of the priest-king Melchi/edek ((Jen 14 20 IT) as his God, as the founder of heaven and of earth, and identifies Him with his own Covenant-Clod Jeh.

      ((>) Ciiltux. As far as the cnltus is concerned, it can be stated that at this period it was still of a simple, but solemn and dignified character. The people preferred to worship their C iod at such places where He had manifested Himself, usually on a hiiih place, on which an altar had been erected. There were no images of the Divinity extant. As the word ("13""? , >ni:l>r <l h, "altar," shows, the sacri fices were usually bloody. Human sacrifice had already in the days of Abraham been overcome by the substitution of an animal, although in olden times it may have been practised, perhaps, as the sacrifice of the firstborn; and in later times, too, through the influence of the example of heathen nations, it may have found its way into Israel now and then. Both larger and smaller animals were sacrificed, as also fowls. The idea that prevailed in this connection was that Clod, too, enjoyed the food which served man as his sustenance, although (Iod, in a finer way, experienced as a pleasure only the scent of the sacrifices, as this ascended in the flame and the smoke (den 8 21). But the main thing was the blood as the substratum of the soul. The fruits of the field, esp. the first-fruits, were also offered. Of liquid offerings, it is probable that in primitive times water was often brought, as this was often a costly possession; and in Canaan, oil, which the inhabitants of this country employed extensively in their sacrifices (.Jgs 9 9, something that is confirmed also by recent excavations); also wine (Jgs 9 l:>). As the ancient, burnt, or whole sacrifices ( den 8 2(1) give expression to reverence, thankfulness, the prayer for protection or the granting of certain favors, the people from the very beginning also instituted sacrificial feasts, which gave expression to the covenant with God, the communion with the Covenant-God. In this act the sacrifice was divided between God and those who sacrificed. The latter ate and drank joyously before (iod after the parts dedicated to Him had been sacrificed, and esp. after the blood had been poured around the altar. The idea that this was the original form of the sacrifice and that gift-

      sacrifices were introduced only at a later period when agriculture had been introduced is not con firmed by historical evidences. That man felt himself impelled, by bringing to his God gifts of the best things he possessed, to express his depend ence and gratitude, is too natural not to have been from the beginning a favorite expression of religious feeling. In connection with he sacrifices the name of (iod was solemnly called upon. J even says that- this was the name Jeh (den 4 2. )), while E and I* tell us that this name came into use only through Moses.

      According to P (Gen 17 10 ff), circumcision was already introduced by Abraham in his tribe as the sign of the covenant. There are good reasons why the introduction of this custom is not like that of so many other ceremonies attributed to Moses. The custom was without doubt of an older origin. I Yoni whatever source it may have been derived in its earlier ethnological stage, for the Israelites circumcision is an act of purification and of conse cration for connection with the congregation of .Jeh. A special priesthood, however, did not yet exist in this period, as the head of the family and of the tribe exercised the priestly functions and rights (cf Gen 35 Iff), although the peoples in habiting Canaan at that time had priests (Gen 14 IS).

      (1) The, covenant-idea. Israel claims that its existence; as a nation and its special relation 1o Jeh

      begins with its exodus from Egypt 2. The and with the conclusion of the cove-

      Mosaic nant at Ml. Sinai (cf Am 3 2; 9 7).

      Covenant As the preparation for this relation with goes back to one individual, viz.

      Jehovah Abraham, thus it is Moses through

      whom God delivered His people from bondage and received them into His covenant (see concerning Moses as a prophet and mediator of the covenant, ISRAEL, HISTORY OF). It is a matter of the highest significance for the religion of Israel that the relation of this people to Jeh was not one which existed by the nature of things, as was the case with the other oriental tribal and national religions, but that it was the outgrowth of a his torical event, in which their God had united Him self with them. The conception of a covenant, upon which Jeh entered as a matter of free choice and will, and to which the people voluntarily gave their assent, is not an idea of later date in the reli gious history of Israel, which grew out of the pro phetic thoughts of the 8th and 7th cents. BC, as lias been claimed, but is found, as has been made; prominent by Professor Fr. Giesebrecht (Die, Geschichtlichkeit des Sinaibundes, 1900), already in the oldest, accounts of the conclusion of the covenant, (E, J), and must be ascribed to the Mosaic age. This includes the fact, too, that this cove nant, which unites Jeh with Israel, could not be of an indissoluble character, but that the covenant was based on certain conditions. The superficial opinion of the people might often cause them to forget this. Hut the prophets could, in later times, base their proclamations on this fact. Further, the thought is made very prominent that this covenant imposed ethical duties. While the di vinities of other nations, Egyp, Bab, Phoen, de manded primarily that their devotees should erect temples in their honor and should bring them an abundance of sacrifices, in Israel the exalted and ethical commandment is found in the forefront. The covenant relation to the God of Israel can legitimately be found only where the relation to one s fellow-man is normal and God-pleasing (Decalogue).

      (2) The Covenant-God, Jehovah. The special revelation which Moses received is characterized



      by the word Jehovah ( Yahwch) as a name for God. This name, according to the well-authenticated report of Ex 6 3 (P), which is supported also by E, had not been "known" to the fathers. This does not necessarily mean that nothing had been known of this name. Bab prayers often speak of an "unknown god," and in doing this refer to a god with whom those who prayed had not stood in personal relation. The God of the fathers ap peared to Moses, but under a name which was not familiar to the fathers nor was recognized by them. In agreement with this is the fact that only from the time of Moses proper names compounded with some abbreviation of Jeh, such as Jah, Jahu, Jeho, are found, but soon after this they became very common. Accordingly, it would be possible that such names were in scattered cases found also before the days of Moses among the tribes of Israel, and it is not impossible that this name was familiar to other nations. The Midianites esp., who lived originally at Mt. Sinai, have been mentioned in this connection, and also the Kenites (Stade, Budde), some scholars appealing for this claim to the influ ence which, according to Ex 18, Jethro had on the institutions of Moses. However, the matters men tioned here refer only to legal procedure (cf vs 14 ff). We nowhere hear that Moses took over the Jeh-worship from this tribe. On the contrary, Jethro begins only at this time (Ex 18 11) to wor ship Jeh, the God of Moses, and the common sacri ficial meal, according to ver 12, did not take place in the presence of Jeh, but, accommodating it to the guest, in the presence of Elohim. Then we nowhere hear that the Kenites, who lived together with the Israelites, ever had any special prominence 1 in the service of Jeh, as was the ease, e.g., with the Median Magi, who had charge of the priesthood among the Persians, or with the Etruscans among the Romans, who examined the entrails. Yet the Kenites would necessarily have enjoyed special authority in the Jeh-cultus, if their tribal God had become the. national God of Israel. The only thing that can be cited in favor of an Arabian ori gin of the name of Jeh. is the Arab, word-form, nin , hdwuh, for <"Pn, hdydh. On the other hand, a number of facts indicate that Ja or Jau as a name for God was common in Syria, Philistia and Baby lonia; cf Joram, son of the king of Hamath (2 S 8 10), and Jaubidi, the king of this city, who was removed by Sargon. In these cases, however, Israelitish influences may have been felt. Fried- rich Delitzsch claims to have discovered the names Jahve-ilu and Jahum-ihi on inscriptions as early as the times of Hammurabi. But his readings are sharply attacked. However this may be, the name God as proclaimed by Moses was not only something new for Israel, but was also announced by him (possibly also with a new pronunciation, Yahweh instead of Yahu) with a new signification. At any rate, the explanation in Ex 3 14 (E), "I AM THAT I AM," for doubting which we have no valid reasons, indicates a depth in the conception of God which far surpasses the current conceptions of the Syrian and the Bab pantheon. It would, perhaps, be easier to find analogous thoughts in Egyp specula tions. But this absolute God of Moses is not the idea of speculative priests, but is a popular God who claims to control all public as well as private; life.

      (3) Monotheism of Moses. Attempts have been made to deny the monotheistic character of this God, and some have thought that the term "rnonol- atry" would suffice to express this stage in man s knowledge of God, since the existence of other gods was not denied, but rather was presupposed (cf passages like Ex 15 11), and it was only forbidden to worship any god in addition to Jeh (20 3). However, this distinction is fundamental, and

      separates, in kind, the religion of Moses from that of the surrounding nations. For among these latter, the worship of more than one divine being at the same time was the rule. The gods of the Phoeni cians, the Aramaeans, and the, Babylonians are, like those of the Egyptians, beings that spontane ously increase in number. They are divided into male and female groups of two, while in Ileb there is not even a word extant for goddess, and the idea of a female companion-being to Jeh is an impossi bility. Then, too, it, is characteristic, of the ethnic god that he is multiplied into many b \\\\Ulin, and does not feel it as a limitation or restriction when kindred divinities are associated with him. How ever, the Jeh of Moses does not suffer another being at His side, for the very reason that He claims to be the absolute God. Passages like Ex 15 11, too, purpose chiefly only to express His unique char acter; but if He is without any equals among the gods, then He is the only one who can claim to be God; and it is in the end only the logical dog matic formulation of the facts in the case when we are told in Dt, "Jeh he is God; there is none else besides him" (4 3r>.39; 6 4; cf Ps 18 3 2). This does not exclude the fact that also in later times, when monotheism had been intelligently accepted, mention is still made of the gods of the heathen as of real powers (cf, e.g. Jer 49 1). This was rather the empirical method of expression, which found its objective basis in the fact that the heathen world was still in possession of some 1 real spiritual power. Most of all, the popular faith or the superstition of the people could often regard the gods of the other nations as ruling in the same way as Jeh did in Israel (cf, e.g. 2 Ch 28 23). But the idea that the faithful worshippers of Jeh after the days of Moses ever recogni/ed as equal and of the same rank with their own (Jod the gods of the heathen must be most emphatically denied, as also the claim that these Israelites assigned to Jeh only restricted powers over a small territory. This surely would have been in flat contradiction to the well-known history of the Mosaic period, in which Jeh had demonstrated His superiority over the famous gods of Egypt in so glorious a manner. Cf on this point James Robertson, Early Religion, 4th ed, 297 ff (against Stade).

      (4) Impossibility of representing Jeh by an intaije. The 2d principle which the Mosaic Decalogue establishes is that Jeh cannot be represented by any image. In this doctrine, too, there is a con scious contrast to the nations round about Israel (in addition _ to Ex 20 4, cf Dt 5 S; also Ex 24 17). That in the last-mentioned passage only molten image s are forbidden, while those hewn of stone or made of w r ood might be permitted, is an arbitrary claim, which is already refuted by the fact that the Mosaic sanctuary did not contain any image of Jeh. The Ark of the Covenant was indeed a visible symbol of the presence of God, but it is a kind of throne of Him who sits enthroned invisibly above the cherubim, as has been shown above, and accordingly does not admit of any representation of God by means of an image. This continued to be the case in connection with the central sanctuary, with the exception of such aberrations as are already found in Ex 32 and which are regarded as a viola tion of the Covenant, also at the time when the sanctuary was stationed at Shiloh. The fact that at certain local cults Jeh-images were worshipped is to be attributed to the influence of heathen sur roundings (cf on this point J. Robertson, loc. cit., 215 ff).

      (5) Ethical character of the God of Moses. -A further attribute of the God of Moses, which exalts Him far above the ethnic divinities of the surround ing peoples, is His ethical character. This appears



      in the fact that His principles inculcate fundamental ethical duties and His agents are chiefly occupied with the administration of legal justice. Moses himself became the lawgiver of Israel. The spirit of this legislation is deeply ethical. Only we must not forget that Moses cannot have originated these ordinances and laws and created them as some thing absolutely new, but that he was compelled to build on the basis of the accepted legal customs of the people. Hut he purified these legal usages, which he found in use among the people, through the spirit of his knowledge of CJod, protected as much as possible the poor, the weak, the enslaved, and elevated the female sex, as is shown by a comparison with related Bab laws (CH). Then, too, we must not forget that, the people were com paratively uneducated, and esp. that a number of crude classes had joined themselves to the people at that time, who had to be stringently handled if their corrupt customs were not to infect the whole nation. The humane and philanthropic spirit of the Mosaic legislation appears particularly pro nounced in Dt, which, however, represents a later reproduction of the Mosaic system, but is entirely the outcome of Mosaic principles. Most embar rassing for our Christian feeling is the hardness of the Mosaic ordinances in reference to the heathen Canaanites, who were mercilessly to be rooted out. (Dt 7 2; 20 1(5 f). Here there prevails a concep tion of (lod, which is found also among the Moab- ites, whose King Mesh a, on his famous monument, boasts that he had slain all the inhabitants of the city of Kiriath-jearim as "a spectacle to Chemosh, the god of Moab." According to Dt 7 2 ff , the explanation of this hardness is to be found in the fact that such a treatment was regarded as a Di vine judgment upon the worshippers of idols, and served at the same time as a preventive against the infection of idolatry.

      ((>) 7 Ae theocracy. The vital principle of the organization which Moses gave to his people, Jos (( .!/>, II, 10) lias aptly called a theocracy, be cause the lawgiver has subordinated all relations of life to the government of his God. It is entirely incorrect when Wellhausen denies that there is a difference between theocracy and hierarchy. Not the priesthood, but Jeh alone, is to rule all things in Israel, and Jeh had many other organs or agents besides the priests, esp. the prophets, who not rarely, as the representatives of the sovereign God, sharply opposed themselves to the priests. The theocratical principle, however, finds its expression in this, that public and private life, civil and crim inal law, military and political matters were all controlled by religious principles.

      (7) The Mosaic cultus. As a matter of course, Moses also arranged the cultus. He created a holy shrine, the tabernacle, which contained the Ark of the Covenant, and in its general arrangements became the model of the sanctuary or temple built in later times. He appointed sacred seasons, in doing which he connected these with previously customary festival days, but he gave sharper di rect ions concerning the Sabbath and gave to the old festival of spring a new historical significance as the Passover. Moses further appointed for this sanctuary a priestly family, and at the same time ordained that the tribe to which this family be longed should assume the guardianship of the sanctuary. The, lines separating the rights of the priests and of the Levites have often been changed since his time, but the fundamental distinctions in this respect go back to Moses. In the same way Moses lias also, as a matter of course, put the sacred rites, the celebrations of the sacrifices, the religious institutions and ceremonies, into forms suitable to that God whom he proclaimed. This does not

      mean that all the priestly laws, as they are now found recorded in the Pent, were word for word dictated by him. The priests were empowered to pronounce Tordh, i.e. Divine instruction, on this subject, and did this in accordance with the direc tions received through Moses. Most of these in structions were at first handed down orally, until they were put into written form in a large collec tion. But in the priestly ordinances, too, there is no lack of traces to show that these (late from the period of Moses and must at an early time have been put into written form.

      (1) Derail of relation in Canaan. Upon the in tense religious feeling produced by the exodus from

      Egypt and the events at Ml. Sinai, 3. The there, followed a relapse, in connection

      Religion of with which it appears that in this Israel Mosaic generation the cruder tenden-

      before the cies were still too pronounced to en- 8th Cent. dure the great trial of faith demanded BC by the conquest of the land of Canaan.

      In the same way, the heroic struggles of Joshua, carried on under the directions of Jeh and resulting in the conquest of the country, were followed by a reaction. The zeal for battle weak ened; the work of conquest was left unfinished; the people arranged to make themselves at home in the land before it had really been won; peace was con cluded with the inhabitants. This decay of theo cratic zeal and the occupation of the land by the side of and among the Canaanites had a direful influence on the Jen-religion as it had been taught the people by Moses. The people adopted the sanctuaries of the country as their own, instead of rooting them out entirely. They took part in the festivals of their neighbors and adopted their customs of worship, including those that were bane ful. The local Baals, in whose honor harvest and autumn festivals were celebrated as thanksgiving for their having given the products of the earth, were in many places worshipped by the Israelites. The possibility of interpreting the name Baal in both a good and bad sense favored the excuse that in doing this the people were honoring Jeh, whom in olden times they also unhesitatingly called their Baal, as their Lord and the master of the land and of the people. By the side of the Jeh-altars they placed the Asherah, the sacred tree, really as a symbol of the goddess of this name; and the stone pillars (hammanini), which the original inhabitants had erected near their sanctuaries, were also held in honor, while the heathen ideas associated with them thereby found their way into the religious conscious ness of the people. Sorcery, necromancy, and similar superstitions crept in. And since, even as it was, a good deal of superstition had continued to survive among the people, there came into existence, in the period of the Judges, a type of popular reli gion that was tinged by a pronounced heathenism and had but little in common with the theocratical principles of Moses, although the people had no intention of discarding the God of Moses. Char acteristic of this religious syncretism during the time of the Judges was the rise of the worship of images dedicated to Jeh in Dan (Jgs 17 and 18) and probably also at Ophrah (8 27), as also human sacrifices (ch 11).

      (2) The theocratic kingdom. But during this period pronounced reactions to the true worship of Jeh were not lacking. The heroes who appeared on the arena as liberators from the yoke of the op pressors recalled the people to Jeh, as was done like wise by the prophets and prophetesses. Samuel, the greatest among this class, was at the same time a prophet and reformer. He again brought the people together and tried to free them from the con- tamination of heathenism, in accordance with the



      Mosaic ordinances, and at, the same time prepared for a new future by the establishment of colonies of prophets and by the establishment of the kingdom. This latter innovation seemed to be at variance with the principles of a strict theocracy. It is the merit of Samuel that he created the theocratic king dom, by which the anointed of Jeh himself was to become an important agent of the supreme rule of Jeh. It is indeed true that the first king, Saul, did not realize this ideal, but his successor, David, ap preciated it all the more. And even if David was far from realizing the ideal of a theocratic king, he nevertheless continued to be the model which lyophccy tried to attain, viz. a king who was per sonally and most intimately connected with Jeh, and who, as the servant of Jeh, was to realize en tirely in his own person the mission of the people to become the servants of Jeh, and was thus to furnish the guaranty for the harmony between Israel and their God, ami bring rich and unalloyed blessings upon the land.

      (3) Religious ideals of the Psalms since David. In this way the covenant-relation became a personal one through "the anointed OIK; of Jeh." In general, religion in Israel became more personal in character in the days of the earlier kings. Before this time the collective relation to God prevailed. Only as a member of the tribe or of t lie nat ion was the indi vidual connected with Jeh, which fact does not exclude the idea that this God, for the very reason that He rules according to ethical principles, also regards the individual and grants him His special protection and requites to him good or evil accord ing to his deeds. The Heb hymns or "psalms," which David originated, give evidence of a more intimate association of the individual with his God.

      The very oldest of these psalms, a number of which point to David as their author, are not Liturgical congre gational hymns, but were originally individual prayer- songs, which emanated from personal experiences, but were, in later times, employed for congregational use. The prejudice, that only in later times such expressions of personal piety could be expected, is refuted by anal ogous cases among other nations, esp. by the much more ancient penitential and petitionary prayers of the Babylonians, in which, as a rule, the wants of the indi vidual and not those; of the, nation constitute the con tents. These Bab penitential prayers show that among this people, too, the feeling of guilt as the cause of mis- fort une was very vivid, and that they regarded repent ance and confession as necessary in order to secure the forgiveness of the gods. However, the more exalted character of the Israelitish conception of Cod appears in a most pronounced way in this comparison, since the Babylonian feels his way in an uncertain manner in order to discover what god or goddess ho may have offended, and not rarely tries to draw out the sympathy of the o;ie divinity over against the wrath of another. But much more can this difference be seen in this, that the heathen singer is concerned only to get rid of the evil or the misfortune that oppresses him. The coiii- munion with his god whose favor he seeks to regain is in itself of no value for him. In David s case the matter is altogether different, as he knows that he is bound to Jeh by a covenant of love (Ps 18 2), and his heart delights in this communion, more than it does in all earthly possessions (Ps 4 N) ; and this is even more so in the case of the author of Ps 73 25-26. Such words would, for good reasons, be unthinkable in the case of a Bab psalmist.

      In the times of those earliest kings of Israel, which, externally, constituted the most nourishing period in their history, unless tradition is entirely at fault, the spiritual world of thought also was enriched by the Wisdom literature of the Proverbs, the earliest examples of which date back to Solomon.

      (4) Wisdom literature since Solomon. This hokhmah, or Wisdom literature, is marked by the peculiarity that it ignores the special providential guidance of Israel and their extraordinary relation to their (iod, and confines itself more to the general revelation of (lod in Nature and in the history of mankind, but in doing this regards the fear of God as the beginning of wisdom, and at all times has the practical purpose of exhorting to a moral and (Joel-pleasing life. The idea that this cosmopolitan tendency is to be attributed to Or influences, and accord

      ingly betrays a later period as the time of its origin, is to be rejected, as far as Prov and Job are concerned. The many passages in Prov that speak of conduct over against the king show a preexilic origin. The universalistic character of this literature must bo ex plained on other grounds. It resulted from this, that this proverb-wisdom is not the sole, exclusive property of Israel and was not first cultivated among them, but was derived from abroad. The Edomites were esp. con spicuous in this respect, as the Book of Job shows, in which the Israelitish author introduces as speakers masters of this art from this tribe and others adjoining it. We can also compare the superscriptions in Prov 30 1; 31 1, in which groups of proverbs from Arabian principalities are introduced. Accordingly, this wisdom was regarded as a common possession of Israel and of their neighbors. This is probably the reason why the authors of this class of literature; refrain from national reference and reminiscences. That the liberal-minded Solomon was the one to introduce this proverb-wisdom, or at any rate cultivated it with special favor, is in itself probable, and is confirmed by the fact that the Queen of Sheba (South Arabia) came to Jerus in order to listen to his wisdom. But this also presupposes that in her country a similar class of wisdom was culti vated. This was also the case in Egypt in very early antiquity, and in Egyp literature we have collections of proverbs that remind us of the proverbs of Solomon (cf Transactions of the Third International Congress of the History of Religions, Oxford, 1908, I, 284 If; see WISDOM).

      (7>) The sanctuary on Mt. Zion. The kingdom of David and of Solomon not only externally marks t he highest development of the history of Israel, but intellectually, too, prepared the soil out of which henceforth the religious life of the nation drew its sustenance. It was esp. under David a significant matter, that at this time the higher spiritual powers were in harmony with the political. This found its expression in the Divine election of David and his seed, which was confirmed by prophetical testament (2 S 7). Hand in hand with this went the selec tion of Mt. Zion as the dwelling-place of Jeh. David, from the beginning, was desirous of establish ing here the theocratical center of the people, as he had shown by transferring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerus. In the same way Solomon, by the erec- lion of the Temple, sought to strengthen and suit ably equip this central seat. As a matter of course, the sacred shrines throughout the land did not thereby at once lose; their significance. But the erection of the sanctuary in Jerus was not at all intended to establish a "royal chapel" for the king, as Wellhausen has termed this structure 4 , but it claimed the inheritance of the tabernacle in Shiloh, and the prophets sanctioned this claim.

      (6) Religion in the, Kiti</<l<n of Ephraim. The division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon which, as it was, had not been too large, proved politically disastrous. It also entailed a retro gression in religious matters. The centralizing tendencies of the preceding reigns were thwarted. Jeroboam erected other sacred shrines; esp. did he make Bethel a "king s sanctuary" (Am 7 13). At the same time he encouraged religious syncretism. It is true that the gold-covered images of heifers (by the prophets, in derision, called "calves") were intended only to represent the Covenant-God Jeh. However, this representation in the form of images, an idea which the king no doubt had brought back with him from his sojourn in Egypt, was a conces sion to the corrupt religious instincts in the nation, and gave to the Ephraimitic worship an inferior character in comparison with the service in the Temple in Jerus,where no images were to be found. But in other respects, too, the arbitrary conduct of the king in the arrangement of the cultus proved to be a potent factor in the Northern Kingdom from the beginning. The opposition of independent prophets was suppressed with all power. Never theless, the prophetic agitation continued to be a potent spiritual factor, which the kings themselves could not afford to ignore.

      This proved to be the case particularly when the



      dynasty of ()inri, who established ;i new capital city, Samaria, openly favored the introduction of I hoen idolatry. Allah s \\\\vife, Jezebel, even suc ceeded in having a magnificent temple erected in the ne\\\\v capital to her native Baal, and in crushing the opposition of the prophets \\\\vlio \\\\vere faithful to Jeh. It no\\\\v hecanie a question of life and death, so far as the religion of .Jeh was concerned. The struggle involved not only certain old heathen cus toms in the religion of the masses, dating hack to the occupation of Canaan, hut it was the case of an invasion of a foreign and heathen nod, with a clearly defined purpose. His voluptuous worship was not at all in harmony with the serious character of tin- Mosaic religion, and it seriously menaced, in a people naturally inclined to sensuality, the rule of the stringent and holy God of Mt. Sinai. The tricky and energetic queen was already certain that she had attained her purpose, when an opponent arose in the person of Elijah, who put all her efforts to naught .

      (7) Elijah ami Elixha.--\\\\n his st niggle with the priests of Baal, who deported themselves after the manner of modern dervishes, we notice particularly the exalted and dignified conception of God in 1 K 18. When in this chapter Jeh and Baal are con trasted, t he idea of Elijah is hy no means that these fiods have in their own territory the same rights as Jeh in Canaan and Israel. Elijah mocks this Baal hecause he is no God at all (18 21), and the whole worship of the priests convinces him that they are not serving a real and true God, hut only the prod uct of their imagination (18 27). This is mono theism, and certainly not of a kind that has only recently heen acquired and been first .set up hy Kli- jah, but one that came down from the days of Moses. Elijah proves himself to be a witness and an advocate of the God of Sinai, who has been betrayed in a treacherous manner. The fact, that he inflict s a dire 1 and fat ef ul punishment on t he idol- sit rous priests of Baal is also in perfect agreement with the old, stringent, Mosaic, legal code. Only such severity could atone for the fearful crime against the God of the country and of the covenant, and could save the people from apostasy. How ever, the theophany at Mt. Sinai (1 K 19 ] 1 f f) shows clearly that not His external and fearful power, but His cairn and deep character was felt hy Elijah to he the distinguishing mark of his God. His successor, Elisha, after the storm had cleared the religious atmosphere in the country, in the per formance of his prophetic duties was able again to show forth more; emphatically the fatherly care and the helpful, healing love of his God.

      In general, the polit icsd retrogression of the nation and the opposition of those in power, which the prophets and the faithful worshippers of Jeh in later times were compelled to experience often enough, served greatly to intensify and to spiritualize their religion. The unfortunate situation of the present., and the weaknesses and failures in the actual state of the theocracy, directed their eyes to the future. The people began to study the wonderful ways of God in dealing with His people, and they began to look to the end of these dealings. A proof of this is found in the comprehensive accounts contained in the old history of the covenant-people as recorded in the Pentateuchal documents E and .1, which wen- composed during this period. Whether these ex tend beyond and Liter than the period of Joshua or not , can remain an open question. In any case, t here existed written accounts also concerning the times of the Judges, and concerning the history of Samuel David and Solomon, which in part were written down soon after the events they record, and which because of their phenomenal impartiality, point to an exceptionally hi<;h prophetic watchtower from

      which the ways of God with His people- were; ob served.

      (1) The irritittrj prophets. The spiritual develop ment of the deeper Israeli! ish religion was the

      business of the prophets. At the 4. Develop- latest, from the Sth cent. BC, and ment of probably from the middle of the .Mh, Israel s we have in written form their utter-

      Religion ances and discourses. Larger collec- from the tions of such prophecies were certainly 8th Cent. left by Amos and Hosea. These BC to the prophets stood entirely on the basis Exile of the revelations which by Moses had

      heen made the foundation of Israel s religion. But in contrast- to the superficial and mistaken idea of the covenant, of Jeh entertained by their contemporaries, these prophets make clear the true intentions of this covenant, and at the same time, through their new inspiration, advance the religious knowledge of the people.

      (2) Their opposition to the cult us. This appears particularly in their rejection of the external and unspiritual cult us of their age. Over against the false worship of God, which thinks to satisfy God by the offering of sacrifices, they proclaim the true worship, which consists above all things in the ful filment of the duties of the law and of love toward their fellow-men. They denounce as a violation of the covenant not only idolatry, the worship of strange gods, and the heathen symbols and customs which, in the course of time, had crept into the- serv ice of Jeh, but they declare also that the religion which is based solely on t he offering of sacrifices is worthless, since God, who is in no way dependent on any services rendered by men, does not care for such sacrifices, but is concerned about this, that His commands be observed, and that these consist above all things in righteousness, upright ness in the dealings of man with man, and in mercy on the poor, the weak, the defenceless, who cannot secure justice for themselves. (Cf, e.g., 1 S 15 22; Hos 6 6; Isa 1 11 ff; Jer 7 21 ff, and other passages equally pointed. See on this subject, J. Robertson, Early Religion, etc, 440 IT.) Such a transfer of the center of religion from the cultus to practical ethical life has no analogy whatever in other Sem and ancient religions. Yet it is not something absolutely new, but, is a principle that lias developed out of the foundation laid by Moses, while it is in most pronounced contrast to the com mon religious sentiments of mankind. The pro phetic utterances that condemn the unthinking and the unconsecrated cultus must not be misunder stood, as though Isaiah, Jeremiah and others had heen modern spiritualists, who rejected all external forms of worship. In this case they would have ceased to be members of their own people and children of their own times. What they absolutely reject is only the false trust put in an opus operation, i.e. a. mechanical performance of religious rites, which had been substituted for the real and heartfelt exercise of religion. Then, too, we are not justified in drawing from passages such as Jer 7 22 the conclusion that at this time there did not yet exist in written form a Mosaic sacrificial code. Such a code is found even in the Book of the Covenant , recognized by critics as an older Pent document (Ex 20-23, 34), and the fact that the Sabbsith commandment is found in the Decalogue does not prevent Isaiah from writing what he has penned in 1 K5.14. That, at this period, already, there were extant many written ordinances is demanded by Hos 8 12, and the connection shows that cultus- ordinances are meant. We must accordingly take the prophet s method, of expression into considera tion, which delights in absolute contrasts in cases where; we would speak relatively. But this is not



      intended to weaken the boldness of the prophetic thoughts, which purpose to express sharp opposi tion to the religious ideas current at that lime.

      (3) Their preaching of the. judgment. The con ception of Clod and Divine things on the part of the prophets was the logical development of the reve lations in the days of Moses, and after that time, concerning the nature and the activity of God. The God of the prophets is entirely a personal and living God, i.e. He enters into the life of man. His holiness is exaltation above Nature and the most pronounced antagonism to all things unclean, to sin. Sin is severely dealt with by God, esp.. as has already been, mentioned, the sin of showing no love and no mercy to one s neighbor. Because they are saturated with this conviction of the absolute holiness of God, the preexilic prophets proclaim to their people more than anything else the judg ment which shall bring with it the dissolution of both kingdoms and the destruction of Samaria and of JCTUS, together with its temple. First, its de struction is proclaimed to the Northern Kingdom; later on to the Southern. In doing this, these in spired men testify that Jeh is not inseparably bound to His people. Rather He Himself calls the de stroyer to come, since all the nations of the world arc at I lis command.

      (4) Their Messianic promises. However, the prophets never conclude purely negatively, but they always sec on the horizon some rays of hope, which promise to a "remnant" of the people better times. A "day of Jeh" is coming, when He will make His final settlement with the nations, after they have carried out His judgment on His people. Then, after the destruction of the gentile world, He will establish His rule over the world. This fundamental thought, which appears again and again wit h constant ly increasing clearness, often takes the form that a future king out of the house of David, in whom the idea of the anointed of Jeh" has been perfectly realized, will first establish in Judah-Israel a pure rule of God, and then also gain the supremacy of the world. Some critics have claimed that all of these Messianic and eschatological predictions date from the post- exilic period. In recent years a reaction against, this view has set in, based on the belief that in Egypt and Babylonia also similar expectations are found at an early period. These promises, when they are more clearly examined, are found to be so intimately connected with the other prophecies of Isaiah, Ilosea, and others, that to separate them would be an act of violence. In their most mag nificent character, these pictures of the future are found in Isa, while in Jer their realization and spiritualization have progressed farther.

      (o) Reformations. While the prophets are char acterized by higher religious ideas and ideals, the religion of the masses was still strongly honey combed with cruder and even heathen elements. Yet there were not totally wanting among the common people those who listened to these pro phetic teachers. And esp. in Judaea there were times when, favored by pious kings, this stricter and purer party obtained the upper hand. This was particularly the case under the kings Jehosha- phat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. During the reigns of these kings the cult us was reformed. Hezekiah and Josiah attacked particularly the local sanc tuaries and their heathen worship (called bamoth), and concentrated the sacrificial cultus in Jems. In doing this they were guided by the faithful priests and prophets and by the ancient Mosaic directions. Josiah, who, more thoroughly than others, fought against the disintegration of the Jeh-cultus, found his best help in the newly discovered Book of the Law (Dt). That the sacrifices should be made at

      one place had been, as we saw, an old Mosaic arrangement. However, Moses had foreseen that local altars would be erected at places where special revelations had been received from Jeh (Ex 20 24-25). In this way the numerous altars at Bethel, on Carmel, and elsewhere could claim a certain justi fication, only they were not entitled to the same rank as the central sanctuary, where the Ark of the Covenant stood and where the sons of Aaron performed their priestly functions. Dt demands more stringently that all real sacrificial acts shall be transferred to this central point. This rule Josiah carried out strictly. The suppression of the current sacrifices on high places by the fall of the Northern Kingdom aided in effecting the collapse of such shrines, while the sanctuary in Jerus, because it was delivered from the attack of the Assyrians, won a still greater recognition.

      ((I) Destruction of Jerusalem. However, imme diately after the death of Josiah, the apostasy from Jeh again set in. The people thought thai they had been deserted by Him, and they now more than before sought refuge in an appeal to a mixture of gods derived from Babylonia, Egypt., Persia and elsewhere. Ezk 8 and 9 describe" this syncretism which made itself felt even in the temple-house in Jerus. The people were incapable of being made better and were ripe for destruction. The temple, too, which it was thought by many could not be taken, was doomed to be destroyed from its very foundations.

      (1) X]>irilual purification tlirout/Ji the Exile. A mighty change in the religion of Israel was occa sioned by the deportation of the 5. The wealthier and better educated Jews

      Babylonian to Babylon and their sojourn there for Exile a period of about ;">() years, and by the

      still longer stay of a large portion of the exiles in this country. The nation was thus cut off from the roots of the native heathendom in Pal and also from the external organization of the theocracy. This brought about a purification and a spiritualization, which proved to be a great, bene fit for later times, when the political manifestation of their religious life had ceased, and the personal element came more into the foreground. Jeremiah and Ezekiel emphasize, each in his own way, the value of this religion for the individual. A spiritual communion came into being during the Exile, which found its bond of union in the word of Jeh, and which insisted on serving God without a temple and external sacrificial cultus (which, however, was still found among the exiles in Egypt). Separated from their homes, they collected all the more dili gently the sacred memories and traditions, to which Ezekiel s plans for t he temple belong. Their sacred literature, the Tordh or Law, the prophetical books, the historical writings, the Pss, and other literature were collected, and in this way preparations were made for the following period.

      (2) delations to the, (/entile world. The most earnest classes of Jews, at least, absolutely declined to have anything to do with the Bab religion and worship. They saw here the worship of images in its most repulsive and sensual form, and they also learned its absolute impotency when the haughty Chaldaean empire was overthrown. Deutero- Isaiah (Isa 40 66) shows that the Israelites now become more conscious than ever of the great value of their own religion with its Creator of heaven and earth over against this variegated Pantheon of changeable gods in forms of wood and metal images. From this time on, the glory of the Creator of the universe and His revelation in the works of Nature were lauded and magnified with a new zeal and more emphatically than ever before. This same prophet, however, proclaims also the new fact of the

      Israel, Rel. of Issachar



      mission-call of Israel among the nations of the world. This people, he declares, is to become the instru ment of Jeh to make the Gentiles His spiritual subjects. Hut as this people in its present condi tion is little lit for this great service, he sees with his prophetic eye a perfect "Servant of Jeh," who carries out this mission, a personal, visible "Servant of ,leh." who establishes the rule of God upon earth, by becoming, in the first place, for Israel a second Moses and Joshua, but who then, too, wins over the heathen nations by this message. He accordingly takes the place of the prophesied future Son of David. .However, He is not a personal ruler, but carries out His work through mere spiritual power and in low liness and weakness. Indeed, His suffering and death become the atonement to wipe out the guilt of His people (Isa 53). We can see in this further development of the deepening and spirit uali/at ion of the eschatological hopes how strongly the un accustomed misfortunes and surroundings of the exiles had influenced them. Notwithstanding all their antagonism to the aberrations of the heathen world, the Israelite s yet learned that among the (lent iles there was also some receptivity for the higher truths. The worshippers of Jeh felt them selves more akin to the Persians than to the Baby lonians, as the former served without, images a god which was conceived as one and as an exalted divine being. Thoughts taken from Parsiism are also found in the later literature of Israel, although it is not the case that the idea of Satan was first taken from this source. The doctrine of the resur rection of the dead for the judgment also can be gained from OT premises. However, the religion of the Babylonians was not without influence on that of the "Jews. It is indeed out of the question that it was only during the Exile that the Jews took over the accounts of the Creation and the Deluge and others similar to the Bab, as these are found in ( len 1-11. But the development of the angelology shows the evidences of later Bab and Pers influences. And esp. does demonology play a more important role in post -exilic times than ever before, particularly about the beginnings of the Christian era. Magic art, too, entered largely into the faith of later Judaism, and it can be shown that both of these came from Bab sources.

      (1) Life under the law. The people which returned from the Exile was a purified congregation of Jeh, willing to serve Him. They 6. The aimed to reestablish the theocracy.

      Post-exilic This latter had not, indeed, because Religion of the loss of the political independence of the people, the same importance as formerly, but the religious cult us and the religious life of the people were all the more stringently ob served. The post -exilic period is characterized by religious legalism. The people were exceedingly zealous in observing the old ordinances, and tried to find righteousness in the correctness W 7 ith which the Mosaic law was observed, as this was now de manded by the teachers of this law. The prophet of the Exile, Ezekiel, had taken the lead in this par ticular, and had laid great emphasis on the formal ordinances, although in connection with this he also insisted upon real moral earnestness. But it was an easy matter that in the course of time an external work-righteousness and petrifaction of true religion should arise. Yet the later prophets, Hagnai, Zechariah and Malachi, even if they do ascribe a greater importance to external matters than the preexilic, prophets did, show that they are the spiritual heirs of these earlier seers. They teach a healthy ethical and sanctifying type of practical religion and continue to proclaim the hopes for an expansion and spiritualization of the King dom of (Jod. The leaders of these times, Zerub-

      babel, Ezra, Nehemiah, show a pronouncedly an tagonistic attitude toward the neighboring nations and also toward those inhabitants of the country who did not live under the law. However, their intolerance, esp. toward the Samaritans, can be readily understood from the principle of the self- preservation of the people of Jeh.

      The law came to be the subject of the most care ful study, and the teachers of the law collected, even to the minutest details, the oral traditions with reference to its meaning and to the proper observ ance of the different demands, so that already before the time of Christ they were in possession of an ex tensive tradition, which was afterward put down in written form in the Mish. The writing of history was also carefully cultivated. The Books of Ch show from what viewpoint they described the past; the temple and the cult us were the center of interest . In the same way the psalm-poetry, esp. the temple- song, flourished again. These later hymns are pretty and regular, but no longer show the bold spirit of the older pss. In many cases, older songs are made use of in these later hymns in a new way. Of the proverb-literature of the later post-exilic times, the Wisd of Jesus Sirach, or Ecclus, is an instructive example. Notwithstanding its great similarity to the old Prov, the prevailing and lead ing points of view have become different in char acter. The conception of Wisd has assumed a specifically Jewish and theocratic character.

      (2) Hellenism Rut the Jewish exclusiveness found a dangerous opponent, esp. from the days of Alexander the Great, in the new Hellenism. Hel lenistic language, culture, customs and world- ideas overwhelmed Pal also. While the Pious (hasldhim) all the more anxiously fortified them selves behind their ordinances, the worldly-minded gave themselves up fully to the influence that came from without. In the first half of the 2d cent. BC there arose, as a consequence, a bloody struggle against the inroads of this heathendom, when Antiochus Epiphanes undertook to suppress the religion of the Jews, and when the Asmoneans began their holy war against him.

      (3) Pharisees and Xudducees. But within the people; of Israel itself there were found two parties, one strict and the other lax in the observance of the law. The leaders of the former were the highly popular Pharisees, who, according to their name, were the "Separatists," separated from the common and lawless masses. They tried to surpass each other in their zeal for the traditional ordinances and pious observances. However, among them it was also possible to find real piety, although in the NT records, where they are described as taking a hostile attitude toward the higher and the highest form of Divine revelation, they appear at their worst. Their rivals, the Sadducees, were less fanatical in their observance of the demands of the law and more willing to compromise with the spirit, of the times. To this party belonged many of the more prominent priests. But this party evinced less real religious life than did the Pharisees.

      (4) Essenes. Then, too, in the time of Jesus, there were not lacking indications of the influence of foreign religions, as is apparent in the case 1 of the Essenes. This party advocated dualistic ieleas, as these are later found among the Mandaeans.

      (o) Positive connections between Judaism and Hellenism. In Alexandria a friendly exchange of ieleas between Hellenism and Judaism was brought about. He>re the OT was tr d into the Gr. This tr, known as the Septuagint (LXX), shows as yet but few signs of the Gr spirit; rather, a pronounced influence of legal and ritualistic Judaism. On the other hand, apologetical opposition to Hellenism appears to a more marked degree, among others,



      Israel, Rel. of Issachar

      in the apocryphal work known as "Wiscl of Solo mon," in which we find a positive defence of wisdom as the principle of revelation over against the Epi curean world-wisdom of Hellenism. In doing this, the book leans on Platonism anil Stoicism. The hokhmah, or wisdom of the old Jewish lit., has been Hellenized. Philo goes still farther in adapting Judaism to Gr taste and to humanism. A more liberal conception of inspiration also appears in the reception of contemporaneous literary products into the OT Canon, even of some books which had originally been written in the Gr language. The means observed in adapting national Hebraism to Hellenistic universalism was the allegorical method of interpretation, which Philo practised exten sively and which then passed over to the Christian church Fathers of the Alexandrian school. This school constitutes the opposite extreme to the rab binical, which clung most tenaciously to the letter of the sacred texts.

      (6) Apocalyptic literature. A unique phenomenon at the close of the Bib. and in the earliest post-Bib, period is, finally, the APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE (q.v.). Since the days of the Maccabees we find the custom in certain Jewish circles, by using the old prophecies and adapting them to the events of the times, of drawing up a systematic picture of the future. The authorship of these writ ings was usually ascribed to one of the ancient saints, e.g. to Enoch, or Abraham, or Moses, or Elijah, or Solomon, or Baruch, or Ezra, or others. The model of these Apocalypses is the Book of Dnl, which, on the basis of older visions, in the times of the oppression by Antiochus Epiphanes, pictures, in grand simplicity, the development of the history of the world down to the final triumph of the Kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world.

      ///. Conclusion. When we consider this whole; development, it cannot be denied that the religion of Israel passed through many changes. It grew and purified and spiritualized itself out of its own inherent strength; but it also suffered many re lapses, when hindering and corrupting influence gained the upper hand. But it received from with out not only degenerating influences, but also much that inspired and developed its growt h. Its original and native strength also shows itself in this, that without losing its real character it was able to ap propriate to itself elements of truth from without and assimilate these.

      If we ask what the specific and unique character of this religion was, by which it was distinguished from all other religions of antiquity, 1. The and by reason of which it alone was

      Living and capable of producing from itself the; Holy God highest revelation in Christ, it must be answered that its uniqueness lies, most of all, in its conception of God and of Divine; things, and of God s relation to the world. The term "monotheism" but inadequately expresses this peculiarity; for monotheistic tendencies are found also in other nations, and in Israel monotheism often shows itself in a strongly corrupted form. The advantage of Israel lies in its close contact with the living God. From the beginning of Israel s history a strictly personal God gave testimony of Himself to different personalities with a decision which demanded absolute submission; and, in addition, this was a holy God, who elevated mankind above Nature and above themselves, a God who stood in the most absolute contrast to all that was impure or sinful, but at the same time was wonderful in His grace and His mercy to the sinner. This direct revelation of God to specially chosen bearers of the Divine truth goes through the entire history of Israel. Through this factor this religion was being constantly purified and unfolded further. The

      Israelites learned to conceive God in a more spirit ual, correct, and universal manner, the more they advanced in experience and culture. But this God did not thereby become a mere abstract being, separated from mankind, as was the case with so many nations. He always continued to be a living God who t akes an act ive part in t he lives of men . We need notice only those prophets who describe the greatness of God in the grandest way, such as Hosea, Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, who depict also the personal life of God in the boldest way through anthropomorphisms.

      In agreement with this, too, we find that this religion demands the personal subjection of men to

      God. As was the case with all the 2. Relation religions of antiquity, that of the OT, of Man to too, was originally rather a tribal and This God a national religion than one of the indi

      vidual. This brought with it the demand for the external observance of the tribal customs in the name of religion. However, the traditional customs and legal ordinances had already been sifted and purified by Moses. And, as a matter of necessity, in a religion of such a pronounced personal nature, the personal relation of the indi vidual to God must become more and more a matter of importance. This idea became deeper and more spiritual in the course of time and developed into a pure love for God. It did not prevent this reli gion from becoming petrified, even during the Exile, when the doctrines and the cult us were most cor rectly observed. But the vital kernels found em bedded in the revelation of God constantly proved their power of rejuvenation. And at that very time when the petrified legalism of Pharisaism attained its most pronounced development, the most perfect fruit of this religion came forth from the old stem of the history of Israel, namely Christ, who unfolded Judaism and converted it into the religion of salvation for the entire world.

      LITERATURE. Of the lit. on the religion of Israel we may yet make particular mention of the following: Tho textbooks oil OT Theology by Oehlcr, IS .U (also ETj, of Dillmann, 1895. The Kuenen-Wellhausen school is represented by Kuenen, De Godsdienst van Israel, 18f>9 (also ET); Stade, Biblische Thcoloi/ie das AT, 1905; Marti, Theologie dcs AT, 1903; Smend, Lehrbuch d<r AT lieliijionsi/esrhichie, IS!)!); cf also the, works of Robertson Smith, esp. his lectures on The Religion of the Semites. Against this radical school, see, in addition to the work of Dillmann, James Robertson, Enrli/ Religion of ismel, 1893. On the subject of Semi t ism in general. S. I. Ourtiss, Ursemitischc Relii/ion im Volksleben dex in utiucn Orients, 1903 (also ET); Baethgen, Bcitra,/e, zur semitischen Rc/i- gionsgeschichte, 18SO; M. J. Lagrange, Ktudex xur lex reli gions* xemitiques, 1905. The relation of Israel to the Assyr and Bab religions is discussed by Hugo Winekler in several works; cf also Frit/, Honnnel. Altti stamentliehe I elxrlie- fcruni/en, 1S97 (also KT) ; Sayce. The ///<// r Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, 1S95; Alfred Jeremias, Das AT im Liehte dcs alien Orients, 190<>; a good brief summary is found in Sellin, Die AT Relit/inn im Rahinen <ler andern Altorientalischen, 190S. Full details aregivenin Kautzsch, "Religion of Israel." in HDIi. extra vol, 1904. For the last centuries before Christ sen particularly, Sehiirer, Geschic/ite des ji tdischen \\\\ <ill;es i in Xeitalter .1 esu Christi, 1907 (also ET). The modern Jewish standpoint is repre sented by Moiltefiore, Lectures on the Origin, and dron-th of Reli/iion as Illustrated by the History of the Ancient Hebrews, 1892.


      ISRAELITE, iz rfi-el-it, ISRAELITISH, iz rS- el-it-ish: Belonging to the tribes of LSRAKL (q.v.). Occurs 4 t in the NT: of Nathanael (Jn 1 47); used by Paul (Rom 9 4; 11 1; 2 Cor 11 22).

      ISSACHAR, is a-kiir LXX, Swete lo-eraxdp, Issnchnr; Tisch., Issdchar, so also in the NT, Treg. and WH) :

      (1) The 9th son of Jacob, the 5th borne to him by Leah (Gen 30 17 f). His birth is in this passage connected with the strange story of Reuben and his mandrakes, and the name given him is ap parently conceived as derived from lah sakhar, "a

      Issachar Ittai



      hiivil workman." There is a play upon flic name

      in this sense in den 49 15, "He bowed his shoulder

      to hear, and became a servant under

      1. The taskwork." \\\\\\\\ vMhuuwn (Text dcr Bitch.

      Name Nr////., ( .5) thinks that the second cle

      ment of the name may denote a deity; and Sokar, an Kgyp god, has been suggested. The name in that case would mean "worshipper oi Sokar. Practically nothing is preserved of the personal his tory of this patriarch beyond his share in t he common act ions of the sons of Jacob. Four sons werejiorn to him before Jacob s family removed to Egypt (den 46 13). In that land lie died and was buried. At Sinai I he tribe numbered 54,000 men of war over 20 years of age (Xu 1 29). At the end oft lie wanderings the numbers had grown to

      2. The (it, 300 iXu 26 25). In the days of Tribe David, the Chronicler puts the figures

      at S7,(K)() (.1 Ch 7 .">). See NUM BERS. The place of Issachar in the desert-march was with the standard of the tribe of Judah (along with Zebulun) on the E. side of the tabernacle (Xu

      2 5j, this group forming the van of the host (10 I4f). The rabbis say that this standard was of

      3 colors, sardine, topaz and carbuncle, on which were inscribed the names of the 3 tribes, bearing the figure of a lion s wlielp (Tg, /wiido. Jon. on Xu 2 . >) The captain of the tribe was Xethanel ben- Zuar (Xu 1 S, etc). Later this place was held by Igal ben-Joseph, the tribal representative among the spies (Nu 13 7). The prince chosen from Issachar to assist in the division of the land was Paltiel ben-A/ (34 20 i. The position of I. at the strange ceremony near Shechem was on Alt. Gerizim, "to bless the people" (Dt 27 12).

      Sixteen cities of Issachar are mentioned in Josh

      19 17 f f, but the only indications of boundaries are

      Tabor in the X. and Jordan in the E.

      3. The \\\\\\\\ e gather elsewhere that the territory Tribal of this tribe marched on the X. with Territory /ebulun and Xaphtali (19 11.33); on

      the \\\\V. with Manasseh and possibly Asher (17 lOj; and on the S. with Manasseh (ver Hi. It does not seem to have had any point of contact with the sea. The portion of Issachar, therefore, included the plain of Esdraelon, Tabor, the hill of Moreh, and the slopes E. to the Jordan. The fortresses along the S. edge of the plain were held by Manasseh. Tola, a man of Issachar, held Shamir, a stronghold in Mt. Ephraim (Jgs 10 1). To Manasseh was given Beth-shean with her "towns" i Josh 17 11). Xo reliable line can be drawn for the S. border. The district thus indi cated was small; but it embraced some of the most fruitful land in Pal. By the very riches of the soil Issachar was tempted. "lie saw a resting-place that, it was good, and the land that it was pleasant ; and he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant under taskwork" (den 49 15). "The mountain" in Dt 33 1 ( .) may possibly be Tabor, on which, most likely, there was an ancient sanc tuary and place of pilgrimage. This would cer tainly be associated with a market, in which Issa char and Zebtilun, the adjoining tribes, would be able to enrich themselves by trade with the pil grims from afar. Issachar took part in the battle- wit h Sisera (Jgs 5 15). To Israel Issachar gave one judge. Tola Jiis 10 1 ), and two kings, Baaslia and his son (1 K 15 - 7, etc).

      ( )f the - 00 "heads" of the men of Issachar who

      came to David at Hebron it is said that they were

      "men that had understanding of the

      4. Men of times, to know what Israel ought to

      Issachar do" (1 Ch 12 32). According to the

      Tg, this meant that they knew how to

      ascertain the periods of the sun and moon, the

      intercalation of months, the dates of solemn feasts,

      and could interpret the signs of the times. A com pany from Issachar came to the celebration of the Passover when it was restored by Hezekiah (2 Ch 30 IS). Issachar has a portion assigned to him in Ezekiel s ideal division of the land (48 25); and he appears also in the list in Rev (7 7).

      (2) A Korahite doorkeeper, the 7th son of Obed- edom (1 Ch 26 5). W. EWIN<;

      ISSHIAH, is-shl a (irPlZT , iji.^iNluijaha, "Jeh exists"; AV Ishiah) :

      (1) Mentioned among David s heroes, a great- grandson of Tola (1 Ch 7 3).

      (2) Mentioned among the men who came to David at Ziklag (1 Ch 12 (i; AV "Jesiah").

      (3) A member of the priesthood of the house of Rehabiah (1 Ch 24 21; AV "Jesiah").

      (4) Another Levitical priest of the house of Uzziel (1 Ch 23 20; 24 25).

      ISSHIJAH, is-shl ja (rPIZT , //;.s//.s/,7///;, "Jeh lends"; AV Ishijah) : A man of the household of Harim, named among those who, at Ezra s command, were induced to put away their "strange wives" (Ezr 10 31). Also called "Aseas" (I Esd 9 32).

      ISSUE, ish u:

      (1) (rnbiia, molodlwtk, rrXrXi, gc ^a lin; o-ircp|xa, Hin .rttia, "seed"): Offspring, descendants (den 48 (i; Isa 22 24; Mt 22 25 AV).

      (2) (np-VT, zirmuli; X? , yayV [vb.]; pvo-is, rhitfiis): A gushing of fluid (semen, Ezk 23 20; water, 47 8; blood, Lk 8 43). See next article.

      ISSUE (OF BLOOD) (lit, zubh, 3*T , zubli; pvcris, rlnifiix, alfxoppoos, hninwrrhoos) . When used as a description of a bodily affection the word signifies: (1) A discharge, the consequence of un- cleanness and sin (Ley 15 2 f f; Xu 5 2). As such it was one of the judgments which were to afflict the family of Joab (2 S 3 21)); (2) a hemor rhage, either natural (Lev 12 7, where the word used is inakdr, lit. a "fountain"), or the consequence of disease (Mt 9 20; Mk 5 25; Lk 8 43).

      ISSUES, ish fiz (DlXrin , to ( -aoth, lit. "out goings"): (1) Ways of escape (Ps6820AV); (2) free moral choices (Prov 4 23).

      ISTALCURUS, is-tal-ku rus ( lo-TaXicoOpos, /.s- talkotims): 1 Esd 8 40, corresponding to Zabbud

      in Ezr 8 14. In Swete s text the name is Istakal- kos.

      ISUAH, is fi-a. See LSHVAH.

      ISUI, is fi-I. See ISHVI.

      ISVAH, is va. See ISHVAH.


      TH E O LD J V U LG ATK .

      ITALIAN, i-tal yan, BAND. See BAND.

      ITALY, it a-li ( IraXia, Italia): At first confined as a name to the extreme southern part of the Italian peninsula in the region now called Calabria, whence its application was gradually extended. In Or usage of the oth cent, BC, the name was applied to the coasts as far as Metapontum and Posidonia, being synonymous with Oenotria. The Oenotrians are represented as having assumed the name of Italians (I tali) from a legendary ruler I talus (Dionysius, i. 12.35; Vergil, Aen. i.533). The extension of Rom authority seems to have given



      Issachar Ittai

      this name an ever-widening application, since; it was used to designate their allies generally. As early as the time of Polybius the name Italy was some times employed as an appellation for all the country between the two seas (Tyrrhenian and Adriatic) and from the foot of the Alps to the Sicilian Straits (Polyb. i.6; ii.14; iii.39.54), although Cisalpine Gaul was not placed on a footing of complete equality with the peninsula as regards administra tion until shortly after the death of Julius Caesar. From the time of Augustus the term was used in practically its modern sense (Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, I, 57-S7).

      The name Italy occurs 3 t in the NT: Acts 18 2, Aquila "lately come from Italy," because of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius; Acts 27 1, the decision that Paul be sent to Italy; He 13 24, salutation from those "of Italy." The adj. form is found in the appellation, "Italian band" (cohors Italicn, Acts 10 1).

      The history of ancient Italy, in so far as it falls within the scope of the present work, is treated under ROME (q.v.). GEORGE II. ALLEN

      ITCH (C"in, hares; \\\\J/&&gt;pa, psora): Only in Dt 28 27, where it probably refers to the parasitic, skin disease of that name which is very common in Pal. It is due to a small mite, tiarcoptes scabiei, which makes burrows in the skin and sometimes causes extensive crusts or scabs, attended with a severe itching. It is very easily communicated from per son to person by contact, and can be cured only by destruction of the parasite. This disease disquali fied its victims for the priesthood (Lev 21 20).

      ITHAI, ith a-I. See ITTAI.

      ITHAMAR, ith a-mar (TCrPS , Ithamar, "land" or "island of palms": Gesenius; or "father of Tarnar," ""&}, I, being perhaps for "OX, akin: Cook in EB though both derivations are uncertain): The 4th son of Aaron (Ex 6 23; 28 1; 1 Ch 6 3), Eleazar being the 3d, Nadab and Abihu the 1st and 2d. While Nadab and Abihu were prematurely cut off for off (>ring strange fire before the Lord (Lev 10 1.2; Nu 3 4; 26 01), and Eleazar was appointed chief of the tribe of Levi (Ex 6 23.25) and ultimately succeeded Aaron (Ex 28 1), Ithamar was made the treasurer of the offerings for the Tabernacle (Ex 38 21), and superintendent of the Gershonites and Merarites in the service of the Tabernacle (Nu 4 28.33). In the time of Eli the high-priesthood had come to be in his family, but how, and whether before Eli s day or first in Eli s person, is not told and need not be conjectured. W. R. Smith in EH (art. "EH"), on the strength of 1 S 2 27.2S, holds that the priesthood was origi nally in Eli s line; but the words "the house of thy father" do not necessarily mean only the house of Ithamar, but may, and most probably do, refer to Aaron and his descendants, of whom Ithamar was one. Nor does the cutting off of Eli s family from the priesthood and the setting in their place of "a faithful priest," who should do everything according to Jeh s will and walk before Jeh s anointed forever, find its complete fulfilment in the deposition of Abiathar or Ahimelech, his son, and the installation of Zadok in the time of Solomon (1 K 2 35; 1 Ch 29 22; see ZADOK). A de scendant of Ithamar, Daniel by name, is mentioned among the exiles who returned from Babylon (Ezr 82). T. WHITBLAW

      ITHIEL, ith i-el (3ini$, ithl el, "God is"): (1) A son of Jeshaiah of the tribe of Benjamin,

      mentioned among the inhabitants of Jerus in Nehe-

      miah s day (Neh 11 7).

      (2) The name is perhaps also found in the oracle of Agur (Prov 30 1). See ITHIEL AND UCAL.

      ITHIEL AND UCAL (33^1 bsniTS , ithl el iV uktial): Names of the two men to whom Agur the son of Jakeh spoke his words (Prov 30 1). The purport of introducing these persons is strange; and obscure; the margin proposes therefore, by the use of a different pointing, to read the verse, "The man said, I have wearied myself, O God, I have wearied myself, () God, and am consumed," thus doing away with the proper names; a reading which corresponds not inaptly with the tone of the suc ceeding verses. See AGUR; PROVERBS, BOOK OF, II, G. JOHN FRANKLIN GENUNG

      ITHLAH, ith la (nbiT , yithlah; AV Jethlah): An unidentified town in the territory of Dan, named with Aijalon and Elon (Josh 19 42).

      ITHMAH, ith mii (nprp , yithmah, "purity"): A citizen of the country of the Moabites, David s deadly enemies, yet mentioned as one of the king s heroes (1 Ch ll 4(>).

      ITHNAN, ith imn Qjri, yithnan): A town in the S. of Judah mentioned along with Hazor and Ziph (Josh 15 23), apparently the "Ethnan" of Je rome (Onom 118 13). Not identified.

      ITHRA, ith ra (JOIT , yitlini, "abundance"): The father of Amasa, commanding general in the rebel army of Absalom. It seems that his mother was Abigail, a sister or half-sister of King David (1 Ch 2 17). She is called the sister of Zeruiah, Joab s mother (2 S 17 25). In this same passage Ithra is called an "Israelite," but in 1 Ch 2 17; 1 K 2 5.32, we read: "Jether the Ishrnaelite."

      ITHRAN, ith ran Cpni , yilhran, "excellent"):

      (1) A descendant of Seir the Horite, son of Di- shon (Gen 36 2(5; 1 Ch 1 41).

      (2) One of the sons of Zophah of the tribe of Asher (1 Ch 7 37).

      ITHREAM, ith re-am ("3Hn? , yil/n^am, "resi due of the people"): The (>th son born to David at Hebron. His mother s name was Eglah (2 S 3 5; 1 Ch 3 3).

      ITHRITE, ith iit OirTl, yithrl, "excellence,"

      "preeminence"): A family in Israel, whose home was Kiriath-jearim (1 Ch 2 53). Among the 37 heroes of David, two are mentioned who belonged to this family, Ira and Gareb (2 S 23 38; 1 Ch 11 40).

      ITTAH-KAZIN, it-a-ka /in CpSj? PIR?, *ittah kaQln): Josh 19 13 AV for Eth-ka /in. Ittah is correctly Eth with He locale, meaning "toward Eth."

      ITTAI, it a-I, it /I (">nX , May, "TPX , i(hay) : (1) A Gittite or native of Gath, one of David s chief captains and most faithful friends during the rebellion of Absalom (2 S 15 11-22; 18 2.4.12). The narrative reveals David s chivalrous and un selfish spirit in time of trouble, as well as the most self-sacrificing loyalty on the part of Ittai. He seems to have but recently left his native city and joined David s army through personal attachment to the king. David rapidly promoted him. Hear ing of Absalom s rebellion and approach to Jerus, he flees with David. The latter remonstrates, urges him to go back and join Absalom, as he is a foreigner and in exile. His interests are in the

      Ituraea Jaare-oregim



      capital and with the king; there is no reason why he should be a fugitive and perhaps suffer the loss of everything; it would be better for him, with his band of men, to put himself and I hem at t he service of Absalom, the new king. "Mercy and truth be with thee," says David in his magnanimity. Ittai, with a double oath, absolutely refuses to go back, but will stand by David until the last. Remon strance being useless, the monarch orders him across the river, doubtless glad that he had such a doughty warrior and faithful friend by his side. On mustering his hosts to meet Absalom, David makes Ittai a chief captain with the intrepid Joab and Abishai. He doubtless did his part- in the battle, and as nothing more is said of him it is pos sible thai he fell in the fight.

      (2) A Benjamite, one of David s 30 mighty men (2 S 23 29; l Ch 11 31, Tthai").

      J. J. REEVE

      ITURAEA, it-fi-re a ( Irovpaia, Honraia)\\\\ The

      term occurs only once in Scripture, in the definition

      of Philip s territory: tcs Iloura ias kni

      1. The Trtichon itiilos chorus, which AV ren- Word an ders: "of Ituraea and of the region of Adjective Trachonitis," and RV: "the region

      of It uraea and Trachonitis" (Lk 3 1). Sir W. M. Ramsay has given reasons for the belief that this word was certainly never used as a noun bv anv writer before the time of Eusebius (Expos, 1S94, IX, 51 ff, 143 ff, 28Sff). It must be taken as an adj. indicating the country occupied by the It uraeans.

      The descent of the Ituraeans must probably be traced to Jetur, son of Ishmael (Gen 25 15), whose

      progeny were clearly numbered among

      2. The the Arabian nomads. According to Ituraeans Eupolemus (e 150 BC), quoted by

      Eusebius (Pracp. Evany. IX, 30), they were associated with the Nabataeans, Moabites and Ammonites against whom David warred on the E. of the Jordan. They are often mentioned by Lat writers; their skill in archery seems greatly to have impressed the Romans. They were skilful archers (Caesar, Bell. Afr. 20); a lawless (Strabo, xvi.2.10) and predatory people (Cicero, Philipp. ii.112). In the Lat inscriptions Ituraean soldiers have Syrian names (//J/ , I, ii, 320). They would therefore be the most northerly of the confederates opposed to David (supra), and their country may

      naturally be sought in the ncighbor-

      3. Indica- hood of Mt. Hermon. There is tions of nothing to show when they moved Their from the desert to this district. Aris- Territory tobulus made war against the Itu raeans, compelled many of them to be

      circumcised, and added a great part of their terri tory to Judaea, 140 BC (Ant,XUl, xi, 3). Dio Cassius calls Lysanias "king of the Ituraeans" (xlix.32), and from him Zenodorus leased land which included Ulatha and Paneas, 25 BC. The capital of Lysanias was Chalcis, and he ruled over the land from Damascus to the sea. Jos speaks of Soemus as a tetrarch in Lebanon (Vita, 11); while Tacitus calls him governor of the Ituraeans (Ann. xii.23). The country of Zenodorus, lying between Tracho nitis and Galilee, and including Paneas and Ulatha, Augustus bestowed on Herod, 20 BC (A-nt, XV, x, 3). In defining the tdrarchy of Philip, Jos names Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis, but says nothing of the Ituraeans (Ant, XVII, xi, 4; BJ , II, vi, 3). Paneas and Ulatha were doubtless in cluded, and this may have been Ituraean territory (//.// , I, ii, 333). It seems probable, therefore, that the Ituraeans dwelt mainly in the mountains, and in the broad valley of Code-Syria; but they may also have occupied the district to the S.E. of Hermon, the modern Jcdur. It is not possible to

      define more closely the Ituraean country; indeed it is not clear whether St.. Luke intended to indicate two separate parts of the dominion of Philip, or used names which to some extent overlapped.

      It has been suggested that the name Jedur may be derived from the Heb "1112^ , y e tur, and so be equivalent to Ituraea. But the derivation is im possible. W. EWING

      IV AH, I va. See IVVAII.

      IVORY, I vo-ri ([1] ]ttJ , shcn, "tooth" [tr (! "ivory," 1 K 10 IS; 22 39; 2 Ch 9 17; Ps 45 8; Cant 5 14; 7 4; Ezk 27 6.15; Am 3 15; 6 4]; [2] C QnZTp , fiJianhdbblin; LXX oSovrts tXt^avrivoi., odonlcs dcphdntinm, "elephants teeth" [1 K 10 22; 2 Ch 9 21]; [3] eXc^avnvos, elephdntinos, "of ivory" [Rev 18 12]): ft ken occurs often, meaning "tooth" of man or beast. In the passages cited

      tr d in EV "ivory

      crag," 1 S 14 4.5;

      it is . . _.

      "cliff," Job 39 28 bis; "flesh-hook of three teeth," 1 S 2 13). Shenkabbltn is thought to be a con tracted form of shcn hd- ibblm, i.e. hd, the art., and ibbl/n, pi. of ibbah or ibbu ; cf Egyp ab, ebu, "ele phant," and cf Lat ebur, "ivory" (see Liddell and Scott, s.v. eXe^as). On the other hand, it may be a question whether blm is not a sing, form connected with the Arab, fd, "elephant." If the word for "elephant" is not contained in shenhabblm, it occurs nowhere in the Heb Bible.

      Ivory was probably ob tained, as now, mainly from the African elephant. It was rare and expensive. It is mentioned in connec tion with the magnificence of Solomon (1 K 10 18.22), being brought by the ships

      ofTarshish(2 Ch 9 1721) Elcphants . TusksBrought An "ivory house of Ahab 1 to Thothmos III. is mentioned in 1 K 22

      39. It is mentioned among the luxuries of Israel in the denunciations of Amos (3 15; 64). It occurs in the figurative language of Ps 45 8; Cant 5 14; 7 4. It is used for ornamentation of the ships of the Tyrians (Ezk 27 6), who obtain it with ebony through the men of Dedan (ver 15). It is among the merchandise of Babylon (Rev 18 12).

      We do not learn of the use of elephants in war until a few centuries before the Christian era. In 1 Mace 8 6, there is a reference to the defeat of Antiochus the Great, "having an hundred and twenty elephants," by Scipio Africanus in 190 BC. 1 Mace 1 17 speaks of the invasion of Egypt by Antiochus Epiphanes with an army in which there were elephants. 1 Mace 6 28-47 has a detailed account of a battle between Antiochus Eupator and Judas Maccabaeus at Bethsura (Beth-zur). There were 32 elephants. Upon the "beasts" (0-npia., thcria) there were "strong towers of wood"; "There were also upon every one two and thirty strong men, that fought upon them, beside the Indian that ruled him."

      In Job 40 15, AVm has for "behemoth," "the elephant, as some think." ALFRED ELY DAY

      IVORY, TOWER OF CjTBPl b^tt , mighdal ha- shc.n): In Cant 7 4 the neck of Shulammite is com pared in whiteness and stateliness to a (or the) tower of ivory. The def. art. may suggest that the comparison is with some actual tower in or near Jerus; but more probably the language is simply a figure.

      IWAH, iv a (rn?, Hwwah; Apd, Aba [ = Avd], Ax-d, And, 2 K 18 34, OvSov, Oudou, 2 K 19 13,



      Ituraea Jaare-oregim

      apparently <lu< to ;i misreading): The name is wanting in the MT and LXX of Isa 36 1 .).

      Ivvuh was a city apparently conquered by the Assyrians, and is mentioned by them, in the vs quoted, with Hamath and Arpad, Sepharvaim and Hena. It has been assimilated with the Avva of 2 K 17 24 as one of the places whence Sargon brought captives to Samaria, and identified with Hit on the Euphrates, between Anah and Rama- dieh, but this seems improbable, as is also the sug gestion that it is Emma, the modern I mm, between Antioeh and Aleppo. Hommel (Expos T, April, 189S, 330) upholds the view that Hena and Ivvah, or, as he prefers to read, Avvah, are not places at all, but the names of the two chief gods of Hamath, Arpad and Sepharvaim. This would be consistent with 2 K 18 34; but 19 13: "Where is the king .... of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah?" and 17 31, where the gods of Sepharvaim are stated to be Adrammelech and Anammelech, raise serious difficulties. In all probability, the identification of Ivvah depends upon the correct localization of the twofold Sepharvaim, of which Hena and Ivvah may have been the names. The identification of Sepharvaim with the Bab Sip(p)ar is now practi cally abandoned. See SEPHARVAIM.

      T. G. PINCHES

      IVY, I vi (KIO-CTOS, kissos): The only mention of the word in all the sacred writings is in 2 Mace 6 7 in connection with the oppression of the Jews byAntiochus Epiphanes: "On the day of the king s birth every month they were brought by bitter constraint to eat of the sacrifices; and when the feast of Bacchus (Dionysus) was kept, the Jews were compelled to go in procession to Dionysus, carrying ivy," this plant (Hedera helix) being sacred to the Gr god of wine and of the culture of the vine (cf Eur. Bacchae, passim). It was of ivy or of pine that the "corruptible crown" of the famous Isthmian games was made (1 Cor 9 25).


      IYAR, e-yar . See IYYAK.

      IYE-ABARIM, i-ye-ab a-rim hii-^uhharlm, "the heaps of the Abarim"; AV Ije-abarim; in Nu 21 11 LXX reads B, XaXyXii, Chalf/lc i): A place in the journeyings of Israel named after Oboth, said to be "in the wilderness which is before Moab, toward the sunrising" (Nu 21 11), "in the border of Moab" (33 44). The indications of position here given are not sufficient to guide to any identification, and, so far, nothing has been discovered in the district to help us. Called simply "lyim" (AV "lim") in Nu 33 45.

      IYIM, i yim (2"^? , lyim, "heaps" the form of which, ***y , *lyc, is the constr.):

      (1) A short form of the name lye-abarim (Nu 33 45).

      (2) A town in the territory of Judah (Josh 15 21); EV wrongly "lim"). It lay in the extreme S., "toward the border of Edom." It is not iden tified.

      IYYAR, e-yar ("PS, lyar; lap, Idr): The 2d month of the Jewish year, corresponding to May. It is not mentioned in the Bible. See CALENDAR.

      IZEHAR, iz e-har, i zO-har (Nu 3 19 AV). See


      IZHAR, iz ha r (in\\\\ yiqhar, "the shining one"):

      (1) The father of Korah (Nu 16 1), descended from a Kohathite Levite of this name, whose de scendants formed a family, in the tribe of Levi (Ex 6 1S.21; Nu 3 19.27; 1 Ch 6 1S.3S).

      (2) A descendant of Judah, whose mother s name was Helah. ARVm gives the name Zohar (1 Ch 4 7).

      IZHARITES, iz har-Its pin?"! , yitfiarl): The descendants of Izhar, son of Kohath, and grandson of Levi (Nu 3 19.27). In David s reign some of these were "over the treasures of the house of Jeh" (1 Ch 26 23), others "were for the outward busi ness over Israel, for officers and judges" (ib, ver 29).

      IZLIAH, iz-ll a (HXr , yizli ah, "Jeh delivers"; AV JEZLIAH): A son of Elpaal, of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Ch 8 IS).

      IZRAHIAH, iz-ra-hl a (rnrnr , yizrahyah, "Jeh appears, or shines"):

      (1) A descendant of Issachar, grandson of Tola, only son of Uzzi (1 Ch 7 3).

      (2) The leader of the singing at the purification of the people, on the occasion of Nehemiah s refor mation; here rendered "Jezrahiah" (Neh 12 42).

      IZRAHITE, iz ra-hit (H^P , yizrah, "rising, shining"j: Shamhuth, the captain of the 5th monthly course (1 Ch 27 8), is called an "Izra- hite." The name may be derived from the town or family of Izrah, but more likely is a corni]>- tion of the word "Zerahite," descendant of Zerah of Judah.

      IZRI, iz ri PIS 1 . , yifrl, "creator," "former"): A man of the "sons of Jeduthun," leader of the fourth band of musicians, who served in the sanc tuary (1 Ch 25 11). Identical with Zeri (ver 3).

      IZZIAH, iz-I a (rP-Ti , yizzlyah, "Jeh unites"; AV Jeziah): One of the faithful Jews who put away their foreign wives. He belonged to the family of Parosh (Ezr 10 25; 1 Esd 9 26, "led- dias").

      flag divider


      flag divider

    "God's Goals"

    For This World!

    Does God Achieve His Goals?
    OR, does Satan achieve his goals?

    (All Teaching- and Commentary is from "INSPIRED-INERRANT!" View of Scripture!)

    The most IMPORTANT "3-QUESTION QUIZ" you'll ever Take?

    The Adversary’s Goals:

      SCRIPTURE: "The ‘Devil’ ... walketh about seeking whom he may DEVOUR." I Pet 5:8

      SCRIPTURE:"The ‘Thief’ (Devil) cometh not, but for to steal, to kill and to DESTROY." John 10:10

        QUESTION: Do you Believe Satan the Adversary Succeeds?___ Or Fails?___

    God the Father’s Goals:

      SCRIPTURE: "For God sent NOT His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world though Him might be SAVED! See John 3:16 John 3:17

      SCRIPTURE: "Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, ... The Lord is ... NOT willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9

        QUESTION: Do you Believe God the Father Succeeds?___ Or Fails?___

    God the Son’s Goals:

      SCRIPTURE: "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to SAVE that which is lost!" Luk 19:10 "For I came NOT to judge the world, but to SAVE the world. John 12:47

      SCRIPTURE: "And I, if I be lifted up from the Earth, I WILL DRAW ALL men unto Me." Joh 12:32

        QUESTION: Do you Believe God the Son (Jesus Christ): Succeeds?___ Or Fails?___ center>

    God the Spirit’s Goals:

      SCRIPTURE: Jesus declares: "'I ’WILL’' send Him (Holy Spirit) unto you, and when He is come 'He ’WILL’' testify of Me: John 14:26

      SCRIPTURE: "He ’WILL’ reprove the world [convict, convince, correct] of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment: John 16:7

      SCRIPTURE: (1) Of sin, because they believe not on me; ... (2) Of righteousness, because I go to my Father; ...(3) Of judgment, because the 'Prince of this World' IS JUDGED![A] John 16:8-10

        QUESTION: Do you think God the Spirit Succeeds?___ Or Fails?___


        If you believe




      COPYRIGHT (c) 1977 Cambridge Theological Seminary
      COPYRIGHT (c) 1965 Cambridge Bible Institute, NewtonStein


      In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in the NewtonStein, Cambridge Theological Seminary is archived here under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in reviewing the included information for personal use, non-profit research, and educational purposes only.


      flag divider

      "CHURCH USA!


      Will You Take "THE BIBLE PLEDGE?"

      (Christians Sending a "Message" to ALL Elected Officials!)

      Many Thousands Already Have: And GOD is "Keeping Track!"!

      (Are you Afraid? Ashamed? Apathetic? Anti-Christ? Or Against God's Authority?)


        "The BIBLE is the WORD of GOD!


          *HOLY and UNCHANGING!

          *HIGHEST AUTHORITY on Earth!

        As I UNDERSTAND the BIBLE,

          >> I will NEVER 'GO' against, 'VOTE' against, or 'SPEAK' Against,

          >> The WORD of GOD,

          >> So Help me GOD!


          Please "CLICK" the following to Affirm your Commitment as a CHRISTIAN AMERICAN to the Word of God upon the Earth!

        This Christian American BELIEVES in the WORD OF GOD!


      flag divider

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO: Dr. D. James Kennedy: Can you be as Bold as Him?

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO: Cambridge Theological Seminary Office, USA

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO: Free Ordination-1 by Cambridge Theological Seminary

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO: Religious Degrees, Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate

      FROM: IAIA Accreditation, TO: A few Recent Ministry Partners

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary,

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO: Ministers Main Page

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO: Home-Based-Ministry: Serve God, Make Money, Save Taxes

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO GENERAL HOME PAGE

      FROM: Cambridge Theological Seminary, TO MINISTERS HOME PAGE

      Most Important Questions You'll Ever Answer?

      Do you understand "Eternal Life as God's FREE GIFT" - Unearned and Undeserved?
      "Eternal Life as God's FREE GIFT!"

      Do you know FOR SURE that you have Eternal Life: Here & Now?

      "Eternal Life: Here & Now FOR SURE!"

      In 'VERY FEW MINUTES' ... you can Know for Certain if you're saved ... or not!
      In 'TWO MINUTES' - Know if you're Saved or not!

      Red-White-and-Blue In-God-We-Trust

      Search Web's Most Comprehensive Christian Site

      All-Things-Bible, Church, History, Leadership, Psychology, Politics, Science, Health,
      Sermon Resources, "Starters", Illustrations & Stories, Humor, Quotes, Sermons (Audio & Print)
      From Ancient Rome, Greece & Jewish History to Latest News Headlines!

      The Web Ministers-Best-Friend


      flag divider

      Could you share your State of Salvation that we may better serve our readers?

      At this time, I do not believe Jesus is the Saviour!

      I do believe Jesus is the Saviour and I know I have eternal Life!

      I do not believe it is possible to 'Know in this life' if one has Eternal Life.

      god bless bar

      A Christian Family in Every House, in YOUR Community, in YOUR Lifetime!

      Worth Giving For? Worth Living For? Worth Working For?

      Please name "" aloud in Prayer Daily? PLEASE?

      DOCTRINAL DISCLAIMER: is an Absolute, Bible-Believing, Conservative Christian Ministry, seeking to serve the Ministers who serve the LORD JESUS. As such, we provides web-space to a number of Ministries, notably NewtonStein (a Creation-Science-Based Research Group), as well as AMERIPEDIA, BIBLIPEDIA, CHRISTIPEDIA, CATHOLIPEDIA, ISLAMIPEDIA, JUDAEOPEDIA, TEA-PARTY-UNITED, TALK-RADIO-REPUBLICANS, ETC., – seeking to be an outlet for many CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE VOICES who love the LORD JESUS CHRIST ABOVE ALL!

      Obviously, all phases of Christianity do not agree doctrinally or politically and sometimes even disagree on the actual facts concerning a particular leader, nation or situation, hence there are well over 10,000 denominations extant.

      We neither claim nor present ourselves as having perfect knowledge in all things. Thus views and articles posted on this website are those of their authors – who often insist their identities, denominational, and/or doctrinal persuasion be made known for various reasons – offered to you as wise people of God - Christian Patriots, whatever your nation - to discern for your own judgement and edification.

      In the NAME of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour:

      Be Blessed!


      Do You Qualify for
      An Honorary "Doctor of Divinity" from Cambridge Theological Seminary?
      If you believe God's Word as Stated Above:
      (Click for a Free Evaluation!)


      "HOW TO"

      Start a Church, HomeSchooling, Bible School, Get Accredited, etc;

      How to Start a Church Legally: PART-1

      How to Start a Church Legally: PART-2 (Background)

      How to Start a Church Spiritually: PART-3

      How to Start a Local Church Ministry: PART-4

      How to Start a Church Legally: PART-5

      How to Name a Church: PART-6

      How to Write a Statement of Faith: Part-7

      How to Name a Church: PART-8

      How to Start a Church TODAY with immediate Tax-Exemption!
      Just TEN-SURE-&-SIMPLE STEPS! PART-9 (Most Popular!)

      HOW TO DO Church Planting, Part-10

      How to do Church Minutes for Business Meetings: Part-11

      How to know if you are being called to Minister: Part-12

      How to make your Ministry Sales Tax Exempt: TODAY Part-13

      EKKLESIA ARCHIVES: Who Started Your Church? History, Part-14

      HOME-SCHOOLING: How to get Started! TODAY! Part-15

      What Is A "FREE-CHURCH!" - General Background;

      What is a "FREE-CHURCH?" 33-Questions and Answers

      You MUST Understand this Teaching! EYE-OPENING! (Most Important!)


      Pulpit Freedom Sunday! Freedom of Speech and Preachers!


      Home School Your Children: 20-Great-Resaons!

      How To Get Your Christian School or Bible School Accredited By;
      Cambridge Theological Seminary: "CAMBRIDGE! Greatest Name in Education"

      Free Ordination-1 by Cambridge Theological Seminary

      Cambridge Theological Seminary: Religious Degrees, Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate


      rotating star  BRIGHT BLUE & RED rotating star


      Please Visit TOP-TWENTY-FIVE AMERIPEDIA™ Pages

      flag divider


      [2] "AMERIPEDIA™" – Potential President Marsha Blackburn: TEA-PARTY SUPER-HERO!

      [3] "AMERIPEDIA™" - Ronald-Reagan Files: The Great Communicator

      [4] "AMERIPEDIA™" – Kristi Noem, The New TEA-PARTY-PRINCESS!

      [5] "AMERIPEDIA™" – REAGAN REPUBLICAN Michelle Bachmann for President: 2012 or 2020?


      [7] "AMERIPEDIA™" - Barack Obama Files: His Muslim Connections



      [10] "AMERIPEDIA™" - Conservative Activists: "Who's Who in Christian Conservative Politics?

      [11] "AMERIPEDIA™" - SARAH PALIN HOME PAGE: "Winning Big Winning Easy in 2012!"

      [12] "AMERIPEDIA™" - TALK-RADIO-CONSERVATIVES Home Page: For a Judaeo-Christian America


      [14] "AMERIPEDIA™" - Sarah Palin Blog: The Webs Largest "Pro Sarah Palin Site!"

      [15] "AMERIPEDIA™" - The "Rush-Recommended Republican Blueprint!"

      [16] "AMERIPEDIA™" - "Rush Limbaugh Quotes" on Christ and Christianity!

      [17] "AMERIPEDIA™" - PNN, "PALIN NEWS-NETWORK”: Her Book Sales Set Records!

      [18] "AMERIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, Michele Bachmann, BRIEF-BIO!"

      [19] "AMERIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "Republican Power and Catholics!"

      [20] "AMERIPEDIA™" - "Hall of Faith Christian Activist Ministers, 2nd-half 20th Century "

      [21] "AMERIPEDIA™" - "TALK-RADIO REPUBLICANS, "American Bible Catholics!"


      [23] "AMERIPEDIA™" - Reagan Republicans Home Page

      [24] "AMERIPEDIA™" - PRO-LIFE Page

      [25] "AMERIPEDIA™" - Michele-Bachmann, TEA PARTY DARLING Causing “Hysteria-on-the-Left!”

      flag divider


      "Fair Use" Notice:

      Contributions from the best scholars in numerous fields are added to website daily. Such research papers and articles:

        * May not represent the views of Cambridge Theological Seminary;

        * Have not been peer-reviewed by Cambridge Theological Seminary;

        * Being a global ministry of huge proportions - yet of mostly retired volunteers (locally) - it is not possible to "verify" every piece that is submitted to us.

        * There is not - and never has been - any money, checking or savings account, or any other such fund associated with or Cambridge Theological Seminary.

        * The 160,000-plus page archive (1-1-2011) of may or may not contain a tiny amount copyrighted news/political reporting material whose use may or may not have been authorized by the copyright owners;

        * To the best of our knowledge we believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the web constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

        * If readers wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

        * "Fair use" notwithstanding, we will immediately comply with any copyright owner who can show our use of such material is not in compliance with the fair Use law.

        Thank You for your part in the Global Ministry of - as of 1-1-2011 - in nearly 200 nations, approaching 40,000 associated Bible Believing Ministers and over 30,000 Ministries.

        Editor: NewtonStein


      * Cambridge Theological Seminary USA & Global has no connection or relationship to Cambridge University in England, EXCEPT . . . we in the USA are carrying on their "Christian Values of Hundreds of Years" . . . as they have long since become secular humanists, agnostics and atheists: "Anti-Christ" in almost every way and contrary to every Scripture.

      flag divider

      JCSM's Top 1000 Christian Sites - Free Traffic Sharing Service! The


      RETURN TO TEXT; Last term before footnote