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 "R"



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 "R"

    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 "R"


    Letter "R"

    RAAMA, ra'a-ma
      Thus spelled only in 1 Chron 1:9; elsewhere "Raamah" (HTpyT, rcCmah). A son of Cush and father of Sheba and Dedan (Gen 10 7 = 1 Ch 1 9). In Ezekiel's lament over Tyre (Ezk 27 22) the tribe of Raamah is mentioned along with Sheba as a mercantile people who provided the inliabitants of Tyre with spices, precious stones and gold.

      It has generally been identified -n'ith Regma, mentioned by Ptolemy and Steph. Byzantr. as a city in Southeastern Arabia on the shores of the Pers Gulf. The LXX ('Pe7/id, Rhegmd) itself supposes this site. But the Arab, name of the city here indicated is spelled with a g and so gives rise to a phonological difficulty.

      A more probable identification has been found in the Sabaean ra'mah in Southwestern Arabia near MeHn in the north of Marib. MeHn was the capital of the old Minacan kingdom. A. S. Fulton

    RAAMIAH, ra-a-mi'a
      One of the leading men who retm'ned with Zerubbabel from captivity (Neh 7 7). In the corresponding passage in Ezr 2 2, where the same list is named, a slight variation in form is given. "Reelaiah" is the name found in this passage. One is doubtless a corruption of the other. Both have the same root meaning.

    RAAMSES, ra-am'sez
      (Ex 1 11), RAMESES, ram'(S-.sez (Gen 47 11; E.x 12 37; Nu 33 3..5)

      1. Meaning 'Paiieo-o-fj, Rhamesse; Egyp Ra-nies- of "Store- Hii, "Ra created him" [or "it"]): One Cities" of the two "settlements" {misk'-nolh) built, or "built up," by the Hebrews for the Pharaoh, the other being Pithom, to which the LXX adds a third, namely, "On which is Heliopolis," a town near Cairo (Ex 1 11).

      The Heb term misk'nolh comes from a root meaning "to settle down" (Arab, sakan, "settlement," Assyr sakanii or shakanu, "to set"), but it is rendered "strong cities" in LXX, "treasure cities" in AV, and (incorrectly) "store-cities" in RV. The "land of Ramoses," where Jacob and his sons settled, was apparently the "field of Zoan" (see Zoan), thus Ij'ing in the Delta E. of the Bubastic branch of the Nile.

      It is often assumed that no city called Rameses would have existed before the time of Rameses II, or the 14th cent. BC, though even

      2. Meaning before 'Rame,ses I the name occurs as of Name that of a brother of Horemhib under the XVIIIth Dynasty. The usual tr "Child of Ra" is grammatically incorrect in Egyp, ami as Ra was an ancient name for the "sun" it seems possible that a town may have borne the title "Ra created it" very early.

      The mention of Rameses in Gen (47 11) is often regarded as an anachronism, since no scholar has supposed that Jacob lived as late as the time of Rameses II. This would equally apply to the other notices, and at most would serve to mark the age of the passages in the Pent where Rameses is mentioned, but even this cannot be thought to be proved (see Exodus).

      According to De Rouge (see Pierret, Vocab. Hieroglyph., 1875, 143) there were at least three towns in Lower Egj-pt that bore the name Pa Rames-ses ("city of Rameses"); but Brugsch supposes that the place mentioned in the OT was Zoan, to wdiich Rameses 11 gave this name when making it his capital in the Delta. Dr. Budge takes the same view, while Dr. Naville and others suppose that the site of Raamses has still to be found.

      There appears to have been no certain tradition preserving the site, for though St. Silvia (about

      385 AD) was told that it lay 4 miles 3. Situation from the town of Arabia (see Goshen),

      she found no traces of stich a place. Brugsch ("A New City of Rameses, 1S7G," Aegyp- lische Zeilschrift, 69) places one such city in the southern part of Memphis itself. Goodwin {Rec. of Past, Old Series, VI, 11) gives an Egj^p letter describing the "city of Rameses-Miamun," which appears to be Zoan, since it was on the seacoast.

      It was a very prosperous city when this letter was Titten, and a pa-khennu or "palace city." It had canals full of fish, lakes swarming with birds, fields of lentils, melons, wheat, onions and sosime, gardens of vines, almonds and figs. Ships entered its har- bor; the lotus and papyrus grew in its waters.

      The inhabitants greeted Rameses II with garlands of flowers. Be.sides wine and mead, of the "con- queror's city," beer was brought to the harbor from the Kati (in Cilicia), and oil from the "Lake Sagabi." There is no reason to suppose that Zoan was less prosperous in the early Hyksos age, when the Hebrews dwelt in its plain, whatever be the conclusion as to the date when the city Rameses received that name.

      The description above given agrees with the OT account of the possession given by Joseph to his family "in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses" (Gen 47 11).

      C. R. CONDER

    RABBAH, rab'a:
      Rhabbdth, 'Pap^iv, Rhabbdn. The full name is "^D? n?") ITS? , rabbalh b'ne ''ammon; "Rabbah of the children of Amnion"): This alone of the cities of the Am-monites is mentioned in Scripture, so we may take it as the most important.


      It is first named in connection with the "bed" or sarcophagus of Og, king of Bashan, which was said to be found here (Dt 3 11). It lay E. of the territory assigned to Gad (Josh 13 2.5). Whatever may have been its history in the interval, it does not appear again in Scripture till the time of David.

      This monarch sent an embassy of sympathy to King Hanun when his father Nahash died. The kindness was met by wanton insult, which led to the outbreak of war. The Ammonites, strengthened by Aramaean allies, were defeated by the Israelites under Joab, and took refuge in Rabbah.

      After David's defeat of the Aramaeans at Helam a year later, the Ammonites were exposed alone to the full force of Israel, the ark of the covenant being, carried with the troops. The country was ravaged and siege was laid to Peraea. In the 4th cent. AD, it ranked with Bostra and Gerasa as one of the great fortified cities of Coele-Syria (Ritter, Erdkunde, XV, ii, 11.54 f). It became the seat of a bishop. Abulfeda (1321 AD) says that Rabbah was in ruins at the time of the Moslem conquest.

      Rabbah is represented by the modern ^ Amman, a ruined site with extensive remains, chiefly from Rom times, some 14 miles N.E. of Heshbon, and about 22 miles E. of the .lordan. It Ues on the northern bank of WMy Am,man, a tributary of the upper Jabbok, in a well-watered and fruitful valley. Possibly the stream which rises here may be "the waters" referred to in 2 S 12 27. An- cient Rabbah may have stood on the hill now occu- pied by the citadel, a position easy of defence be- cause of its precipitous sides. The outer walls of

      Ruins at '.dtmmfln— Facade of Theatee.

      It was during this siege that Uriah the Hittite by David's orders was exposed "in the fore- front of the hottest battle" (2 S 11 15), where, treacherously deserted by his comrades, he was slain. How long the siege lasted we do not know; probably some years; but the end was in sight when Joab captured "the city of waters" (2 S 12 27).

      This may mean that he had secured control of the water supply. In the preceding verse he calls it the "royal city." By the chivalry of his general, David was enabled in person to enjoy the honor of taking the city. Among the booty secured was the crown of Melcom, the god of the Ammonites. Such of the inhabitants as survived he treated with great severity (2 S 12 26-31; 1 Ch 20 Iff).

      In the utterances of the prophets against Ammon, Rabbah stands for the people, as their most impor- tant, or perhaps their only important, city (Jer 49 2.3; Ezk21 20; 25 5; Ami 14). Jer 49 4 speaks of the "flowing valley" — a reference perhaps to the abundance of water and fruitfulness — and the treas- ures in which she gloried.

      Ezek 21:21 represents the king of Babylon at "the head of the two ways" deciding by means of the divining arrows whether he should march against Jerus or against Rabbah. Amos seems to have been impressed with the palaces of Rabbah.

      The city retained its importance in later times. It was captured by Ptolemy Philadelphus (28.5- 247 BC), who called it Philadelphia. It was a member of the league of ten cities. Antiochus the Great captured it by means of treachery (Polyb. V.71). Jos {BJ, III, iii, 3) names it as lying E. of

      the citadel appear to be very old; but it is quite impossible to say that anything Ammonite is now above ground. The citadel is connected by means of an underground passage with a large cistern or tank to the N., whence probably it drew its water- supply. This may be the passage mentioned in the account of the capture of the city by Antiochus.

      Colonnade at 'Amman.

      "It is," says Conder (Helh and Moab, 158), "one of the finest Rom towns in Syria, with baths, a theater, and an odeum, as well as several large pri- vate masonry tombs built in the valley probably in the 2d cent. The fortress on the hill, now surround- ing a considerable temple, is also probably of this same date.

      The church with two chapels farther N., and perhaps some of the tombs, must belong to a later age, perhaps the 4th cent. The fine mosque and the fine Moslem building on the citadel hill


      cannot be earlier than the 7th, and are perhaps as late as the Uth cent.; and we have thus relics of every building epoch except the Crusading, of which there appears to be no indication."

      The place is now occupied by Arabs and Cir- cassians who profit by the riches of the soil. It is brought into contact with the outside world by means of the Damascus-Hejaz Railway, which has a station here.

      (2) (nann, ha-rahbah; B, S(^(?7,/3a, Soihebd, A, 'A^e/3/3a, Arebbd): An unidentified city of Judah named along with Kiriath-j earim (Josh 15 (30).

      W. EWING

      RABBI, rab'i, rab'i (^3"), rabbi; papp£, rhabbi, or pa(3pe£, rhabbel): A term used by the Jews of their religious teachers as a title of respect, from 3T, rabh, "great,"' so "my great one" (cf Lat magister), once of masters of slaves, but later of teachers (Mt 23 7); therefore tr"' by 5i5dcr/caXos, diddskalos, "teacher" (Mt 23 8; Jn 1 38; cf ver 49).

      In AV frequently rendered "Master" (Mt 26 25.49; Mk 9 5; 11 21; 14 45; Jn 4 31; 9 2; 11 8). John the Baptist (Jn 3 26), as well as Christ, is addressed with the title (Jn 1 49; 6 25), both by disciples and others. Jesus forbade its use among His followers (Mt 23 8). Later (Galilean) form of same, Rabboni (q.v.). For Rabbinical literature see Talmud. Edward Bagby Pollard

    RABBITH, rab'ith
      'Pappcie, Rhabboth): A town in the territory of Issachar (Josh 19 20) which is probably represented today by Raba, a village in the southern part of the Gilboa range and N. of Ibzak. The ha is, of course, the def. art.

    RABBLE, rab el:
      This word is not found in AV. RV has it once as the tr of dyopatos, agoraios (ht. "lounger in the market place"), in Acts 17 5, where it replaces "baser sort" of AV. It has the common meaning of an unruly, lawless set who are ready to join a mob.

    RABBONI, rab-o'ni,
      "my great master" [Mk 10 51]; pappowt [WH -veC], rhabbouni [-net] [3n 2Q 16]). See Rabbi.

    RAB-MAG, rab'mag
      LXX as proper noun, 'Papa|xii9, Rhabamdth) : The name of one of the Bab princes who were present at the destruction of Jerus by Nebuchadnezzar, during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (Jer 39 3.13).

      The word is a compound, the two parts seemingly being in apposition and signifying tautologically the same thing. The last syllable or section of the word, 7yiaijh, was the designation among the Medes, Persians and Babylonians for priests and wise men.

      Its original significance was "great" or "powerful"; Gr fiiyas, megas, Lat magis, magnus. The first syllable, rabh, expresses practically the same idea, that of, or abundance in size, quantity, or power. Thus it might be interpreted the "all- wise" or "all-powerful" prince, the chief magician or physician. It is, therefore, a title and not a name, and is accordingly put in appositive relations to the proper name just preceding, as "Nergal-sharezer, the Rab-mag," tr"" fully, "Nergal-sharezer the chief prince or magician." See Nebgal-sharezer.

      In harmony with the commonly accepted view, the proper rendering of the text should be, "All the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, to wit, Nergal-sharezer, Samgar- nebo, Sarsechim, [the] Rab-saris, Nergal-sharezer, [the] Rab-mag" (Jer 39 3); and "so Nebuzaradari the captain of the guard sent, and Nebushazban, [the] Rab-saris, and Nergal-sharezer, [the] Rab-mag,

      and all the chief officers of the king of Babylon" (39 13). Walter G. Clippingek

      RAB-SARIS, rab'sa-ris (Di"lD"n"!, rab/i-jori?) : As with Rab-mag, which is not regarded as a name, but a title, so this is to be regarded as a descriptive title for the person whose name precedes it (see Rab-mag). The first part, rabh, signifies "great" or "chief," the second, sarl^, is the title for eunuch or chamberlain. The tr then would be chief eunuch or the chief of the eunuchs (or chamberlains).

      The oriental custom was for the king to surround him- self with a number of eunuclis, who performed varied kinds of services, both menial and dignified. They usuaUy had charge of his harem; sometimes they occu- pied court positions. Frequently they superintended the education of the youth. The term itself was sometimes used to designate persons in places of trust who were not emasculated. The above title describes the highest or chief in rank of these eunuchs. See Eunuch.

      The full title is used 3 t, once in connection with the titles of other important officers who were sent by the king of Assyria with a large army to demand the surrender of Jerus. The passage would be tr"* properly, 'And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan and the Rab-saris (the chief eunuch) and the Rab- shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah' (2 K 18 17). Again, it refers to a Babylonian whose real name was Sarsechim, who with the other Bab princes sat in the middle gate during the capture of Jerus. This event is described as having occm'red in the 11th year of Zedekiah, king of Judah (Jer 39 3). The third use is in connection with the name Ne- bushazban, who, with the other chief officers of the king of Babylon, sent and took Jeremiah out of the court of the guard and committed him to Gedaliah, who was to take him home to dwell with his own people (Jer 39 13).

      Thus it is seen that based upon this accepted theory the three titles would be in their connec- tions as follows: (1) simply "the chief eunuch,"

      (2) Sarsechim, the Rab-saris (or chief eunuch), and

      (3) Nebushazban, the Rab-saris (or chief eunuch). See also Assyria, X. Walter G. Clippinger

      RABSHAKEH, rab'sha-ke, rab-sha'ke (npfflai , rabhshakeh): A compound word, the first part, rabh, indicating "head" or "chief" (see Rab-mag; Rab-saris). The second part, which in the Aram., probably meant "cupbearer," had in this connection and elsewhere, according to later discoveries, an ex- tended significance, and meant chief officer, i.e. chief of the heads or captains.

      R. was one of the officers sent by Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, with the Tartan and the Rab- saris to demand the surrender of Jerus, which was under siege by the AssjT army (2 K 18 28.37; 19 4,8; Isa 36; 37 4.8). The three officers named went from Lachish to Jerus and appeared by the conduit of the upper pool. Having called upon King Hezekiah, his representatives Eliakim, the son of HiLkiah, Sheb- nah, the scribe, and Joah, the recorder, appeared. R. sent through them a message to the king in which he represented himself as the spokesman for the king of Assyria. He derided King Hezekiah in an insolent fashion in representing his trust in Egypt as a bruised reed which would pierce the hand. Likewise his confidence in Jeh was vain, for He also would be unable to deliver them. Then the officers of the king replied, requesting him to speak in the Syrian language which they understood, and not in the Jews' language which the people on the wall understood. This he refused to do, speaking still more loudly in order that they might hear and be persuaded. By bribery and appeal, by promise and by deception he exhorted them to turn traitor



      Rabbi Rachel

      to Hezekiah and surrender to him. The people, however,^ true to the command of Hezekiah (2 K 18 36), "held their peace, and answered him not a word. Afterward R. returned and "found the kmg of Assyria warring against Libnah" (2 K 19 8). From this description it is interred that R. was a man of considerable literary attainment, being atole,m all probability, to speak in three languages. He had, in addition to his official power, dauntless courage, an insolent spirit and a characteristic ori- ental disregard for veracity.

      Walter G. Clippinger RACA, ra'ka, ra-ka' (paKd, rhakd, WH with codd. K^BE, etc; paxa, rhachd, Tisch. with N* D; Aram. ^R"^"l, rekd', from p^"!, relf, "empty"): Vain or worthless fellow; a term of contempt used by the Jews in the time of Christ. In the Bible, it occurs in Mt 5 22 only, but John Lightfoot gives a num- ber of instances of the use of the word by Jewish writers {Hor. Heb., ed by Gandell, Oxford, 1859, II, 108). Chrysostom (who was acquainted with Syr as spoken in the neighborhood of Antioch) says it was equivalent to the Gr tv, su, "thou," used contemptu- ously instead of a man's name. Jerome rendered it inanis aul vacuus absque cerebro. It is generally explained as expressing contempt for a man's in- tellectual capacity (="you simpleton!"), while iMup^, more (tr'' "thou fool"), in the same verse is taken to refer to a man's moral and religious char- acter ( = "you rascal!" "you impious fellow!"). Thus we have three stages of anger, with three cor- responding grades of punishment: (1) the inner feehng of anger (dpyi^SiJievos, orgizdmenos), to be punished by the local or provincial court (xij Kpit^ei, It krisei, "the judgment"); (2) anger breaking forth into an expression of scorn (Raca), to be pun- ished by the Sanhedrin (t$ (TwtSpitp^ td sunedrlo, "the council"); (3) anger culminating in abusive and defamatory language {More), to be punished by the fire of Gehenna. This view, of a double climax, which has been held by foremost Eng. and Ger. commentators, seems to give the passage symmetry and gradation. But it is rejected among others by T. K. Cheyne, who, following J. P. Peters, rear- ranges the text by transferring the clause "and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council" to the end of the preceding verse {EB, IV, cols. 4001 f). There certainly does not seem to be trustworthy external evidence to prove that the terms "the judgment," "the council," "the Gehenna of fire" stand to each other in a rela- tion of gradation, as lower and higher legal courts, or would be so understood by Christ's hearers. What is beyond dispute is that Christ condemns the use of disparaging and in.sulting epithets as a supreme offence against the law of humanity, which belongs to the same category as murder itself. It should be added, however, that it is the underlying feeling and not the verbal expression as such that constitutes the sin. Hence Our Lord can, without any real inconsistency, address two of His followers as "foolish men" (Lk 24 25, dvhriToi, andeloi, practically equivalent to Raca,, as is also James's expression, "O vain man," Jas 2 20).

      D. MiALL Edwards RACAL, ra'kal P?"7, rdkhdl, "trader"): A place in Judah, enumerated among "the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt," to the elders of which he sent a share of his spoils (1 S 30 29). The LXX reading "Carmel" has been adopted, by many, because of the simi- larity of the words in Heb (5DT and b'QID) and because there was a Carmel in the neighborhood of Hebron (Josh 15 55; 1 S 15 12), which figures in the story of David's adventures when pursued by Saul (1 S 25) in a manner that makes it im-

      probable that he would overlook the place in his good fortune (AV "Rachal"). Nathan Isaacs

      RACE, i;as (f 11^ , merog; &.yiv, agon, Spifios, dromos). See Games, I, 2; II, 3.

      RACES, ras'iz. See Table of Nations.

      RACHAB, ra'kab ("Paxap, Rhachdb): AV; Gr form of "Rahab" (thus Mt 1 5 RV).

      RACHAL, ra'kal. See Racal.

      RACHEL, ra'chel (briT, rdhel, "ewe"; 'Pax^X, /JAac/ia [Gen 29 6; Jer 31 15, AV "Rahel")): An an- cestress of Israel, wife of Jacob, mother 1. Biog- of Joseph and Benjamin. Rachel was raphy the younger daughter of Laban, the

      Aramaean, the brother of Jacob's mother; so Rachel and Jacob were cousins. They met for the first time upon the arrival of Jacob at Haran, when attracted by her beauty he imme- diately fell in love with her, winning her love by his chivalrous act related in Gen 29 10 ff . Accord- ing to the custom of the times Jacob contracted with Laban for her possession, agreeing to serve him 7 years as the stipulated price (29 17-20). But when the time had passed, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel. When Jacob protested, Laban gave him Rachel also, on condition that Jacob serve 7 years more (29 21-29). To her great dismay "Rachel was barren" (Gen 29 30.31), while Leah had children. Rachel, envious of her sister, complained to Jacob, who reminded her that children are the gift of God. Then Rachel resorted to the expedient once employed by Sarah under similar circumstances (16 2 ff) ; she bade Jacob take her handmaid Bilhah, as a concubine, to "obtain children by her" (30 3). Dan and Naphtali were the offspring of this union. The evil of polygamy is apparent from the dismal rivalry arising between the two sisters, each seeking by means of children to win the heart of Jacob. In her eagerness to become a mother of children, Rachel bargained with Leah for the mandrakes, or love- apples of her son Reuben, but all to no avail (30 14) . Finally God heard her prayer and granted her her heart's desire, and she gave birth to her firstborn, whom she named Joseph (30 22-24) .

      Some years after this, when Jacob fied from Laban with his wives, the episode of the theft of the teraphim of Laban by Rachel, related in 31 19. 34.35, occurred. She hoped by securing the house- hold gods of her father to bring prosperity to her own new household. Though she succeeded by her cunning in conceaUng them from Laban, Jacob later, upon discovering them, had them put away (35 2-4). In spite of all, she continued to be the favorite of Jacob, as is clearly evidenced by 33 2, where we are told that he assigned to her the place of greatest safety, and by his preference for Joseph, her son. After the arrival in Canaan, while they were on the way from Beth-el to Ephrath, i.e. Beth- lehem, Rachel gave birth to her second Bon, Benja- min, and died (35 16 ff).

      In a marked manner Rachel's character shows the traits of her family, cunning and covetousness, so

      evident in Laban, Rebekah and Jacob. 2. Char- Though a beUever in the true God acter (30 6.8.22), she was yet given to the

      superstitions of her country, the wor- shipping of the teraphim, etc (31 19). The futility of her efforts in resorting to self-help and super- stitious expedients, the love and stronger faith of her husband (35 2-4), were the providential means of purifying her character. Her memory lived on

      Raddai Rain



      in Israel long after she died. In Ruth 4 11, the names of Rachel and Leah occur in the nuptial bene- diction as the foundresses of the house of Israel.

      Rachel's Tomb (bnn rTl3f5 fl?^'?, maQgebheth k'bhuratk rahel): In Gen 35 20 we read: "Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave: the same is the

      ■ --' '■




      '^ ** '^''^^HJ^^^l^




      ^K ^




      Rachel's Tomb.

      Pillar of Rachel's grave unto this day," i.e. the time of the writer. Though the pillar, i.e sepulchral monument, has long disappeared, the spot is marked until this day, and Christians, Jews and Moham- medans unite in honoring it. The present tomb, which, apparently, is not older than the 15th cent., is built in the style of the small-domed buildings raised by Moslems in honor of their saints. It is a rough structure of four square walls, each about 23 ft. long and 20 ft. high; the dome rising 10 ft. higher is used by Mohammedans for prayer, while on Fridays the Jews make supplication before the empty tomb within. It is doubtful, but probable, that it marks the exact spot where Rachel was buried. There are, apparently, two traditions as to the location of the place. The oldest tradition, based upon Gen 35 16-20; 48 7, points to a place one mile N. of Bethlehem and 4 miles from Jerus. Mt 2 18 speaks for this place, since the evangelist, reporting the slaughter of the innocents of Beth- lehem, represents Rachel as weeping for her chil- dren from her neighboring grave. But according to 1 S 10 2 fT, which apparently represents another tradition, the place of Rachel's grave was on the "border of Benjamin," near Beth-el, about 10 miles N. of Jerus, at another unknown Ephrath. This location, some believe, is corroborated by Jer 31 15, where the prophet, in relating the leading away of the people of Ramah, which was in Benjamin, into captivity, introduces Rachel the mother of that tribe as bewailing the fate of her descendants. Those that believe this northern location to be the place of Rachel's grave take the words, "the same is Beth-lehem," in Gen 35 19; 48 7, to be an in- correct gloss; but that is a mere assumption lack- ing sufficient proof.

      Mr. Nathan Strauss, of New York City, has purchased the land surrounding Rachel's grave for the purpose of erecting a Jewish university in the Holy Land.

      S. D. Press

      RAD DAI, rad'a-i, ra-da'I Clll , radday, "beating down"[?]): The .5th of the 7 sons of Jesse, father of David, according to 1 Ch 2 14 (LXX Alex, "Rhad- dal"; Luc, "Rhedai"; others, "Zaddal").

      RADIANT, ra'di-ant ("IlI: , nahar, "to sparkle," i.e. [fig.] be cheerful; hence [from the sheen of a

      running stream], to flow, i.e. [fig.] assemble; flow [together], be lightened): ARV substitutes the active "radiant" for the passive "were lightened" in Ps 34 5; Isa 60 5 (ERV, AV "flow together"). As the earth and moon, both being dark, face a com- mon sun and lighten each other, they are not only lightened, but radiant. So with the believers, "They looked unto him [Jeh], and were radiant." Thus nahar combines the two ideas of being lightened and jhming together. This appears, also, in a different connection, in Isa 60 5, "Then thou shalt see and be radiant." "It is liquid light — hght that ripples and sparkles and runs across the face; . . • ■ the light which a face catches from sparkling water" (G. A. Smith, Isaiah, II, 430). M. O. Evans

      RAFT, raft. See Ships and Boats, II, 1, (2).

      RAFTER, rafter (Cant 1 17). See Gallery; House.

      RAG: PI. in Prov 23 21, "Drowsiness will clothe a man with rags" (D''7"lp , kTa'im, "torn garment"; cf 1 K 11 30), and figuratively in Isa 64 6 AV, "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, " in the sense of "tattered clothing" ("33, beghedh, RV "garment"). In Jer 38 11,12 ARV translates n^no , s'habhah, as "rag" (AV, ERV "old cast clout")' while AV, ERV use "rotten rag" for nb^ , melah (ARV "worn-out garment"). Both ^'habhah and melah mean "worn out."

      RAGAU, ra'g6 ("Pa-yav [WH], "Pa^ai, Rhagau): AV; Gr form of "Reu" (thus RV) (Lk 3 35).

      RAGES, ra'jez, RAGAU, ra'go ("Rages," Tob

      1 14; 4 1,20; 5 5; 6 9.12; 9 2; ';Ragau," Jth

      1 5.15; 'Pa7aC, Rhagai, 'Pa"ya,, Rhdga,

      1. Location 'Pa-yT], Rhdge, 'Payai, Rhagau; in Da-

      rius' Behistun Inscriptions, II, 71,72, Raga, a province; in Avesta, Vend. I, 15, Ragha, city and province; perhaps, "the excellent") : In Eastern Media, one forced march from Caspian Gates, 11 days' journey from Ecbatana, 5i miles S. of present Tehran; the capital of the province of the same name, though by Ptolemy called Rhagiana.

      (1) Ancient. — A very ancient city, the tradi- tional birthplace of Zoroaster (Zarathustra; Pahlavi

      Vendidad, Zsd sparad XVI, 12, and

      2. History Dabistani Ma^ahib). In YasnaXlX,

      18, of the Avesta, it is thus mentioned: "The Zoroastrian, four-chief -possessing Ragha, hers are the royal chiefs, both the house-chief, the village-chief, and the town-chief: Zoroaster is the fourth." In Vend. I, 15: "As the tenth, the best of both districts and cities, I, who am Ahura Mazda, did create Ragha, which possesses the three class- es," i.e. fire-priests, charioteers, husbandmen. Later it was the religious center of magism. A large colony of captive Israelites settled there. Destroyed in Alexander's time, it was rebuilt by Seleucus Nicator (c 300 BC), who named it Europos. Later, Arsaces restored it and named it Arsacia.

      (2) Mediaeval. — In the early Middle Ages Ragha, then called Rai, was a great literary and often political center with a large population. It was the Ijirthplace of Hariin'al Rashid (763 AD). It was seized and plun- dered (1029 AD) by Sultan JSIahmud. but became Tugh- ril's capital. In the Vis o Ramln (c 1048 AD) it is an important place, 10 days' journey across the Kavir desert from Merv. It was a small provincial town in about 1200 AD. It was sacked by Mongols In 1220 AD and entirely destroyed under Ghazan Khan c 129.5. A Zoroastrian community lived there in 1278 AD, one of whom composed the Zaratusht-Namah.

      (3) Present condition. — Near the ruins there now stands the village of Shah ' Abditl ' Azim, connected with Tehran l)y the only railway in Persia' (opened in 188S).

      Literature, — Ptolemy, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny, Strabo; Ibnu'l Athir, Jimi'u 't Tawarikh, Tdrikhi



      Raddai Rain

      Jahan-gusha Yaqut; Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch; E. G. Browne, Literary Hist of Persia: modern travelers. W. St. Clair Tisdall RAGUEL, ra-gu'el ('Pavou^X, RhagouU): "The friend of God," of Ecbatana, the husband of Edna, father of Sarah, and father-in-law of Tobias (Tob 3 7.17; 6 10; 7 2f; 14 12). In 7 2 he is called cousin of Tobit, and in Tob 6 10 AV he is erro- neously represented as "cousin" of Tobias = "kins- man" in RV. In En 20 4 Raguel appears as one of the archangels, perhaps by confusion for Raphael (Tob 3 17). Another form of the name is Reuel (q.v.).

      RAGUEL, ra-gu'el, rag'a-el (bSWl, r"u'el; LXX RhagouU) : The Midianite hothen, i.e. either father-in-law or brother-in-law of Moses (Nu 10 29 AV, RV "Reuel"), the father of Hobab, called a Ken- ite, who is likewise described as a hothen of Moses (Jgs 4 11). See Relationships, Family. Moses' wife's father is called r^'u'cHn Ex 2 ISwhereLucian reads "lothor" and EV "Reuel," which translitera- tion is adopted in RV in Nu 10 29 also. In other passages the hothen of Moses is called "Jether" or "Jethro." Among the harmonizations suggested the following are worthy of consideration : (a) that all are names or perhaps titles of one man (Rashi) ; (5) that Reuel was the father of Hobab and Jethro, that Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses, and that the word "father" is used for grandfather in Ex 2 18; (c) that Reuel was the father-in-law and Jethro and Hobab brothers-in-law; (d) that either Reuel or Hobab is to be identified with Jethro. None of these views is free from difficulty, nor is the view of those who would give Jethro as the name in E and Reuel as that in J and JE. See also Reuel. Nathan Isaacs

      RAHAB, ra'hab:

      (1) (3nn , rahabh, "broad"; in Jos, Ant, V, i, 2, 7, 'Pa'xa/3, Rhdchah; He 11 31 and Jas 2 25, 'Pda^, Rhdab): A zondh, that is either a "harlot," or, according to some, an "innkeeper" in Jericho (LXX irbprn, pome, "harlot"). The two spies sent by Joshua from Shittim came into her house and lodged there (Josh 2 1). She refused to betray them to the king of Jericho, and when he demanded them, she hid them on the roof of her house with stalks of flax that she had laid in order to dry. She pretended that they had escaped before the shutting of the gate, and threw their pursuers off their track. She then told the spies of the fear that the coming of the Israelites had caused in the minds of the Canaanites — "Our hearts did melt .... for Jeh your God, he is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath" — and asked that the men promise to spare her father, mother, brothers and sisters, and all that they had. They promised her to spare them provided they would remain in her house and provided she would keep their business secret. Thereupon she let them down by a cord through the window, her house being built upon the town wall, and gave them directions to make good their escape (Josh 2 1-24). True to their promise, the Israelites under Joshua spared Rahab and her family (Josh 6 16 ff AV) ; "And," says the author of Josh, "she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day. Her story appealed strongly to the imagination of the people of later times. He 11 31 speaks of her as having been saved by faith; James, on the other hand, in demonstrating that a man is justified by works and not by faith only, curiously chooses the same example (Jas 2 25). Jewish tradition has been kindly disposed toward Rahab ; one hy- pothesis goes so far as to make her the wife of Joshua himself (Jew Enc, s.v.). Naturally then the other tr of zonah, deriving it from zun, "to feed,

      instead of zandh, "to be a harlot," has been pre- ferred by some of the commentators.

      (2) ('Pixa/3, Rhdchah): Jos, Ant, V, 1, 2, 7, so spells the name of (1) (LXX and NT contra). "The wife of Salmon and mother of Booz (Boaz) accord- ing to the genealogy in Mt 1 5. Query, whether there was a tradition identifying (1) and (2); see Lightfoot, Horae Heb on Mt 1 5.

      (3) (3nT, rahabh, lit. "storm," "arrogance"): A mythical sea-monster, probably referred to in several passages where the word is tr"' as a common noun "pride" (Job 9 13), "the proud" (Job 26 12; cf Ps 89 10) . It is used in parallelism with tannin, "the dragon" (Isa 51 9). It is most familiar as an emblem of Egypt, 'the boaster that sitteth still' (Isa 30 7; Ps 87 4; cf 89 10). The Talm in Babha' Bathra' speaks of rahabh as sar ha-yam, "master of the sea." See also Astronomy.

      Nathan Isaacs RAHAM, ra'ham (Dn"! , raham, "pity," "love"): Son of Shema, and father of Jorkeam (1 Ch 2 44).

      RAHEL, ra'hel (Jer 31 15 AV). See Rachel.

      RAID, rad (1 S 27 10). See War, 3.

      RAIL, ral, RAILING, ral'ing, RAILER, ral'er: To "rail" on (in modern usage "against") anyone is to use insolent or reproachful language toward one. It occurs in the OT as the tr of D'^n , haraph (2 Ch 32 17, "letters to rail on Jeh"), and of t3i? , Ht (1 S 25 14, of Nabal, "he railed at them," ERV "flew upon them," m "railed on"). In the NT "to rail" is the tr of ^'Ka.acp-qixita, blasphemed (Mk 15 29; Lk 23 39; "railing," 1 Tim 6 4; 2 Pet 2 11; Jude ver 9). The word loidoria, rendered "railing" in 1 Pet 3 9 AV, is in RV "re- vihng," and loldoros, "railer," in 1 Cor 5 11 is in RV "reviler." See also Raca. W. L. Walker

      RAIMENT, ra'ment. See Dress.

      RAIMENT, SOFT (H.a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aK6s,ma;afc(5.s): In Mt 11 8 EV, where Jesus, speaking of John the Baptist, asks "What went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment ?" where "raiment," though implied, is not expressed in the best text, but was probably added from Lk 7 25 [|. It is equivalent to "ele- gant clothing," such as courtiers wore, as shown by the words following, "Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in kings' houses." John had bravely refused to play courtier and had gone to prison for it. In the early days of Herod the Great some scribes who attached themselves to him laid aside their usual plain clothing and wore the gorgeous raiment of courtiers (Jost, in Plumptre).

      Geo. B. Eager

      RAIN, ran ("lUp , matar, Arab. Jax, malar,

      "rain," Oip.?, geshem, "heavy rain," rT1113 , moreh, "early rain," iTl'T' , yoreh, "former 1. Water- rain," iB'lpb'O , malkosh, "latter rain"; Supply in ppix<"i brecho, ierds, huetds) : In Egypt and Egypt there is little or no rainfall, the Palestine water for vegetation being supplied in great abundance by the river Nile; but in Syria and Pal there are no large rivers, and the people have to depend entirely on the fall of rain for water for themselves, their animals and their fields. The children of Israel when in Egypt were promised by Jeh a land which "drinketh water of the rain of heaven" (Dt 11 11). Springs and fountains are found in most of the valleys, but the flow of the springs depends directly on the fall of rain or snow in the mountains.

      Rain Ramah



      The cultivation of the land in Pal is practically

      dry farming in most of the districts, but even then

      some water is necessary, so that there

      2. Impor- may be moisture in the soil. In the tance of summer months there is no rain, so Rain in that the rains of the spring and fall Season seasons are absolutely essential for

      starting and maturing the crops. The lack of this rain in the proper time has often been the cause of complete failure of the harvest. A sniall difference in the amount of these seasonal rains makes a large difference in the possibility of growing various crops without irrigation. Ells- worth Huntington has insisted on this point with great care in his very important work. Pal ayid Its Transformation. The promise of prosperity is given in the assurance of "rain in due season" (Lev 26 4AV). The withholding of rain according to the prophecy of EUjah (1 K 17 1) caused the mountain streams to dry up (1 K 17 7), and cer- tain famine ensued. A glimpse of the terrible suffering for lack of water at that time is given us. The people were uncertain of another meal (1 K 17 12), and the animals were perishing (1 K 18 5). Pal and Syria are on the borderland between the sea and the desert, and besides are so mountainous,

      that they not only have a great range

      3. Amount of rainfall in different years, but a of Rainfall great variation in different parts of the


      The amount of rain on tile western slopes is compar- able with that in England and America, varying from 25 to 40 in. per annum, but it falls mostly in the four winter months, when the downpour is often very heavy, giving oftentimes from 12 to 16 in. in a month. On the eastern slopes it is much less, varying from 8 to 20 in. per annum. The highest amount faUs in the mountains of Lebanon where it averages about 50 in. In Beirut the yearly average is 35.87 in. As we go S. from Syria, the amount decreases (Haifa 27.75 JaCFa 22.39, Gaza 17.61), while in the Sinaitic Penin- sula there is little or none. Going from W. to E. the change is much more sudden, owing to the mountains which stop the clouds. In Damascus the average is less than 10 in. In Jems the average for 50 years is 26. 16 in., and the range is from 13.39 in 1870 to 41 .62 In 1897. The yearly records as given by J. Glaisher and A. Datzi in PEFQ from 1861 to 1910, 60 years, are given in the accompanying table.










      1878. ..


      1895 . . .


      1862. . . .


      1879. ..


      1896. . .



      26 . 54



      1897 . . .




      1881. . .

      16 . 50

      1898 . . .




      1882. . .


      1899. . .




      1883. . .


      1900. . .


      1867. . . .


      1884. . .

      23 . 96

      1901. . .




      1885. . .


      1902. . .




      1886 . . .


      1903. ..


      1870. . . .


      1887.. .


      1904. . .



      23 . 57

      1888. . .


      1905 . . .




      1889. . .


      1906. . .




      1890. . .


      1907. . .



      29 . 75

      1891. . .


      1908. ..


      1875. . . .


      1892. . .


      1909. . .




      1893. . .

      30 . 54

      1910. . .


      1877 ....


      1894. . .


      The amount of rainfall in ancient times was probably about the same as in present times, though it may have been distributed somewhat differently through the year, as suggested by Huntington. Conder maintains that the present amount would have been sufficient to support the ancient cities (Tent-Work in Pal). Trees are without doubt fewer now, but meteorologists agree that trees do not produce rain.

      The rainfall is largely on the western slopes of the mountains facing the sea, while on the eastern slopes there is very little. The moisture-laden air comes up from the sea with the west and southwest

      wind. When these currents strike the hills they are thrown higher up into the cooler strata, and

      the moisture condenses to form clouds 4. Dry and and rain which increases on the higher Rainy Sea- levels. Having passed the ridge of the sons hills, the currents descend on the other

      side to warmer levels, where the mois- ture is easily held in the form of vapor so that no rain falls and few clouds are seen, except in the cold mid-winter months.

      The summer months are practically rainless, with very few clouds appearing in the sky. From May

      1 to the middle of October one can be sure of no rain; "The winter is past; the rain is over" (Cant

      2 11), so many sleep on the roofs of the houses or in tents of leaves and branches in the fields and vine- yards throughout the summer. The continuous hot droughts make the people appreciate the springs and fountains of fresh running water and the cool shade of rock and tree.

      The rainy season from October to May may be divided into three parts, the former, the winter, and the latter rains, and they are often referred to under these names in the OT.

      The "former rains" are the showers of October and the first part of November. They soften the parched ground so that the winter grain may be sown before the heavy continuous rains set in. The main bulk of the rain falls in the months of December, January and February. Although in these months the rains are frequent and heavy, a dark, foggy day is seldom seen. The "latter rains" of April are the most highly appreciated, because they ripen the fruit and stay the drought of summer. They were considered a special blessing: Jeh "will come .... as the latter rain that watereth the earth" (Hos 6 S); "They opened their mouth wide as for the latter rain" (Job 29 23); and as a reason for worshipping Jeh who sent them, "Let us now fear Jeh our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in its season" (Jer 5 24).

      The rain storms always come from the sea with a west or southwest wind. The east wind is a hot wind and the "north wind driveth away rain" (Prov 25 23 AV). "Fair weather cometh out of the north" (Job 37 22 AV).

      The Psalmist recognizes that the "showers that water the earth" (Ps 72 6) ere among the choicest blessings from the hand of Jeh: "The 6. Biblical early rain covereth it with blessings" Uses (Ps 84 6). The severest punishment

      of Jeh was to withhold the rain, as in the time of Ahab and Elijah, when the usual rain did not fall for three years (1 K 17); "the anger of Jeh be kindled against you, and he shut up the heavens, so that there shall be no rain, and the land shall not yield its fruit; and ye perish quickly" (Dt 11 17). Too much rain is also a punishment, as witness the flood (Gen 7 4) and the plague of rain and hail (Ezr 10 9). Sending of rain was a reward for worship and obedience: "Jeh will open unto thee his good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand" (Dt 28 12). Jeh controls the elements and commands the rain: "He made a decree for the rain" (Job 28 26) ; "For he saith to the snow. Fall thou on the earth; likewise to the shower of rain" (Job 37 6).

      Literature. — PEFQ; meteorological observations from the Dead Sea, Jerus. Jaffa and Tiberias; various observers; Zeitscfirift des deutschen PaUstina-Vereins; H. Hilderscheid, Die NiederscMagsverlialtnisse Paldstinaa in alter and nener Zeit: C. R. Conder, Tent-Work in Pal: Edward Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai and Western Pal; Ellsworth Huntington, Pal and Its Transformation: bul- letin of the Syrian Protestant College Observatory, Meteorological Observations in Beirut and Syria.

      Alfred H. Jot



      Rain Kamah

      RAINBOW, ran 'bo (f11B|? , besheth, tr-i "a bow"; Ipis, Iris, "rainbow"): As most of the rainfall in Pal is in the form of short heavy showers it is often accompanied by the rainbow. Most beautiful double bows are often seen, and occasionally the moon is bright enough to produce the bow. It is rather remarkable that there are so few references to the rainbow in the Bible. The Heb kesheth is the ordinary word for a bow, there being no special word for rainbow.

      The interpretation of the significance of the bow in the sky is given at the close of the story of the flood, where it is called "the token of the covenant" of Jeh with Noah that there should be no more flood : "Idoset my bowin thecloud, .... and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh" (Gen 9 13.15). This addition to the story of the flood is not found in other mythical accounts. The foundation for the interpretation of the bow in this way seems to be that while His bow is hung in the sky God must be at peace with His people. The glory of God is likened to "the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain" (Ezk 1 28). The rainbow forms a striking part of the vision in Rev 4 3: "And there was a rainbow round about the throne." Alfred H. Joy

      RAISE, raz: "To raise" in the OT is most fre- quently the tr of the Hiphil form of Qlp , kum, "to cause to arise," e.g. raising up seed (Gen 38 8), a prophet (Dt 18 18), judges (Jgs 2 16.18), etc; also of I^J', 'ur, "to awake," "stir up" (Ezr 1 5 AV; Isa 41 2, etc), with other words. In the NT the chief words are iyeipa, egelro, "to awaken," "arouse" (Mt 3 9; Lk 1 69; 3 8, etc),_ frequently of raising the dead; and avicrTiitiL, anistemi (Mt 22 24; Jn 6 39, etc; Acts 2 24 [30 AV], etc), with compounds of the former. Among the RV changes may be noted, "to stir the fire" for "from raising" (Hos 7 4); "raiseth high his gate" for "exalteth his gate" (Prov 17 19); ARV, "can it be raised from the roots thereof" for "pluck it up by the roots thereof" (Ezk 17 9 AV and ERV)^ "raised up" for "rise again" (Mt 20 19; cf Mt 26 32; Rom 8 34; Col 3 1). W. L. Walker

      RAISIN-CAKES, ra'z'n-kaks: RV gives this rendering for AV "foundations" in Isa 16 7 (Heb 'ikhishah from 'ashash, "to found," "make firm," "press"). The trade in these would cease through the desolation of the vineyards. For AV "flagons of wine" in Hos 3 1, RV gives "cakes of raisins," such as were offered to the gods of the land, the givers of the grape (cf Cant 2 5). See next article.

      RAISINS, ra'z'nz: (1) D"'p^T3? , Qimmukim; irra- (pldes, slaphldes, tr^ "dried grapes," Nu 6 3; mentioned in all other references as a portable food for a march or journey. Abigail supplied David with "a hundred clusters of rai.sins," among other things, in the wilderness of Paran (1 S 25 18); David gave two clusters of raisins to a starving Egyp slave of the Amalekites at Besor (30 12); raisins formed part of the provision brought to David at Hebron for his army (1 Ch 12 40); Ziba supplied David, when flying from Absalom, with a hundred clusters of raisins (2 S 16 1). (2) riTp'^lBX, 'as/iwAa/i, something "pressed together," hence & "cake." In Hos 3 1, mention is made of O"^??? "'T!?''!?!* , 'ashishe 'anahhim (t^/x- jiara fierd. a-ra^ldos, pemmata metd staphidos), "cakes of raisins": "Jeh loveth the children of Israel, though they turn unto other gods, and love [m "or them that love"] cakes of raisins." These are supposed to have been cakes of dried, com- pressed grapes offered to false gods. Gratz con-

      siders that the Heb words are a corruption of 'Asherim Skudhammanim ("sun.ima.ges"). Cf Isa 17 8; 27 9. In other passages "cakes" stands alone without "rai.sins," but the tr "cakes of raisins" is given in 2 S 6 19; 1 Ch 16 3; Cant 2 5 (AV "flagons"); Isa 16 7 m "foundations."

      Raisins are today, as of old, prepared in con- siderable quantities in Pal, e.sp. at es-Sall, E. of the Jordan. The bunches of grapes are dipped in a strong solution of potash before being dried.

      E. W. G. Masterman

      RAKEM, ra'kem (Dl?"! , rakem, the pausal form of DJ31 , rekem) : The eponym of a clan of Machir (1 Ch'7 16). See Rekem.

      RAKKATH, rak'ath (np.l , rakhilh; B, 'rinaea- 8aK^6, Omaihadaketh, A, 'P«KKde, Rhekkdlh): The Gr is obviously the result of confusing the two names Rakkath and Hammath, taking r in the former for d. Rakkath was one of the fortified cities in Naphtali (Josh 19 35), It is named be.- tween Hammath and Chinnereth. Hammath is identified with the hot baths to the S. of Tiberias. There are traces of ancient fortifications here. The rabbis think that Tiberias was built on the site of Rakkath. Certain it is that Herod's town was built upon an ancient site, the graves of the old inhabitants being disturbed in digging the new foundations (Neubauer, Giog. du Talm, 208).

      W. EwiNG

      RAKKON, rak'on ("Ip'iri, ha-rakkon; 'IcpaKiuv, Hierdkon). See Me-Jabkon.

      RAM, ram (D"J , rmn, "high," "exalted"):

      (1) An ancestor of David (Ruth 4 19 [' Appiv, Arrdn]; Mt 1 3.4 ['ApdM, Ardm]); in 1 Ch 2 9 he is called the "brother," but in ver 25, the "son of Jerahmeel" (cf ver 27). Ram as the son of Hezron appears more likely than Ram the son of Jerahmeel, since, according to the narratives of 1 and 2 S, David cannot have been a Jerahmeelite.

      (2) Name of Elihu's family (Job 32 2). It is an open question as to whether Ram should be taken as a purely fictitious name, invented by the author of the Elihu speeches, or whether it is that of some obscure Arab tribe. In Gen 22 21 Aram is a nephew of Buz (cf Elihu the Buzite), and the con- jecture was at one time advanced that Ram was a contraction of Aram; but this theory is no longer held to be tenable. The suggestion that the initial a (X) has been changed by a scribal error into h (H) is more acceptable. Rashi, the rabbinical com- mentator, takes the quaint position that Ram is identical with Abraham. Horace J. Wolf

      RAM, ram: (1) The ordinary word is 5''S , 'ayil, which is remarkably near to b^'X , 'ayyal, "deer" (cf Lat caper, capra, "goat," and capreolus, "wild goat" or "roe-buck"; also Gr Sop/cds, dorkds, "roe-buck" or "gazelle"). (2) "I?"? > d'khdr, lit. "male" (Ezr 6 9.17; 7 17). (3) 13, kar, "bat- tering ram" (Ezk 4 2; 21 22); elsewhere "lamb" (Dt 32 14, etc). (4) l^H? , 'alludh, properly "he- goat" ("ram," Gen 31 10.12 AV). See Sheep.

      RAM, BATTERING. See Siege.

      RAMA, ra'ma ("Paixa, /^/lamd) : AV; Gr form of Ramah (q.v.) (Mt 2 18).

      RAMAH, ra'ma (Hiann , ha-rdindh, without the def . art. only in Neh 11 '33; Jer 31 15): The name denotes height, from root UT\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\,.rum, "to be high," and the towns to which it applied seem all to have stood on elevated sites.

      Ramah Ramoth-Gilead



      (1) B, 'Apa-^X, Arael, A, 'Pa/id, Rhamd: A fenced city in the lot assigned to Naphtali (Josh 19 36). Only in this passage is the place referred to. It is probably identical with the modern er-Rameh, a large Christian village on the highway from Safed to the coast, about 8 miles W.S.W. of that city. To the N. rises the mountain range which forms the southern boundary of Upper Galilee. In the valley to the S. there is much rich land cultivated by the villagers. The olives grown here are very fine, and fruitful vineyards cover many of the surrounding slopes. No remains of antiquity are to be seen above ground; but the site is one likely to have been occupied in ancient times.

      (2) "Paixa, Rhamd: A city that is mentioned only once, on the boundary of Asher (Josh 19 29). The line of the boundary cannot be followed with certainty; but perhaps we may identify Ramah with the modern Rdmiyeh, a village situated on a hill which rises in the midst of a hollow, some 13 miles S.E. of Tjtc, and 12 miles E. of the Ladder of Tyre. To the S.W. is a marshy lake which dries up in summer. Traces of antiquity are found in the cisterns, a large reservoir and many sarcophagi. To the W. is the high hill BelSt, with ancient ruins, and remains of a temple of which several columns are still in situ.

      (3) B, "Paij.d, Rhamd, A, 'Iati,d, lamd, and other forms: A city in the territory of Benjamin named between Gibeon and Beeroth (Josh 18 25). The Levite thought of it as a possible resting-place for himself and his concubine on their northward jour- ney (Jgs 19 13). The palm tree of Deborah was between this and Bethel (Jgs 4 5). Baasha, king of Samaria, sought to fortify Ramah against Asa, king of Judah. The latter frustrated the attempt, and carried off the materials which Baasha had collected, and with them fortified against him Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah (1 K 15 17; 2 Ch 16 5). Here the captain of Nebuchadnezzar's guard released Jeremiah after he had been carried in bonds from Jerus (Jer 40 1). It figures in Isaiah's picture of the Assyrians' approach (10 29). It is named by Hosea in connection with Gibeah (5 8), and is mentioned as being reoccupied after the exile (Ezr 2 26; Neh 7 30). It was near the traditional tomb of Rachel (Jer 31 15; cf 1 S 10 2; Mt 2 18, AV "Rama").

      From the passages cited we gather that Ramah lay some distance to the N. of Gibeah, and not far from Gibeon and Beeroth. The first is identified with Tell el-Fcd, about 3 miles N. of Jerus. Two miles farther N. is er-Ram. Gibeon {el-Jih) is about 3 miles W. of er-Ram, and Beeroth {el- Bireh) is about 4 miles to the N. Onom places Ramah 6 Rom miles N. of Jerus; while Jos (Ant, VIII, xii, 3) says it lay 40 furlongs from the city. All this points definitely to identification with er- Ram. The modern village crowns a high limestone hill to the S. of the road, a position of great strength. W. of the village is an ancient reservoir. In the hill are cisterns, and a good well to the S.

      (4) ' kpaixaBalfj., Aramathaim: The home of Elkanah and Hannah, and the birthplace of Sam- uel (1 S 1 19; 2 11, etc). In 1 S 1 1 it is called "Ramathaim-zophim" (D''B13Z D'^rTQ'in , ha^rdma- thaymi-gophlm) . The phrase as it stands is grammatically incorrect, and suggests tampering with the text. It might possibly be tr"' "Rama- thaim of the Zuphiles." It was in Mt. Ephraim, within accessible distance of Shiloh, whither Sam- uel's parents went up from year to year to wor- ship and to sacrifice (1 3). From Ramah as a center Samuel went on circuit annually, to judge Israel, to Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah (7 16 f). It is very probable that this is the city in which.

      guided by his servant, Saul first made the ac- quaintance of Samuel (9 6.10), where there was a high place (ver 12). Hither at all events came the elders of Israel with their demand that a king should be set over them (8 4 f). After his final break with Saul, Samuel retired in sorrow to Ramah (15 34 f). Here, in Naioth, David found asylum with Samuel from the mad king (19 18, etc), and hence he fled on his ill-starred visit to Nob (20 1). In his native city the dust of the dead Samuel was laid (26 1; 28 3). In 1 Mace 11 34 it is named as one of the three toparohies along with Aphaerema and Lydda, which were added to Judaea from the country of Samaria in 145 BC. Onom places it near Diospolis (Euseb.) in the district of 'Tlmnah (Jerome).

      There are two serious rivals for the honor of representing the ancient Ramah. (a) Beit Rlma, a village occupying a height 13 miles E.N.E. of Lydda (Diospolis), 12 miles W. of Shiloh, and about the same distance N.W. of Bethel. This identifi- cation has the support of G. A. Smith {HGHL, 254), and Buhl {GAP, 170). (6) Ramallah, a large and prosperous village occupying a lofty position with ancient remains. It commands a wide pros- pect, esp. to the W. It lies about 8 miles N. of Jerus, 3 W. of Bethel, and 12 S.W. of Shiloh. The name meaning "the height" or "high place of God" may be reminiscent of the high place in the city where Saul found Samuel. In other respects it agrees very well with the Bib. data.

      Claims have also been advanced on behalf of Ramleh, a village 2 miles S.W. of Lydda, in the plain of Sharon. This, however, is out of the question, as the place did not exist before Arab times. Others support identification with Neby Samwll, which more probably represents the an- cient Mizpah (q.v.).

      (5) Ramah of the South, AV "Ramath of the South": Ramath is the construct form of Ramah (Josh 19 8) (335 n^t*"?, ra'math neghehh; BoMeS Kara Xi/Sa, Bdmeth katd liba). A city in that part of the territory of Judah which was allotted to Simeon. It stands here in apposition to Baalath-beer, and is probably a second name for the same place. It seema to correspond also with "Ramoth [pi.] of the South" (1 S 30 27), a place to which David sent a share of the spoil taken from the Amalekites. In this passage LXX retains the sing, form, Rhamd ndtou. Identification has been suggested with Kubbet el-Baul about 37 miles S. of Hebron; and with Kurnub a little farther S. There is no sub- stantial ground for either identification.

      (6) B, ", Rhemmoth, A, 'Vafj.di9, Rhamoth: Ramah in 2 K 8 29; 2 Ch 22 6, is a contraction of Ramoth-gilead. W. Ewinq

      RAMATH, ra'math, OF THE SOUTH (Josh 19 8 AV). See Ramah, (5).

      RAMATH-LEHI, ra'math-le'hl (Tib niOn , ra- math lehl, "the hill" or "height of Lehi"; 'Ava(pe(ris o-iaYovos, Anairesis siagonos) : So the place is said to have been called where Samson threw away the jaw-bone of an ass, with which he had slain 1,000 Philis (Jgs 15 17). LXX seems to have supposed that the name referred to the "heaving" or throwing up of the jaw-bone. The Heb, how- ever, corresponds to the form used in other place- names, such as Ramath-mizpeh, and must be read as "Ramah of Lehi." The name Lehi may have been given because of some real or imagined like- ness in the place to the shape of a jaw-bone (Jgs 15 9.14.19). It may have been in Wady es-Sarar, not far from Zorah and Timnath; but the available data do not permit of certain identification. See Jaw-bone; Lehi. W. Ewing



      Ramah Ramoth-Gilead

      RAMATH-MIZPEH, ra'mat,h-miz'pe (n^T nSJ/Qn , ramalh ha-miQpeh; B, 'ApaPol)9 Karot tt]v Ma(ra, Rhamolh .... Masphd) : A place mentioned in Josh 13 26 in a statement of the boundary of Gad, between Heshbon and Betonim. It may possibly be identical with Mizpah, (1).

      RAMATHAIM, ra-ma-tha'im (1 Mace 11 34; AV Ramathem, ram'a-themj. See Ramah, (4).

      RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM, ra-ma-tha'im-zo'fim. See Ramah, (4).

      RAMATHITE, ra'math-it CPann , ha-ramalhl; B, 6 Ik "Pa.-i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\K, ho ek Rhael, A, 6 'Pa|ia9aios, ho Rha- mathaios) : So Shimei is called who was set by David over the vineyards (1 Ch 27 27). There is nothing to show to which Ramah he belonged.

      RAMESES, ram'6-sez, ra-me'sez. See Raamses.

      RAMIAH, ra-ml'a (n^UT , ramyah, "Jeh hath loosened" or "Jeh is high"): One of the Israelites, of the sons of Parosh, mentioned in the register of those who had offended in the matter of foreign marriages (Ezr 10 25). The form of the name in 1 Esd (9 26), "Hiermas," presupposes a Heb form y^remyah or possibly 2/'rm''!/a/i"= "Jeremiah."

      RAMOTH, ra'moth:

      (1) niliST, ra'moth; v 'Pa/iwfl, he Rhamolh: A city in the territory of Issachar assigned to the Gershonite Levites (1 Ch 6 73), mentioned be- tween Daberath and Anem. It seems to corre- spond to "Remeth" in Josh 19 21, and to "Jar- muth" in 21 29, and is possibly identical with er-Rameh about 11 miles S.W. of Jenm.

      (2) Ramoth of the South. See Ramah, (5).

      (3) Ramoth in Gilead. See Ramoth-gilead.

      RAMOTH, ra'moth (ni^T , ramoth, K=re for yremoth [Ezr 10 29 AV); RVm Knhlbh makes the name similar to those in vs 26.27): One of the offenders in the matter of foreign marriages. ERV and ARV, adopting KHhibh, read Jeremoth (q.v.)-

      RAMOTH (Job 28 18 AVm). See Stones, Pre- cious.

      RAMOTH-GILEAD, ra'moth-gil'6-ad (nbn nyba , ramoth gil'adh; B, "P6(i|jid9 TaXadS, Rhemmdth Gaiadd, A, 'Pa|i(ii69, Rhammoth, and other forms) : A great and strong city E. of the Jordan in the terri- tory of Gad, which played an important part in the wars of Israel. It is first mentioned in con- nection with the appointment of the Cities of Refuge (Dt 4 43; Josh 20 8). It was assigned to the Merarite Levites (Josh 21 38; 1 Ch 6 80). In these four pa.ssages it is called "Ramoth in Gilead" (nybaa 'l, ramoth ba-gil'ddh). This form is given wrongly by AV in 1 K 22 3. In all other places the form "Ramoth-gilead" is used.

      Here Ben-geber was placed in charge of one of Solomon's administrative districts (1 K 4 13), which included Havvoth-jair and "the 1. History region of Argob, which is in Bashan." The city was taken from Omri by the Syrians under Ben-hadad I (Ant, VIII, xv, 3 ff), and even after the defeat of Ben-hadad at Aphek they remained masters of this fortress. In order to recover it for Israel Ahab invited Jehoshaphat of Judah to accompany him in a campaign. Despite

      the discouragement of Micaiah, the ro.val pair set out on the disastrous enterprise. In their attack on the city Ahab fought in disguise, but was mor- tally wounded by an arrow from a bow drawn "at a venture" (1 K 22 1-40; 2 Ch 18). The at- tempt was renewed by Ahab's son Joram; but his father's ill fortune followed him, and, heavily wounded, he retired for healing to Jezreel (2 K 8 28 ff; 2 Ch 22 5f). During the king's absence from the camp at Ramoth-gilead Jehu was there anointed king of Israel by Elisha (2 K 9 1 ff ; 2 Ch 22 7). He proved a swift instrument of ven- geance against the doomed house of Ahab. Accord- ing to Jos (Ant, IX, vi, 1) the city was taken before Joram's departure. This is confirmed by 2 K 9 14 ff. The place is not mentioned again, unless, indeed, it be identical with "Mizpeh" in 1 Mace 5 35.

      It is just possible that Ramoth-gilead corre- sponds to Mizpah, (1), and to Ramath-mizpeh. The spot where Laban and Jacob 2. Identi- parted is called both Galeed and fication Mizpah. Ramath may become Ra-

      moth, as we see in the case of Ramah of the South.

      Merrill identifies the city with Jerash, the splen- did ruins of which lie in Wddy ed-Deir, N. of the Jabbok. He quotes the Bab Talm (Makkoth 96) as placing the Cities of Refuge in pairs, so that those on the E. of the Jordan are opposite those on the W. Shechem, being the middle one of the three W. of the Jordan, should have Ramoth-gilead nearly opposite to it on the E., and this would place its site at Gerasa, the modern Jerash (HDB, s.v.). But the words of the Talm must not be interpreted too strictly. It seems very probable that Golan lay far S. of a line drawn due E. from Kedes (Ke- desh-naphtali). No remains have been discovered at Jerash older than Gr-Rom times, although the presence of a fine perennial spring makes occupa- tion in antiquity probable. The place could be approached by chariots along Wddy ''Ajlun, and the country adjoining was not unsuitable for chariot evolutions.

      Conder and others have suggested Reimun, an ancient site to the W. of Jerash. The absence of any source of good water-supply is practically fatal to this identification. Buhl (GAP, 261 ff) favors el-JiVdd, a ruined site on a hill S. of the Jabbok; see Gilead, (1). Eusebius and Jerome (Onom, s.v.) contradict each other, the former placing Ramoth-gilead 15 miles W., and the latter 15 miles E. of Philadelphia. It is clear, however, that this is a mere slip on Jerome's part, as both say it is near the Jabbok. Many have identified it with es-Salt, which is indeed 15 miles W. of 'Amman (Philadelphia), but it is 10 miles S. of the Jabbok, and so can hardly be described as near that river. It is also no place for chariot warfare. The case against identification with Ramoth-gilead is con- clusively stated by Rev. G. A. Cooke in Driver's Dt, XX.

      In suggesting these sites sufficient attention has not been given to what is said in 1 K 4. The authority of the king's officer in Ramoth-gilead extended over the land of Argob in Bashan, as well as over the towns of Jair in Gilead. A situation therefore to the N. of Mahanaim must be sought. Guthe would find it at er-Remtheh, on the pilgrim road, about 10 miles S. of Mezerib (cf HGHL, 586 ff). Cheyne's suggestion of Sidkhad, away on the crest of the mountain of Bashan, is out of the question. Rev. Caleb Hauser (PEFS, 1906 304 f) argues in favor of Beit Ras, over 1 1 miles S.E. of Gadara, a position commanding all Northern Gilead and as favorably situated as Jerash for chariot warfare and communication with the W. of Jordan.

      Rampart Ransom



      "Here we have the heights of Northern Gilead. Ramoth, Capitolias, and Beit Ran are in their respective languages idiomatic equivalents. It is improbable that a large city like Capitolias should have superseded anything but a very important city of earlier times." We must be content to leave the question open meantime. W. Ewing

      RAMPART, ram'part (Lam 2 8; Nah 3 8). See Fortification.

      RAM'S HORN. See Music.

      RAMS' SKINS: The skin of the sheep, roughly tanned with all the wool on, is the common winter jacket of the shepherd or peasant, the ram's being considered esp. desirable (cf He 11 37). Hence the appropriateness of these skins in the covering of the tabernacle (Ex 26 5, etc). See Tabernacle; Dye, Dyeing.

      RANGE, ranj: "Range" and "rank" have the same derivation, and in the sense of a "row" (of men, etc) they were formerly interchangeable. "Range" with this meaning is found in 2 K 11 8.15 AV \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\2 Ch 23 14 (RV "rank"; TTTitp , s'dherah, "row"). Hence "to range" is "to set in a line" (Jth 2 16; 2 Mace 12 20, diatdsso) or "to move in a line" or, simply, "to roam," whence "a ranging bear" (Prov 28 15;pplp, s/ja/ca;fc, "runtoandfro"). A cooking "range" is a stove on which pots, etc, can be set in a row, but the klrayim (D")"]^?) of Lev 11 35 is a much more primitive affair, composed, probably, of two plates (klrayim is a dual). In Job 39 8 "range of the mountains" is good modern use, but "in"' , ythr, should be pointed yathilr (not y'thur as in MT) and connected with tHr, "search." So translate "He searcheth out the mountains as his pasture." Burton Scott Easton

      RANK, rank: (1) n^'X , 'orah, used in Joel 2 7 of the advance of the locust army which marched in perfect order and in straight lines, none crossing the other's track. (2) HDiya , ma'arakhah, "battle array" (1 Ch 12 38 AV; Vf 1 S 4 16; 17 22.48). See Army.

      RANKS, ranks (irpao-id, -prasid, "a square plot of ground," "a garden-bed"): "They sat down in ranks" (Mk 6 40); the several reclining ranks formed, as it were, separate plots or "garden-beds."

      RANSOM, ran'sum (the noun occurs in the Eng. Bible 12 t [Ex 21 30 AV, "i'^IS , -pidhyon; 30 12; Job 33 24; 36 18; Prov 6 35; 13 8; 21 18; Isa 43 3, ^S3 , kopher; Mt 20 28; Mk 10 45, Xirpov, lutron; 1 Tim 2 6, dvrtXvTpov, antUidron]; the verbal form occurs 4 t [Isa 35 10; Hos 13 14, n-S, pSdhdh; Isa 51 10 AV; Jer 31 11, b^5,,ga'al; these two Heb vbs. are generally rendered in other passages by the Eng. "redeem"]):

      1. Usage by Christ

      2. OT Usage — the Law

      (1) General Cases

      (2) Redemption Money — the Firstborn

      (3) Connection with .Sacrifice

      (4) Typical Reference to the Messiali

      3. The Pss and Job

      4. Apostohc Teaching

      5. To Whom Was the Ransom Paid ?

      (1) Not to Satan

      (2) To Divine Justice

      (a) Redemption by Price (6) Redemption by Power Literature

      The supremely important instance is the utter- ance of the Lord Jesus Christ as reported by Matthew

      and Mark (Mt 20 28; Mk 10 45), and in look- ing at it we shall be able, by way of illustration, to glance at the OT passages. The

      1. Usage context refers to the dispute among by Christ the disciples concerning position in the

      Kingdom, with their misconception of the true nature of Christ's Kingdom. Christ makes use of the occasion to set forth the great law of service as determining the place of honor in that Kingdom^ and illustrates and enforces it by show- ing that its greatest exemplification is to be found in His own mission: "For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" (Mk 10 45). His ministry, however, was to pass into the great act of sacrifice, of which all other acts of self- sacrifice on the part of His people would be but a faint reflection — "and to give his life [soul] a ran- som for many" (ib). He thus gives a very clear intimation of the purpose and meaning of His death; the clearest of all the intimations reported by the synoptists. The word He uses bears a well-established meaning, and is accurately rendered by our word "ransom," a price paid to secure the freedom of a slave or to set free from liabilities and charges, and generally the deliverance from calamity by paying the forfeit. The familiar vb. liio, "to loose," "to set free," is the root, then Iti- trbn, that which secures the freedom, the payment or forfeit; thence come the cognate vb. lutroo, "to set free upon payment of a ransom," "to redeem"; lutrosis, "the actual setting free," "the redemption," and lutrotts, "the redeemer." The favorite NT word for "redemption" is the compound form, apolutrosis.

      The word lutron was common in Gr classical lit.,

      constantly bearing the sense of "ransom price," and

      was frequently connected with ritual

      2. OT usage, with sacrifice and expiation. Usage — But for the full explanation of Our the Law Lord's great thought we have to look

      to the OT usage. The two leading Heb vbs. tr'' in our version by "redeem," are gen- erally rendered in the LXX by lutroo, and deriva- tives of these words conveying the idea of the actual price paid are tr'' by this very word lutron.

      (1) General cases. — In Ex 21 30 we have the law concerning the case of the person killed by an ox; the ox was to be killed and the owner of it was also liable to death but the proviso was made, "If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him" (AV). The Heb for "sum of money" is kopher, lit. "atonement" (RV "ransom"): the word for "ransom" (RV "re- demption") is pidhyon (from pddhah); the LXX renders both by lutron (rather by the pi. form Intra). In Lev 25, among the directions in relation to the Jubilee, we have the provision (ver 23) tliat the land was not to be sold "in perpetuity," but where any portion has been sold, opportunity is to be given for re-purchase: "Ye shall grant a redemption for the land" (ver 24). The Heb is gc'ulldh, a derivative of goal, the LXX lutra. In vs 25.26, the case is mentioned of a man who through poverty has sold part of his land; if a near kinsman is able to redeem it he shall do so; if there is no one to act this brotherly part, and the man himself is able to re- deem it, then a certain scale of price is arranged. In the Heb it is again goal that is used with the cognate go el for "kinsman." The last clause rendered in AV, "and himself be able to redeem it" (in RV "and he be waxed rich and find stifllcient to redeem it"), is lit. "and his hand shall acquire and he find sulTicient for its redemp- tion"; LXX has the vb. lutroo in the first part, and renders the clause pretty literally, "and there be fur- nished to his hand and there be found with him the suffi- cient price [lulra] of it." In vs 51.52, in reference to the redemption of tlie Jew sold into slavery, we have twice in the Heb the word g^^ulldh, rendered in Eng. accurately "the price of his redemption"; and by LXX with eqiral accuracy, in both cases, lutra, "the ransom-price." In Lev 27 31 AA^, the phrase "if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes ' is intended to represent the em- phatic Heb idiom, "if a man redeeming will redeem," wliich is rendered by LXX edn di lutrdtai lutrO dnthrOpos.

      (2) Redemption money — the firstborn. — But per- haps the most important passage is the law concern-



      Rampart Ransom

      ing the half-shekel to be paid by every Israelite from 20 years old and upward when a census was taken. It was to be the same for rich and poor, and it was called "atonement money," "to make atonement for their souls." In the opening words of the law, as given in Ex 30 12 (AV), we read "Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord" — the Heb kopher; the LXX rendering is lutra its psuchis autou, "a ransom price for his soul." All the people were thus considered as doomed and needing atonement, and it is sig- nificant that this atonement money paid at the first census furnished the silver for the sockets of the tabernacle boards, intimating that the typical tabernacle was built upon atonement. The same thought, that the people's lives were forfeited, comes out in the provision for the consecration of theLevites, recorded in full in Nu 3 40-51. The firstborn represented the people. God claimed all the firstborn as forfeited to Himself, teaching that Israel deserved the same punishment as the Egyp- tians, and was only spared by the grace of Jeh, and invirtue of the sprinkled blood. Now He takes to Himself for His services the Levites as the equiva- lent of the firstborn, and when it was found that the number of the firstborn exceeded the number of the Levites, equivalence was maintained by ran- soming at a certain price the surplusage of the first- born males. In the LXX account, lutra occurs 4 t, twice for the phrase "those to be redeemed," and twice for "redemption money." Thus the idea of ransom for the forfeited life became familiar to the people as educated by the typical system, and re- demption expressed the sum total of their hopes for the futiire, however faulty might be their concep- tion of the nature of that redemption.

      (3) Connection with sacrifice, — It is also clear in the typical teaching that sacriflee and ransom were closely related. Even in classical Gr, as we have noted, the two conceptions were connected, and it is not surprising to find it so in the OT. Kdpher, we have seen, is lit. "atonement" and comes from kdphar, lit. "to cover." and thence by covering to make atonement, or to cover by making atonement; and so it is in the Piel form, the most common and technical Heb word for making atone- ment, or expiation, or propitiation, and is frequently rendered in the Gr by hildskomai, often too by the com- pound exildskomai. In Ex 21 30, kopher, we noted, is used interchangeably with pidhydn, both being repre- sented in the LXX by lutra, and so in Ex 30 12; Nu 35 31.32; the Heb kapher is lutra in the Gr. In the latter place, where it is twice stated that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a murderer, the Heb is kopher, LXX lutra, RV "ransom," AV "satisfaction."

      (4) Typical reference to the Messiah, — Sacrifice was thus linked with ransom. Sacrifice was the Divinely appointed covering for sin. The ransom for the deliverance of the sinner was to be by sacri- fice. Both the typical testimony of the Law and the prophetic testimony gave prominence to the thought of redemption. The Coming One was to be a Redeemer. Redemption was to be the great work of the Messiah. The people seem to have looked for the redemption of the soul to God alone through the observance of their appointed ritual, while redemption, in the more general sense of de- liverance from all enemies and troubles, they linked with the advent of the Messiah. It required a spiritual vision to see that the two things would coincide, that the Messiah would effect redemption in all its phases and fulness by means of ransom, of sacrifice, of expiation.

      Jesus appeared as the Messiah in whom all the old economy was to be fulfilled. He knew per- fectly the meaning of the typical and prophetic testimony; and with that fully in view, knowing that His death was to fulfil the OT types and ac- complish its brightest prophetic anticipations. He deliberately uses this term liitron to describe it (Mt 20 28) ; in speaking of His death as a ransom.

      He also regarded it as a sacrifice, an expiatory offer- ing. The strong preposition used intensifies the idea of ransom and expiation, even to the point of substitution. It is antl, "instead of," and the idea of exchange, equivalence, substitution cannot be removed from it. In Nu 3 45, "Take the Levites instead of all the first-born," the LXX uses anli, which, like the Eng. "instead of," exactly repre- sents the Heb tahath; and all three convey most unmistakably the idea of substitution. And as the Levites were to be substituted for the firstborn, so for the surplus of the firstborn the "ransom money" was to be substituted, that idea, however, being clearly enough indicated by the use of the genitive. Indeed the simpler way of describing a ransom would be with the genitive, the ransom of many; or as our version renders, "a ransom for many"; but just because the ransom here is not simply a money payment, but is the actual sacrifice of the life, the substitution of His soul for many, He is appropri- ately said "to give his soul a ransom instead of many." The Kingdom of God which Christ pro- claimed was so diverse in character from that which Salome and her sons anticipated that, so far from appearing in dazzling splendor, with distin- guished places of power for eager aspirants, it was to be a spiritual home for redeemed sinners. Men held captive by sin needed to be ransomed that they might be free to become subjects of the Kingdom, and so the ransom work, the sufferings and death of Christ, must lie at the very foundation of that Kingdom. The need of ransom supposes life for- feited; the ransom paid secures life and liberty; the life which Christ gives comes through His ransoming death.

      Besides the passages in the Pent which we have

      noted, special mention should be made of the two

      great passages which bear so closely

      3. The Pss upon the need of spiritual redemption, and Job and come into line with this great

      utterance of Christ. Ps 49 7.8, "None of them can by any means redeem [pSdhdh; luiroo] his brother, nor give to God a ransom [kopher; exilasma] for him (tor the redemption of their life is costly, and it faileth for ever)." (The Heb gives pidhyon for "redemption" ; the Gr has "the price of the redemption of his soul.") No human power or skill, no forfeit in money or service or life can avail to ransom any soul from the doom entailed by sin. But in the same ps (ver 15) the triumphant hope is expressed, "But God will re- deem [padhah; lutroo] my soul from the power of Sheol." In Job 33 24, "Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom": God is the speaker, and whatever may be the particular exegesis of the passage in its original application, it surely contains an anticipation of the gospel re- demption. This Divine eureka is explained in the light of Christ's utterance; it finds its realization through the cross: "I have found a ransom," for "the Son of Man" has given "his soul a ransom for many."

      This great utterance of the Saviour may well be considered as the germ of all the apostolic teach- ing concerning redemption, but it is

      4. Apostolic not for us to show its unfolding beyond Teaching noting that in apostolic thought the

      redemption was always connected with the death, the sacrifice of Christ.

      Thus Paul (Eph 1 7) , " In whom we have our redemp- tion through his lilood." Thus Peter (1 Pet 1 18.19), "Ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things .... but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ." So in He 9 12 it is shown that Christ "through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having ob- tained eternal redemption"; and in the Apocalypse (Rev 5 9) the song is, "Thou wast slain, and didst pur- chase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe," etc.

      Ransom Razor



      In all but the last of these passages there is an echo of the very word used by Christ, apolutrosis and lutrosis, both being connected with (li/ron. In 1 Tim 2 5.6 Paul has a still closer verbal coincidence when he says. "Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all" (anlilutron). The word used in the Apocalypse is aaordxs, to buy in the open market, and is frequently used of the redeeming work of Christ (Rev 14 3.4; 2 Pet 2 1; 1 Cor 6 20; 7 23) . In the two places where Paul uses it he adds the means of purchase: "Ye were bought with a price," which from his point of view would be equivalent to ransom. In the passage in Gal 3 13; 4 5, Paul uses the compound exagordzo, which is equivalent "to "re- deem, buy off, deliver by paying the price."

      The question "Who receives the ransom?" is not

      directly raised in Scripture, but it is one that not

      unnaturally occurs to the mind, and

      6. To theologians have answered it in vary-

      Whom Was ing ways.

      the Ransom (1) Not to Satan. — The idea enter- Paid? tained by some of the Fathers (Ire- naeus, Origen) that the ransom was given to Satan, who is conceived of as having through the sin of man a righteous claim upon him, which Christ recognizes and meets, is grotesque, and not in any way countenanced by Scripture.

      (2) To Divine justice. — But in repudiating it, there is no need to go so far as to deny that there is anything answering to a real ransoming trans- action. All that we have said goes to show that, in no mere figure of speech, but in tremendous real- ity, Christ gave "his life a ransom," aiKl if our mind demands an answer to the question to whom the ransom was paid, it does not seem at all unreason- able to think of the justice of God, or God in His character of Moral Governor, as requiring and receiving it. In all that Scripture asserts about propitiation, sacrifice, reconciliation in relation to the work of Christ, it is implied that there is wrath to be averted, someone to be appeased or satisfied, and while it may be enough simply to think of the effects of Christ's redeeming work in setting us free from the penal claims of the Law — the just doom of sin — it does not seem going beyond the spirit of Scripture to draw the logical inference that the ransom price was paid to the Guardian of that holy law, the Administrator of eternal justice. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal 3 13). This essential, fundamental phase of redemption is what theolo- gians, with good Scripture warrant, have called redemption by blood, or by price, as distinguished from the practical outcome of the work of Christ in the life which is redemption by power.

      (a) Redemption by price: As to Satan's claims, Christ by paying the ransom price, having secured the right to redeem, exercises His power on behalf of the believing sinner. He does not recognize the right of Satan. He is the "strong man" holding his captives lawfully, and Christ the "stronger than he" overcomes him and spoils him, and sets his captives free (Lk 11 21.22). In one sense men may be said to have sold themselves to Satan, but they had no right to sell, nor he to buy, and Christ ignores that transaction and brings "t» nought him that had the power of death, that is. the devil" (He 2 14), and sols able to "dehverall them who through fear of death were all their hfetlme subject to bondage" (He 2 IS).

      (h) Redemption by power: Many of the OT pas- sages about the redemption wrought on behalf of God's people illustrate this redemption by power, and the redemption by power is always founded on the redemption by price; the release follows the ransom. In the case of Israel, there was first the redemption by blood — the sprinkled blood of the Paschal Lamb which sheltered from the destroying angel (Ex 12) — and then followed the redemption by power, when by strength of hand Jeh brought His people out from Egypt (Ex 13 14), and in His mercy led forth the people which He had redeemed (Ex 15 13). So under the gospel when "he hath visited and

      wrought redemption for his people" (Lk 1 68), He can "grant unto us that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies should serve him without fear" (Lk 1 74). It is because we have in Him our redemption through His blood that we can be delivered out of the power of darkness (Col 1 13. 14). See further, Redeemer, Redemption.

      LiTEBATTTBE. — See works on NT Theology (Weiss, Schmid, Stevens, etc) ; arts, in HZ) B,- DCG.

      Archibald M'Caig

      RAPE, rap. See Crimes; Punishments.

      . RAPHA, RAPHAH, ra'fa (SST , ravha') :

      (1) In RVm these names are substituted for "the giant" in 1 Ch 20 4.6.8 and in 2 S 21 The latter passage states that certain champions of the Philis who were slain by David's warriors had been born to the raphah in Gath. The text is cor- rupt; Raphah is probably an eponym. Originally the name of one of the Philis who was of the body "Rephaites" stood in the text. The plural of this word, or at least a plural of this stem, is Rephaim (q.v.).

      (2) Raphah (AV "Rapha"), a descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8 37). See Rephaiah.

      Horace J. Wolp RAPHAEL, raf'a-el, ra'fa-el (bSB^ , r'pha'el, from rapha' 'el, "God has healed"; ■Pa<{>aTJ\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, Rha- phael): The name of the angel who, as Azarias, guides Tobias to Ecbatana and Rages (q.v.). The purpose of his mission is, in accordance with his name, to cure Tobit of blindness, and to deliver Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, from the power of the evil spirit Asmodaeus (Tob 3 8; 12 14). Later, in addition, when he reveals himself (12 15), he declares that he is "one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One." These seven angels are derived, according to Dr. Kohut, from the seven Am-shaspands (Amesha-spentas) of Zoro- astrianism (cf Rev 4 5). At the head of the elaborate angelology of the Enoch books there are "four presences," and Raphael is one of them (En 40 9; 54 6). In the first of these passages Raphael is the healer; in the second, he with Michael, Gabriel and Phanuel lead the wicked away to pun- ishment. These four presences seem related to the four "living creatures" of Ezk (1 5) and of the Apocalypse (Rev 4 6). While this is the general representation of Raphael's position in En, in 20 3 he is named among the angels who "watch," whose number according to the Gr text is seven. Raphael shared in the function assigned to the archangels, in the Oracula Sibyllina, of leading souls to the judgment seat of God (II, 215, Alexandre's text). He occupies a prominent place in Jewish mediaeval writings; he with Michael and Gabriel cured Abraham (Yoma' 37a); according to the book Zohar, Raphael conveyed to Adam a book con- taining 72 kinds of wisdom in 670 writings. The painters of the Renaissance frequently depicted Raphael. J. E. H. Thomson

      RAPHAIM, raf'ft-im, ra-fa'im (B omits; N and A have 'Pa

      RAPHON, ra'fon ('Pa<|)€it6v, Rhapheion): The place where in his campaign E. of Jordan Judas inflicted disastrous defeat on the host of Timotheus, the fugitives fleeing for refuge to the temple at Car- naim(l Mace 5 37ff; An<,XII, viii, 4). Thesame place is doubtless referred to by Pliny as "Raphana" {NH, V.16). It may possibly be represented by the modern Rafeh, on the E. of the pilgrimage road, about 17 miles N. of Der'ah, and 11 miles N.E. of



      Ransom Razor

      Tell el-'Ash'ary. It is a mile and a half N. of Wddy Kanaioal, which would thus be the "brook" men- tioned in the narrative. It is perhaps far enough away from Carnaim, if this is rightly placed at Tell el-'Ash'ary. W. Ewinq

      RAPHTJ, ra'fu (SIST , rap/tu', "one healed"): The father of Palti, the spy selected from the tribe of Benjamin (Nu 13 9).

      RASSES, ras'ez (X, 'Paao-crets, Rhaasseis, A B, 'Pao-

      Their identity is a matter of conjecture only. Some think Vulg Thar sis ( = Tarsus) is meant, others Rosh (Ezk 38 2.3; 39 1), others Rhosos, a mountain range and city S. from Anunus, on the Gulf of Issus. Most probably a district, not a town, is named, situated in the eastern part of Asia Minor.

      S. F. Hunter

      RATHUMUS, ra-thu'mus ('P

      RAVEN, ra'v'n (l"l'y , 'arehh; K6pa|, k&rax; Lat Corvus corax) : A large family of the smaller birds of prey belonging to the genus Corvus corax. A bird of such universal distribution that it is known

      r "

      ^ "W"'^

      "mi»t "msg^" ^^^i

      i -^tH




      tp** ^ ^*8S


      y,' ^ '

      \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ '> „wi.«k!t

      Raven {Corvus corax).

      from Iceland to Japan, all over Asia, Europe and Africa, but almost extinct and not of general dis- tribution in our own country. In no land is it more numerous than in Pal. In general appearance it resembles the crow, but is much larger, being almost two feet long, of a glossy black, with whisk- ers around the beak, and rather stiff-pointed neck feathers. A bird exhibiting as much intelligence as any, and of a saucy, impudent disposition, it has been an object of interest from the begin- ning. It has been able to speak sentences of a few words when carefully taught, and by its uncanny acts has made itself a bu:d surrounded by superstition, myth, fable, and is connected with the religious rites of many nations. It is partially a carrion feeder, if offal or bodies are fresh; it also eats the young of other birds and very small animals and seeds, berries and fruit, having as varied a diet

      as any bird. It is noisy, with a loud, rough, emphatic cry, and its young are clamorous at feeding time.

      Aristotle wrote that ravens drove their young from their location and forced them to care for themselves from the tim(! they left the nest. This is doubtful. Bird habits and characteristics change only with slow ages of evolution. Our ravens of today are, to all intents, tlie same birds as those of Pal in the time of Moses, and ours follow the young afield for several days ajid feed them until the cawing, flapping youngsters appear larger than the parents. In Pliny's day, ravens had been taught to speak, and as an instance of their cunning he records that in time of drought a raven found a bucket containing a little water beside a sepulcher and raised it to drinlfing level by dropping in stones.

      Pal has at least 8 different species of ravens. This bird was the first sent out by Noah in an effort to discover if the flood were abating (Gen 8 6-S). Because it partially fed on carrion it was included among the abominations (see Lev 11 15; Dt 14 14). On 1 K 17 4-6, see Elijah and the present writer's Birds of the Bible, 401-3. Among the marvels of creation and providence in Job 38 41, we have this mention of the raven,

      "Who provideth for the raven his prey, When hLs young ones cry unto God, And wander for lack of food ? "

      The answer to this question is in Ps 147 9 :

      " He giveth to the beast his food. And to the young ravens which cry."

      Both these quotations point out the fact that the young are peculiarly noisy. In Prov 30 17 it is indicated that the ravens, as well as eagles, vultures and hawks, found the eye of prey the vulnerable point, and so attacked it first. The Heb 'orebh means "black," and for this reason was applied to the raven, so the reference to the locks of the bride- groom in the Song of Solomon becomes clear (Cant 5 11). The raven is one of the birds indicated to prey upon the ruins of Edom (Isa 34 11). The last reference is found in Lk 12 24: "Consider the ravens, that they sow not, neither reap; which have no store-chamber nor barn; and God feedeth them." This could have been said of any wOd bird with equal truth. Gene Stratton-Porteb

      RAVEN, rav"n, RAVIN, rav'in: "Raven" (vb.) is from "rapine," "violent plundering," used for Cl"ip , taraph, in Gen 49 27; Ps 22 13; Ezk 22 85.27, while "ravin" (noun) is the object ravened, in Nah 2 12 the torn carcases (nD"ltp , t'rephah). So a "ravenous bird" (Isa 46 11; Ezk 39 4) is a bird of prey (not a "hungry bird"), Uiy , 'ayil, ht. "a screecher." "Ravenous beast" in Isa 35 9 is for ■flS , pdrtf, "violent one." In the NT Hp-wai,, hdrpax, "rapacious," is tr'' "ravening" in Mt 7 15, while for the cognate apirayri, harpagt (Lk 11 39), AV gives "ravening," RV "extortion."

      RAZIS, ra'zis ('Pojets, Rhazeis): "An elder of Jerus," "lover of his countrymen," and for his good will toward them called "father of the Jews," accused before the Syrian general Nicanor as an opponent of Hellenism. In order to escape falling into the hands of Nicanor's soldiers he committed suicide with the greatest determination in a rather revolting manner (2 Mace 14 37 ff), in his death calling upon "the Lord of life" in the hope of a resurrection. His suicide — contrary to Jewish sentiment — was regarded with approbation by the author of 2 Mace (14 42.43).

      RAZOR, ra'zer ("l?ri, ia'ar, "knife" [Nu 6 5; Ps 52 2; Isa 7 20; Ezk 5 1], nni'Q, morah, "razor" [Jgs 13 5; 16 17; 1 S 1 11]). See Bar- ber; Hair.

      Reading Rechab



      READING, red'ing (X'lp^ , mikra' ; avayvaa-is, andgnosis) : As a noun occurs once in the OT (Neh 8 8) and 3 t in the NT (Acts 13 15; 2 Cor 3 14; 1 Tim 4 13), each time with reference to the public reading of the Divine Law. The vb. "to read" (Xnp , harff ; amyii/iba-Kio, anag-inosho) occurs fre- que'ntly both in the OT and in the NT: (1) often in the sense of reading aloud to others, esp. of the public reading of God's Law or of prophecy, as by Moses (Ex 24 7), Ezra (Neh 8 3.18), Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth (Lk 4 16), of the regular reading of the Law and the Prophets in the syna- gogues (Acts 13 27; 15 21), and of the reading of apostoUc epp. in the Christian church (Col 4 16; 1 Thess 5 27); (2) also in the sense of reading to one's self, whether the Divine word in Law or prophecy (Dt 17 19; Acts 8 28-30, etc), or such things as private letters (2 K 5 7; 19 14; Acts 23 34, etc). D. Miall Edwards

      READY, red'i (T'nTS , mahir) : Occurs twice in the sense of apt, skilful (Ezr 7 6; Ps 45 1). RV gives "ready" for "fit" (Prov 24 27), for "asketh" (Mic 7 3), for "prepared" (Mk 14 15), for "not be negligent" (2 Pet 1 12).

      REAIAH, re-a'ya, ri-l'a (IT^S"], r'aydh, "Jeh has seen"; LXX B, 'PaSd, Rhadd, A, 'Peid, Rheid):

      (1) The eponym of a Calebite family (1 Ch 4 2). The word "Reaiah" should probably be substituted for "Haroeh" in 1 Ch 2 52, but both forms may be corruptions.

      (2) A Reubenite (1 Ch 5 5, AV "Reaia"). See Joel.

      (3) The family name of a company of Nethinim (Ezr 2 47; Neh 7 50=1 Esd 5 31).

      REAPING, rep'ing ("l?p, , kaqar; 9£pt|

      Reaping and Binding Siieaves.

      stalks into bundles to be carried to the threshing- floor. If the Egyp sculptures are true to life, reap- ing was sometimes divided into two operations, the heads of grain and the stalks being reaped separately. In Pal and Syria both pulling and cutting are still practised, the former when the ground is stony and the spears scarce. Even where the sickle is used, much of the grain comes up by the roots, owing to the toughness of the dried stalks or the dullness of the sickle. The reaper sometimes wears pieces of cane on the fingers of the hand which gathers the grain in order to protect them from injury by the sharp grasses or the sickle. There were definite laws established by the Hebrews in regard to reaping (Lev 19 9; 23 10; 25 5.11; Dt 16 9). Samuel mentions the task of reaping the harvest as one of the requirements which would be made bv the king for whom the people were clamor- ing (1 S 8 12).

      Figurative: The certainty of the consequences of good and evil doing were often typified by the sowing and the reaping of harvests (Job 4 8; Prov 22 8; Hos 8 7; 10 12.13; 2 Cor 9 6; Gal 6 7.8). "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy"

      is found in the liberated captives' song (Ps 126 5). "He that regardeth the clouds shall not reap," i.e. a lack of faith in God's care wiU be punished (Eccl 11 4); cf also the lesson of trust drawTU from the birds (Mt 6 26; Lk 12 24). Sowing and not reaping the harvest is mentioned as a punishment for disobedience (Job 31 8; Jer 12 13; Mic 6 15). Reaping where he sowed not, showed the injustice of the landlord (Mt 25 26), as did also the with- holding of the reapers' wages (Jas 5 4). In God's Kingdom there is a division of labor : ' 'He that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together" (Jn 4 36-38). In John's vision he saw an angel reap the earth (Rev 14 15.16). See Agriculture ; Glean- ing. James A. Patch

      REARWARD, rer'word (nOX , 'a^aph, "to gather," Nu 10 25; Josh 6 9 [AVm "'gathering host"]; Isa 52 12). See Army; Dan, Tribe of; War, 3.

      REASON, re'z'n, REASONABLE, re'z'n-a-b'l, REASONING, re'z'n-ing (HS; , ydkhah, etc; Xoyos, logos, 8ta\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\o-Y£Eo|iai, -i(r|x6s, dialogizomai, -ismos, etc) : "Reason," with related terms, has a diversity of meanings, representing a large number of Heb and Gr words and phrases. In the sense of "cause" or "occasion" it stands in 1 K 9 15 for dabhdr, "a word" (RVm "account"), but in most cases renders prepositional forms as "from," "with," "because of," "for the sake of," etc. As the ground or argument for anything, it is the tr of ta^am (Prov 26 16, RVm "answers discreetly"), of ydkhah, as in Isa 1 IS, "Come now, and let us reason together" (cf Job 13 3; 15 3); in 1 S 12 7, the word is shdphat, RV "that I may plead," etc. The prin- cipal Gr words for "reason," "reasoning," are those given above. The Christian believer is to be ready to give a reason (logos) for the hope that is in him (1 Pet 3 15 AV). "Reason" as a human faculty or in the abstract sense appears in Apoc in Wisd 17 12 (logismds); Ecclus 37 16, "Let reason [Zo(70s] go before every enterprise," RV "be the beginning of every work." In Acts 18 14, "reason would" is lit. katd logon, "according to reason"; in Rom 12 1, for "reasonable [logikds] service," RV has "spir- itual," and in m "Gr 'belonging to the reason.' " In RV "reason," etc, occurs much oftener than in AV (cf Lev 17 11; Dt 28 47; Jgs 5 22; Job 20 2; 23 7, etc; Lk 3 15; 12 17; Acts 17 17, etc).

      W. L. Walker

      REBA, re'ba (71"], rebha', "fourth part"; LXX B, 'P6Pe, Rhdbe, A, 'PcpeK, Rhebek): One of the five chieftains of Midian who were slain by the Israel- ites, under Moses (Nu 31 8; Josh 13 21). Like his comrades, he is termed a "king" in Nu, but a "chief" or "prince" in Josh.

      REBEKAH, re-bek'a (Hp^n"! , rihhkdh; LXX and NT 'Pep^KKa, Rhebekka, whence the usual Eng. spelling Rebecca) : Daughter of Bethuel and an unknown mother, granddaughter of Nahor and Milcah, sister of Laban, wife of Isaac, mother of Esau and Jacob.

      Her name is usually explained from the Arab., SJij. ,

      rabkat, "a tie-rope for animals," or, rather, "a noose" in such a rope : its application would then by figure suggest the beauty ( ?) of her that bears it, by means of which men are snared or boimd. The root is found in Heb only in the noun meaning " hitching-place " or "stall," in the famihar phrase "fatted calf" or "calf of the stall," and in view of the meaning of such names as Rachel and Eglah the name Rebekah might well mean (concrete for abstract, like HTOp"! , rikmdh, n^^H ■ hemddh, etc)

      a "tied-up calf" (or "lamb"?), one therefore peculiarly choice and fat.

      Rebekah is first mentioned in the genealogy of the descendants of Nahor, brother of Abraham (Gen



      Reading Rechab

      22 20^24). In fact, the family is there carried down just so far as is necessary in order to introduce this woman, for whose subsequent appearance and r61e the genealogy is obviously intended as a prepa- ration. AH this branch of the family of Terah had remained in Aram when Abraham and Lot had migrated to Canaan, and it is at Haran, "the city of Nahor," that we first meet Rebekah, when in ch 24 she is made known to Abraham's servant at the well before the gate.

      That idyllic narrative of the finding of a bride for Isaac is too familiar to need rehearsal and too simple to require comment. Besides, the substance both of that story and of the whole of Rebekah's career is treated in connection with the sketches of the other actors in the same scenes. Yet we note from the beginning the maiden's decision of char- acter, which appears in every line of the narrative, and prepares the reader to find in subsequent chapters the positive, ambitious and energetic woman that she there shows herself.

      Though the object of her husband's love (Gen 24 67), Rebekah bore him no children for 20 years (25 20.26). Like Sarah, she too was barren, and it was only after that score of years and after the special intercession of Isaac that God at length granted her twin sons. "The purpose of God ac- cording to election," as Paul expresses the matter in Rom 9 11, was the cause of that strange oracle to the wondering, inquiring parents, "The elder shall serve the younger" (Gen 26 23).

      Whether because of this oracle or for some other reasonj it was that younger son, Jacob, who became the object of his mother's special love (Gen 25 28). She it was who led him into the deception practised upon Isaac (Gen 27 5-17), and she it was who de- vised the plan for extricating Jacob from the danger- ous situation into which that deception had brought him (vs 42-46). When the absence of Jacob from home became essential to his personal safety, Re- bekah proposed her own relations in Aram as the goal of his journey, and gave as motive the desira- bility of Jacob's marrying from among her kindred. Probably she did not realize that in sending her favorite son away on this journey she was sending him away from her forever. Yet such seems to have been the case. Though younger than Isaac, who was still living at an advanced age when Jacob returned to Canaan a quarter of a century later, Rebekah seems to have died during that term. We learn definitely only this, that she was buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (Gen 49 31).

      Outside of Gen, Rebekah is alluded to in Scrip- ture only in the passage from Rom (9 10-12) already cited. Her significance there is simply that of the wife of Isaac and the mother of two sons of such different character and destiny as Esau and Jacob. And her significance in Gen, apart from this, lies in her contribution to the family of Abraham of a pure strain from the same eastern stock, thus transmitting to the founders of Israel both an un- mixed lineage and that tradition of separateness from Can. and other non'-Heb elements which has proved the greatest factor in the ethnological marvel of the ages, the persistence of the Heb people. J. Oscar Boyd

      REBUKE, rS-buk' : As a vb. "rebuke" is in the OT the tr of ny3 , gd'-ar and HD^ , yakhah; another word, rlbh, in Neh 5 7, is in RV tr'' "contended with." "Rebuke" (noun) is most frequently the tr of g'^arah; also in AV of herpah (Isa 25 8; Jer 15 15, RV "reproach"), and of a few other words signifying reproach, etc. "Rebuker" {miliar, lit. "correction," "chastisement") in Hos 5 2 has RVm "Heb 'rebuke.' " In the NT "to rebuke" is most often the tr of iTriTi/idu, epitimdo (Mt 8 26; 16 22; 17 18,

      etc); also in AV of i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\4yxw, elegcho, always in RV rendered "reprove" (1 Tim 5 20; Tit 1 13; 2 15; He 12 5; Rev 3 19). Another word is epipltUo (once, 1 Tim 5 1); "without rebuke" in Phil 2 15 is in RV "without blemish." On the other hand, RV has "rebuke" for several words in AV, as for "reprove" (2 K 19 4; Isa 37 4), "reproof" (Job 26 11; Prov 17 10), "charged" (Mk 10 48). In Isa 2 4; Mic 4 3, ERV has "reprove" for "re- buke," and in m "decide concerning," which is text in ARV. In Ecclus 11 7 we have the counsel: "Understand first, and then rebuke" (epitimao).

      W. L. Walker RECAH, re'ka (HDI. , rekhah; B, 'Piixap, Rhe- chdb, A, 'Ft]4>i., Rhepfui; AV Rechah) : In 1 Ch 4 12 certain persons are described as "the men of Recah," but there is absolutely no information either about the place or its position.

      RECEIPT, rS-set', OF CUSTOM. See Cd.stom.

      RECEIVER, rS-sev'er: Found in AV (Isa 33 18); but RV substitutes "he that weighed the tribute." The Heb is shokel, which means "one who weighs," "a weigher."

      RECHAB, re'kab, RECHABITES, rek'a-bits (DD"1 , rekhabh, D''3D") , rekhabhim) : Rechab is the name of two men of some prominence in the OT records:

      (1) A Benjamite of the town of Beeroth, son of Rimmon (2 S 4 2) ; he and his brother Baanah were "captains" of the military host of Ish-bosheth. On the death of Abner (2 S 3 30) the two brothers treacherously entered Ish-bosheth's house, when at noon he was resting and helpless, beheaded him, and escaped with the head to David at Hebron (4 6-8). They expected to receive reward and honor from David for the foul deed, which left him without a rival for the throne of all Israel. But the just and noble-minded king ordered their im- mediate execution (4 9-12), as in the case of the Amalekite, who asserted that he had killed Saul (2 S 1). For some reason the Beerothites left their own town and fled to Gittaim, another town in Benjamin, where they were still living when the Books of S were written (2 S 4 3).

      (2) The more prominent of the men bearing this name was a Kenite (q.v.), a descendant of Ham- math (1 Ch 2 55). A part of the Kenite tribe joined the Israelites during the wilderness wander- ings (Nu 10 29-32; Jgs 1 16; 4 17), becoming identified with the tribe of Judah, although Heber and Jael his wife were settled in Northern Pal (Jgs 4 17). Rechab was the ancestor or founder of a family, or order, in Israel known as the Rechabites, who at various times were conspicuous in the reli- gious life of the nation. The most notable member of this family was Jehonadab (2 K 10 15 ff.23), or Jonadab, as he is called in Jer 35. Jehonadab was a zealous Jeh-worshipper and took part with Jehu in the extirpation of Baal-worship and the house of Ahab. He set for his descendants a vow of asceticism: that they should drink no wine, nor plant fields or vineyards, nor build nor live in houses throughout their generations (Jer 35 6.7). That must have been a singular feature in Palestinian life: the simple, nomadic life of this family from generation to generation in the midst of settled agricultural and industrial conditions! They fol- lowed this simple life in order to guard against the enervating tendencies of sensualism, and as a cove- nant of fidelity to Jeh, to whom they wholly de- voted themselves when they joined themselves to Israel. Jeremiah used the Rechabites, who had been driven into Jerus by Nebuchadnezzar's invest- ment of the land, as an object-lesson to covenant-

      Rechah Reconcile



      Ijreaking Judah. The Rechabites, hungry and thirsty, refused wine when it was set before them, because of the command of their ancestor Jonadab (Jer 35 8-10); but Judah refused to heed Jeh's commands or to keep His covenant (vs 14.15).

      If the Rechab of Nch 3 14 is tlie same as tlais Kenite, tlien his descendant Malcliijah, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the "wall of Jerus, may have abandoned the vow of his ancestors, for he was "ruler of the dis- trict of Beth-haccherem" (i.e. "house of the vineyard").

      Edward Mack

      RECHAH, re'ka (HDI , rvkhah). See Recah.

      RECLINING, re-klin'ing(Jn 13 2.3). See Meals, III; Triclinium.


      rek-on-sil-i-a'shun (KaraWao-o-u, katalldsso, KaraX.- Xa7TJ, katallagt, also the compound form diroKa- TaXXao-o-io, apokatnlldsso; once the cognate 8ia\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\- Xacrcro|iai,, dialldssomai is used in Mt 5 24):

      1. The Terms

      (1) NT Usage

      (2) OT Usage

      (3) Special Passage in 1 S 29 4

      (4) Usage in the Apocrypha

      2. Non-doctrinal Passage — Mt 5 24

      3. Doctrinal Passages

      (1) Eom 5

      (2) 2 Cor 5 18-20 (.3) Eph 2 16

      (4) Col 1 20-22


      (1) AT usage. — In the last case, Mt 5 24, the word is not used in a doctrinal sense, though its

      use is very helpful in considering the 1. The force of the other terms. All the other

      Terms instances are in Paul's Epp. (Rom 5

      10; 1 Cor 7 11; 2 Cor 5 18-20, the vb.; Rom 5 11; 11 15; 2 Cor 5 18.19, the noun; Eph 2 16; Col 1 22, the compound). The word "reconcile" has a double meaning and usage, and the context must in each case determine how it is to be taken. The great doctrine is the reconciliation of God and men, but the question to be decided is whether it is God who is reconciled to men, or men who are reconciled to God, and different schools of theology emphasize one side or the other. The true view embraces both aspects. The word "to reconcile" means literally to ex- change, to bring into a changed relationship. Some maintain that it is only a change in the sinner that is intended, a laying aside of his enmity, and coming into peaceful relations with God. But that mani- festly does not e.xliaust the meaning, nor is it in the great Pauline passages the primary and dominant meaning.

      (2) The OT usage does not materially help in the elucidation of the NT terms, for though the word occurs in a number of passages in AV, it is in RV generally changed to "atonement," which more accurately represents the Heb kaphar, which is generally rendered by "atonement," and by hilds- komai or exildskomai in the Gr. (In one passage of the NT [He 2 17], t;he phrase "to make recon- ciliation" represents the Gr hilaskomai, and is better rendered in RV by "to make propitiation.") The making atonement or propitiation is the basis of the reconciliation, the means of its accomplish- ment, and the fact that the translators of AV some- times rendered kaphar by "reconcile" shows that they understood reconciliation to have the Godward aspect. Whatever may be said of the nature of the atonement or propitiation in the old dispensation, it was something contemplated as appeasing or satisfjdng, or at least in some way affecting God so as to make Him willing, or render it possible for Him, to enter into, or abide in, gracious relations with men. In one passage in the OT where "recon- ciliation" occurs (2 Ch 29 24) it represents a differ-

      ent Heb word, but here RV has changed it into "sin-offering," which is in harmony with the general meaning and usage of the Heb.

      (3) Special passage in 1 S 29 4- — There is yet another Heb word rendered "reconcile" in 1 S 29 4, and inas- much as this passage in the LXX has as the equivalent of the Heb the Gr word dialldssd, it is of some importance in guiding to the NT meaning. On one occasion when the PhiUs gathered together to battle against Israel, David and his band of men accompanied Achish king of Gath to the muster-place. "The princes of the Phihs" did not at all appreciate the presence of "these Hebrews," and although Achish testified in favor of David's fidelity, they were very indignant, and demanded that David and his men be sent back, "lest in the battle he become an adversary to us: for wherewith should this fellow reconcile himself unto his lord ? shoiildit not be with the heads of these men?" Tlie Heb is ra^dh, which means "to be pleased with" or "to accept favorably." and the Hithpael form here used is "to mal^e himself pleasing or acceptable," "to reconcile himself." But assuredly the Philistines' idea of David reconciling himself to Saul was not that he should lay aside his enmity against Saul , and so become friends with him. The enmity was on Saul's side, and the thought of the princes was that David by turning against them in the battle would gratify Saul, and lead him to lay aside his enmity against David.

      (4) Usage in the Apocrypha. — It may be noted that in 2 Mace 5 20, katallage is used evidently of the God- ward side : ' ' And the place which was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was, at the reconciliation of the great Sovereign, restored again with all glory." The vb. occurs in 2 jvlacc 1 5 when again the Godward side seems intended, though not perhaps so certainly: "May God .... hearken to yoru' supplications, and be recon- ciled with you, ' ' and in t 33 : " If for rebulce and chasten- ing our living Lord has been angered a little while, yet shall he again be reconciled with his own servants," and

      8 29: "They besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants." In these two, esp. the last, it is unquestionably the laying aside of the Divine displeasure that is meant.

      Before passing on to look at the great utterances in the

      Epp., we may now look at the non-doctrinal passage

      referred to at the beginning. There is,

      9 T^nn indeed, another non-doctrinal instance in "• •"■'."" 1 Cor 7 11, where the wife who has de- doctrinal parted from her husband is enjoined either Passage — to "remain unmarried, or else be recon- TVrt fi*94. ciled to her husband." But as it is inde- ivn o . ^^ terminate whether the wife or the husband

      is the oITending party, and so which is the one to be influenced, the passage does not help us much. But ]NIt 5 24 is a very lUuminating passage. Here as in the passage from 1 S. the word used is diallasso, but it is practically identified in meaning with katallasso. The injunction is given by Christ to the one who is at variance with his brother, not to complete his offering until first he has been reconciled to his brother. But the whole statement shows that it is not a question of the one who is offering the gift laying aside his enmity against his brother, but the reverse. Christ says, "It therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there remembercst [not that thou hast a grudge against thy brother but] tliat thy brother hath aught against thee" — the brother was the offended one. he is the one to be brought round — "leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gilt." Plainly it means that he should do something to remove his brother's dis- pleasure and so bring about a rcconcihation.

      (1) Rom 5. — Turning now to Rom 5, how stands the matter? Paul has been speaking of the blessed

      results of justification; one of these 3. Doctrinal results is the shedding abroad of the Passages love of God in the heart. Then he

      dwells upon the manifestation of that love in the cleath of Christ, a love that was dis- played to the loveless, and he argues that if in our sinful and unloving state we were embraced by the love of God, a fortiori that love will not be less now that it has already begun to take effect. If He loved us when we were under His condemnation sufficient- ly to give His Son to die for our salvation, much more shall His love bestow upon us the blessings secured by that death. "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him" (5 9).

      (a) The fact of Divine wrath: It is well to note, then, that there is "wrath" on the part of God against sin and sinners. One of the key-thoughts of the apostle in this cp. is that "the wrath of God



      Rechah Reconcile

      is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (1 18), and the coming day of judgment is "the day of wrath and revela- tion of the righteous judgment of God" (2 5). And because of this stern fact, the gospel is a revelation not only of love, but specifically "a righteousness of God" (1 17). And he shows that the essence of the gospel is found in the propitiatory death of the Lord Jesus Christ (3 24.25.26), through whom alone can men who have been "brought under the judg- ment of God" (3 19) find justification, salvation, deliverance from the wrath of God (4 25; 5 1-6). Of course it is not necessary to add that the wrath of God is not to be thought of as having any un- worthy or capricious element in it — it is the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin.

      (b) Reconciliation, Godward, as well as man- ward: The apostle proceeds (ver 10): "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." Now if, as many maintain, it is only the reconciliation on the manward side that is meant, that the mani- fested love led to the sinner laying aside his enmity, it would entirely reverse the apostle's argument. He is not arguing that if we have begun to love God we may reckon upon His doing so and so for us, but because He has done so much, we may ex- pect Him to do more. The verse is parallel to the preceding, and the being reconciled is on the same plane as being justified; the being justified was God's action, and so is the reconciling. Justifi- cation delivers from "the wrath of God"; recon- ciliation takes efi'ect upon enemies.

      (c) The meaning of the word "enemies": The word "enemies" is important. By those who take the manward aspect of reconciliation as the only one, it is held that the word must be taken actively — those who hate God. But the passive meaning, "hatred of God," seems far the prefer- able, and is indeed demanded by the context. Paul uses the vb. echlhroi, "enemies," in Rom 11 28, in antithesis to "beloved" of God, and that is the consistent sense here. The enemies are those who are the objects of the wrath of the previous verse. And when we were thus hated of God, the objects of His just displeasure on account of our sin, "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." God laid aside His enmity, and in the propitiatory death of Christ showed Himself willing to receive us into His favor.

      (d) The manward side: By this propitiation, therefore, the barrier was removed, and, God having assumed a gracious attitude toward the sinner, it is possible for the sinner now, influenced by His love, to come into a friendly relationship with God. And so in the second phrase, the two meanings, the Godward and the manward, may coalesce: "being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." The reconciliation becomes mutual, for there is no kmd of doubt that sinners are enemies to God in the active sense, and require to lay aside their hostility, and so be reconciled to Him. But the first step is with God, and the reconciliation which took place in the death of His Son could only be the Godward reconciliation, since at that time men were still uninfluenced by His love. But, perhaps, just because that first reconciliation is brought about through the Divine love which provides the pro- pitiation, the apostle avoids saying "God is recon- ciled," but uses the more indirect forrn of speech. The manward aspect is emphasized in the next verse, although the Godward is not lost sight of: "We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" (5 11). It is therefore something that comes from God and does not proceed from

      man. God is the first mover; He makes the recon- ciliation as already indicated, and then the fruit of it is imputed to the believing sinner, and the very fact that our receiving the reconciliation, or being brought into a state of reconciliation, follows the being reconciled of ver 10, shows that the other is Divine reconciliation as the basis of the human.

      (2) '2 Cor 5 18-20.— {a) The Godward aspect primary: In the same way the great passage in 2 Cor 5 18-20 cannot be understood apart from the conception that there is a reconciliation on the Divine side. There is unquestionably reference to the human side of the matter as well, but, as in Rom, the Godward aspect is primary and dominating: "All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation." It might be possible to argue from AV that this describes the process going on under gospel influences, men being brought into gracious relations with God, but the aorist of the Gr rightly rendered by RV, "who reconciled us to himself," points back to the historic time when the transaction took place. It cannot be simply the surrender of the sinner to God that is meant, though that comes as a consequence; it is a work that proceeds from God, is accomplished by God, and because of the accomplishment of that work it is possible for a ministry of reconciliation to be intrusted to men. To make this mean the human aspect of the reconciliation, it would be necessary unduly to confine it to the reconciliation of Paul and his fellow-workers, though even then it would be a straining of language, for there is the other historic act described, "and gave unto us the min- istry of reconciliation." The plain meaning is that through Jesus Christ, God established the basis of agreement, removed the barrier to the sinner's approach to Himself, accomplished the work of propitiation, and, having done so. He intrusts His servants with the ministry of reconciliation, a min- istry which, basing itself upon the great propitia- tory, reconciling work of Christ, is directed toward men, seeking to remove their enmity, to influence them in their turn to be reconciled with God. This is more clearly set forth in the verse which follows, which in explaining the ministry of reconciliation says: "To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses." Here there can be no question that the historic Incarnation is meant, and the reconciling of the world can be nothing other than the objective work of atonement culminating in the cross. And in that transaction there can be no thought of the sinner laying aside his hostility to God; it is God in Christ so dealing with sin that the doom lying upon the guilty is canceled, the wrath is averted, propitiation is made.

      (6) The manward side also prominent: God, in a word, enters into gracious relations with a world of sinners, becomes reconciled to man. This being done, gracious influences can be brought to bear upon man, the chief of which is the consideration of this stupendous fact of grace, that God has in Christ dealt with the question of sin. This is the substance of the "word of reconciliation" which is preached by the apostle. So he continues, "We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us : we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God." Here is the human side. The great matter now is to get the sinner to lay aside his enmity, to respond to the gracious overtm-es of the gospel, to come into harmony with God. ]5ut tliat is only possible because the reconciliation in the Godward aspect has already been accomjilished. If the first recon- ciliation, "the reconciliation of the world unto himself," had been the laying aside of human

      Record Red Sea



      enmity, there could now be no point in the exhor- tation, "Be ye reconciled to God."

      (3) Eph 2 16. — The two passages where the com- pound word occurs are in complete harmony with this interpretation. Eph 2 16: "And might recon- cile them both [Jew and Gentile] in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby," is the outcome of Christ "making peace" (2 15), and the reconciling work is effected through the cross, reconciliation both Godward and man- ward, and, having made peace, it is possible for Christ to come and preach peace to them that are far off — far off even though the reconciling work of the cross has been accomplished.

      (4) Col 1 20-22.-^0 in Col 1 20, "And through him to reconcile aU things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens." Here the thought of the apostle trembles away into infinity, and there seems a parallel to the thought of He 9 23, that according to the typical teaching even "the things in the heavens" in some way stood in need of cleansing. May it be that the work of Christ in some sense affected the angelic intelligence, making it possible for harmony to be restored between redeemed sin- ners and the perfect creation of God? In any case, the reconciling all things unto Himself is not the laying aside of the creaturely hostility, but the determining of the Divine attitude. Then comes the specific reference to the human side, "And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he recon- ciled in the body of his flesh through death"; there, as in Rom, the two phases coalescing, God appearing gracious through the work of Christ, sinners coming into gracious relation with Him. "Having made peace through the blood of his cross," the ground of peace has been established. Christ has done something by His death which makes it possible to offer peace to men. God has laid aside His holy opposition to the sinner, and shows Himself willing to bring men into peace with Himself. He has found satisfaction in that great work of His Son, has been reconciled, and now calls upon men to be reconciled to Him — to receive the reconciliation. See Atonement; Propitiation; Whath.

      Literature. — See the works on NT Theology of Weiss, Schmid, Stevens, etc; Denney. Death of Christ; arts, on "Reconciliation" in HDB, DCG, etc.

      Akchibald M'Caig

      RECORD, rek'ord, rek'ord: (1) The Eng. word, where it occurs in the OT and the NT in the sense of testimony, is tr'' in RV "witness" (Dt 30 19; 31 28; Jn 1 19.32; 8 13.14; Rom 10 2, etc). See Witness. But in Job 16 19 for AV "my record," RV has "he that voucheth for me." (2) In Ezr 4 15; 6 2 [dokhran, dikhron), and Est 6 1 (zikkdron) , the word denotes Pers state chronicles; ct 1 Mace 14 23; 2 Mace 2 1.

      RECORDER, r5-k6r'der (I^ST'a , mazkir; RVm "chronicler"): A high functionary in the court of the Jewish kings, part of whose duty seems to have been to chronicle the events of the reign, but who also occupied a position corresponding with that of the modern vizier (2 S 8 16; 20 24; 1 Ch 18 15, etc). His high rank is shown by the facts that, with other officers, he represented Hezekiah in speaking with Rabshakeh (2 K 18 18), and, in the reign of Josiah, superintended the repairs of the temple (2 Ch 34 8).

      RECOVER, r5-kuv'er: "Recover" has (1) the transitive meaning of "to retake" or "regain" (any- thing); and (2) the intransitive sense of "to regain

      health" or "become well." In Jth 14 7 it means "restore to consciousness." In the former sense it is in the OT the tr of 553, na^al, "to snatch away" (Jgs 11 26; 1 S 30 8.22; in Hos 2 9, RV "pluck away"); also of 2W , shubh (KalandHiph. 1 S 30 19 AV; 2 S 8 3, etc), and of various other words in single instances. In 2 K 6, "to restore to health" is SOS, 'dsaph. In its intransitive sense "recover"is chiefly the tr of H^n , hay ah, "to live," "revive" (2 K 1 2, etc; Isa 38 9.21). "Recover" appears only twice in AV of the NT; Mk 16 18 (for kalos hexousin) and 2 Tim 2 26 (from anant- pho, RVm "Gr 'return to soberness' ") ; but RV has "recover" for "do well" in Jn 11 12 {sothiseta.i; m "Gr 'be saved'"). "Recovering" (of sight) (andblepsis) occurs in Lk 4 18. W. L. Walker

      RED. See Colors, (10).

      RED DRAGON. See Revelation of John.

      RED HEIFER. See Heifer, Red.

      RED HORSE. See Horse, Red; Revelation OF John.

      RED SEA (aiD"D^, yam-^uph [Ex 10 19 and often], but in many passages it is simply D^n , ha- ydm, "the sea" ; LXX with 2 or 3 exceptions renders it by T) €pv9pd 6d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\a(r

      1. Name

      2. Peculiarities

      3. OT Eeferences

      4. Passage of, by Israelites Objections

      (1) Steep Banks of the Channel

      (2) Walls Formed by the Water

      (3) The East Winds

      (4) The Miraculous Set Aside Literature

      The Heb name yam-suph has given rise to much con- troversy. Yam is the 'general word for sea, and when standing alone may refer to the Mediter- 1 NflTtna ranean, the Dead Sea, the Red Sea, or the J., i^ame gg^ Qf Gahlee. In several places it des- ignates the river Nile or Euphrates. §uph means a rush or seaweed such as abounds in the lower portions of the Nile and the upper portions of the Red Sea. It was in the suph on the brink of the river that the ark of Moses was hidden (Ex 2 3.5). But as this word does not in itself mean red, and as that is not the color of the bulrush, authorities are much divided as to the reason for this designation. Some have sup- posed that it was called red from the appearance of tlie mountains on the western coast, others from the red color given to the water by the presence of zoophytes, or red coral, or some sjjecies of seaweed. Others still, with considerable probability, suppose that the name origi- nated in the red or copper color of the inhabitants of the bordering Arabian peninsula. But the name yam- suph, though applied to the whole sea, was esp. used with reference to the northern part, which is alone men- tioned in the Bible, and to the two gulfs (Suez and Akabah) which border the Sinaitic Peninsula, esp. the Gulf of Suez.

      The Red Sea has a length of 1,350 miles and an extreme breadth of 205 miles. It is remarkable that while it has no rivers flowing 2. Pecu- into it and the evaporation from its liarities surface is enormous, it is not much

      Salter than the ocean, from which it is inferred that there must be a constant influx of water from the Indian Ocean through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, together with an outflow of the more saline water beneath the surface. The deep- est portion measures 1,200 fathoms. Owing to the lower land levels which prevailed in recent geo- logical times, the Gulf of Suez formerly extended across the lowland which separates it from the Bitter Lakes, a distance of 15 or 20 miles now traversed by the Suez Canal, which encountered no elevation more than 30 ft. above tide. In early



      Record Red Sea

      historic times the Gulf ended at Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. North of this the land rises to a height of more than 50 ft. and for a long time furnished a road leading from Africa into Asia. At a somewhat _ earlier geological (middle and late Tertiary) period the depression of the land was such that this bridge was also submerged, so that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean were connected by a broad expanse of water which overflowed the whole surface of Lower Egypt.

      The evidence o( the more recent depression of the land surface in all Lower Egypt is unmistakable. Raised beaches containing shells and corals still living in the Red Sea are found at various levels up to more than 200 ft. above tide. One of the most interesting of these is to be seen near the summit of the "Crow's Nest," a half-mile S. of the great pyramids, where, near the summit of the eminence, and approximately 200 ft. above tide, on a level with the base of the pyramids, there is a clearly defined recent sea beach composed of water-worn pebbles from 1 in. to 1 or 2 ft. in diameter, the interstices of which are fUled with small shells loosely cemented together. These are identified as belonging to a variable form, Alectryonia cucullata Born, which lives at the present time in the Red Sea. On the oppo- site side of the river, on the Mokattam Hills S. of Cairo, at an elevation of 220 ft. above tide, similar deposits are_ found containing numerous shells of recent date, while the rock face is penetrated by numerous borings of hthodomus moUusks (Pholades rugosa Broc). Other evidences of the recent general depression of the land in this region come from various places on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. According to Lartet at Ramleh, near Jaffa, a recent beach occurs more than 200 ft. above sea-level containing many shells of Pectunculus violascens Lamk, which is at the present time the most abundant moUusk on the shore of the adjoining Medi- terranean. A similar beach has been described by Dr. Post at Lattakia, about 30 miles N. of Beirflt; while others, according to Hull, occur upon the island of Cyprus. Further evidence of this depression is also seen in the fact that the isthmus between Suez and the Bitter Lakes is covered "With recent deposits of Nile mud, holding modern Red Sea shells, showing that, at no very distant date, there was an overflow of the Nile through an eastern branch into this sUghtly depressed level. The Une of this branch of the Nile overflow was in early times used for a canal, which has recently been opened to furnish fresh water to Suez, and the depression is fol- lowed by the railroad. According to Dawson, large sur- faces of the desert N. of Suez, which are now above sea- level, contain buried In the sand "recent marine shells in such a state of preservation that not many centuries may have elapsed since they were in the bottom of the sea" {Egypt and Syria, 67).

      The Red Sea is connected with the children of Israel chiefly through the crossing of it recorded in Ex (see 4, below) ; but there are a few refer- 3. OT ences to it in later times. Solomon is

      References said (1 K 9 26) to have built a navy at "Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom." This is at the head of the Gulf of Aljabah, the east- ern branch of the Red Sea. Here his ships were manned by Hiram king of Tyre with "shipmen that had knowledge of the sea" (ver 27). And (ver 28) "they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold." But Eloth was evidently lost to Israel when Edom successfully revolted in the time of Joram (2 K 8 20). For a short time, however, it was restored to Judah by Amaziah (2 K 14 22); but finally, during the reign of Ahaz, the Syrians, or more probably, according to another reading, the Edomites, recovered the place and permanently drove the Jews away. But in 1 K 22 48 Jehosha- phat is said to have "made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber"; while in 2 Ch 20 36 .Jehoshaphat is said to have joined with Ahaziah "to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in Ezion-geber."

      Unless there is some textual confusion here, "ships of Tarshish" is simply the name of the style of the ship, like "East Indiaman," and Tarshish in Ch may refer to some place in the East Indies. This is the more likely, since Solomon's " navy " that went to Tarshish once every 3 years came "bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks," which could hardly have come from any other place than India. See Ships and Boats, II, 1, (2).

      Until in recent times it was discovered that the Gulf of Suez formerly extended 30 miles northward

      to the site of the present Ismailia and 4. Passage the ancientPithom, the scene of the Bib. of, by miracle was placed at Suez, the present

      Israelites head of the Gulf. But there is at Suez

      no extent of shoal water sufficient for the east wind mentioned in Scripture (Ex 14 21) to have opened a passage-way sufficiently wide to have permitted the host to have crossed over in a single night. The bar leading from Suez across, which is now sometimes forded, is too insignificant to have furnished a passage-way as Robinson sup- posed {BR^, I, 56-.59). Besides, if the children of Israel were S. of the Bitter Lakes when there was no extension of the Gulf N. of its present limits, (here would have been no need of a miracle to open the water, since there was abundant room for both them and Pharaoh's army to have gone around the northern end of the Gulf to reach the eastern shore, while S. of Suez the water is too deep for the wind anywhere to have opened a passage-way. But with an extension of the waters of the Gulf to the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah, rendered probable by the facts cited in the previous paragraph, the narrative at once so perfectly accords with the physical conditions involved as to become not only easily credible, but self-evidencing.

      The children of Israel were at Rameses (Ex 12 37) in the land of Goshen, a place which has not been certainly identified, but could not have been far from the modern Zagazig at the head of the Fresh Water Canal leading from the Nile to the Bitter Lakes. One day's journey eastward along W&dy Tumilat, watered by this canal, brought them to Succoth, a station probably identical with Thuket, close upon the border line separating Egypt from Asia. Through the discoveries of Naville in 1883 this has been identified as Pithom. one of the store-cities built by Pharaoh during the period of Heb oppression (Ex 1 11). Here Naville uncovered vast store pits for holding grain built during the reign of Rameses II and constructed according to the description given in Ex 1 : the lower portions of brick made with straw, the middle with stubble, and the top of simple clay without even stubble to hold the brick together (see Naville, "The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus." Egyp ExploTalion Fund, 1885; M. G. Kyle, "A Reexami- nation of Naville's Works." Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7). The next day's journey brought them to Etham on the "edge of the wilderness" (Ex 13 20; Nu 33 6), probably in the vicinity of the modern Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. From this point the natural road to Pal would have been along the caravan route on the neck of land referred to above as now about 50 ft. above sea-level. Etham was about 30 miles S.E. of Zoan or Tanis, the headquarters at that time of Pharaoh, from which he was watching the movements of the host. If they should go on the direct road to Pal, his army could easily execute a flank movement and intercept them in the desert of Etham. But by Divine command (Ex 14 2) Moses turned southward on the west side of the extension of the Red Sea and camped "before Pi- hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal- zephon" (Ex 14 2; Nu 33 5-7). At this change of course Pharaoh was dehghted, seeing that the children of Israel were "entangled in the land" and "the wilder- ness" had "shut them in." Instead of issuing a flank movement upon them, Pharaoh's army now followed them in the rear and "overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth," the location of which is essential to a proper understanding of the narrative which follows.

      In ver 2 Pi-hahiroth is said to be "between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon." Now though Migdol originally meant "watch-tower," it is hardly supposable that this can be its meaning here, otherwise the children of Israel would have been moving directly toward a fortified place. Most probably, therefore, Migdol was the tower-like mountain peak marking the northeast corner of Jebel Geneffeh, which runs parallel with the Bitter Lakes, only a short distance from their western border. Baal-zephon may equally well be some of the mountain peaks on the border of the Wilderness of Paran opposite Cheloof, midway between the Bitter Lakes and Suez. In the clear atmosphere of the region this line of moun- tains is distinctly visible throughout the whole distance from Ismailia to Suez. There would seem to be no ob- jection to this supposition, since all authorities are in dis- agreement concerning its location. From the signifi- cance of the name it would seem to be the seat of some form of Baal worship, naturally a mountain. Brugsch would identify it with Mt. Cassius on the northern shore of Egypt. Naville (see Murray's Illustrated Bible Diet., "Red Sea, Passage of") would connect it with the hill

      Red Sea Redeemer



      called TussHm E. of Lake Timsah, where there is a shrine at the present day visited every year about July 14 by thousands of pilgrims to celebrate a religious festival: but, as this is a ^Mohammedan festival, there seems no reason to connect it with any sanctuary of the Canaanites. Dawson favors the general location which we have assigned to Pi-hahiroth, but would place it beside the narrow southern portion of the Bitter Lakes.

      Somewhere in this vicinity would be a most natural place for the children of Israel to halt, and there is no difficulty, such as Naville supposes, to their passing between Jebel Genejfeh and the Bitter Lakes; for the mountain does not come abruptly to the lake, but leaves ample space for the passage of a caravan, while the mountain on one side and the lake on the other would protect them from a flank movement by Pharaoh and limit his army to harassing the rear of the Israelitish host. Pro- tected thus, the Israelites found a wide plain over which they could spread their camp, and if we suppose them to be as far S. as Cheloof, every condition would be found to suit the narrative which follows. Moses was told by the Lord that if he would order the children of Israel to go for- ward, the sea would be divided and the children of Israel could cross over on dry ground. And when, in compliance with the Divine command, Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, "Jeh caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen" (Ex 14 21-30). But when the children of Israel were safely on the other side the waters returned and overwhelmed the entire host of Pharaoh. In the Song of Moses which follows, describing the event, it is said that the waters were piled up by the "blast of thy [God's] nostrils" (Ex 15 8), and again, ver 10, "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them." Thus 3 t the wind is mentioned as the means employed by God in opening the water. The competency of the wind temporarily to remove the water from the passage connecting the Gulf of Suez with the Bitter Lakes, provided it was only a few feet deep, is amply proved by facts of recent observation. Major General Tullock of the British army (Proc. Victoria Inst., XXVIII, 267-SO) reports having wit- nessed the driving off of the water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 ft., thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom. According to the report of the Suez Canal Co., the difference between the highest and the lowest water at Suez is 10 ft. 7 in,, all of which must be due to the effect of the wind, since the tides do not affect the Red Sea, The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep A^'aterways Commission for 1896 (16.5, 168) it appears that strong wind from the S,W. sometimes lowers the water at Toledo, Ohio, on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 ft., at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount; while a change in the wind during the passage of a single storm reverses the effect, thus sometimes producing a change of level at either end of the lake of 14 ft, in the course of a single day. It would require far less than a tornado to lower the water at Cheloof sufficiently to lay bare the shallow chan- nel which we have supposed at that time to separate Egvpt from the Sinaitic Peninsula. See Exodus, The.

      Several objections to this theory, however, have been urged which should not pass without notice.

      (1) Some have said that the children of Israel would have found an insuperable obstacle to their advance in the steep banks on either side of the supposed channel. But there were no steep banks to be encountered. A gentle sag leads down on one side to the center of the depression and a corre- spondingly gentle rise leads up on the other.

      (2) Much has also been made of the statement (Ex 14 22) that "the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left"; but when we consider the rhetorical use of this word "wall" it presents no difficulty. In Prov 18 11 we are told that "The rich man's wealth is his_ strong city, And as a high wall in his onm imagination." In Isa 26 1 we are told that God will appoint salvation "for walls and bulwarks." Again Nahum (3 8) says of Egypt that her "rampart was the sea [m "the Nile"), and her wall was of the sea," The water upon either side of the opening served the purpose of a wall for protection. There was no chance for Pharaoh to intercept them by a flank movement. Nor is there need of paying further attention to the poetical expressions in the Song of Moses, where among other things it is said "that the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea," and that the "earth [instead of the water] swallowed them." (3) Again it is objected that an east wind does not come from the right direction to produce the desired result. On the other hand it is an east wind only which could have freed the channel from water. A north wind would have blown the water from the Bitter Lakes southward, and owing to the quantity of water impounded would have increased the depth of the water in the narrow passage from the southern end of Suez. An east wind, however, would have pressed the water out from the channel both ways, and from the contour of the shore lines would be the only wind that could have done so. (4) Again, it is objected that this explanation destroys the miraculous character of the event. But it should be noted that little is said in the narrative about the miraculous. On the other hand, it is a straightforward statement of events, leaving their miraculous character to be inferred from their nature. On the explanation we have given the transaction it is what Robinson felicitously calls a mediate miracle, that is, a miracle in which the hand of God is seen in the use of natural forces which it would be impossible for man to command. If anyone should say that tliis was a mere coinci- dence, that the east wind blew at the precise time that Moses reached the place of crossing, the answer is that such a coincidence could have been brought about only by supernatural agency. There was at that time no weather bureau to foretell the approach of a storm. There are no tides on the Red Sea with regular ebb and flow. It was by a miracle of prophecy that Moses was emboldened to get his host into position to avail themselves of the temporary opportunity at exactly the right time. As to the relation of the Divine agency to the event, speculation is useless. The opening of the sea may have been a foreordained event in the course of Nature which God only foreknew, in which case the direct Divine agency was limited to those influences upon the human actors that led them to place themselves where they could take advantage of the natural opportunity. Or, there is no a priori difficulty in supposing that the east wind was directly aroused for this occasion; for man himself produces disturbances among the forces of Nature that are as far-reaching in their extent as would be a storm produced by direct Divine agency. But in this case the disturbance is at once seen to be beyond the powers of human agency to produce.



      Red Sea Redeemer

      It remains to add an important word concerning the evidential value of this perfect adjustment of the narrative to the physical conditions involved. So per- fect is this conformity of the narrative to the obscure physical conditions involved, which onlyrecent inves- tigations have made clear, that the account becomes self-evidencing. It is not within the power of man to invent a story so perfectly in accordance with the vast and complicated conditions involved. The argument is as strong as that for human design when a key is found to fit a Yale lock. This is not a general account which would fit into a variety of circumstances. There is only one place in all the world, and one set of conditions in all history, which would meet the requirements; and here they are all met. This is scientific demonstration. No higher proof can be found in the inductive sciences. The story is true. It has not been remodeled by the imagination, either of the original writers or of the transcribers. It is not the product of mythologi- cal fancy or of legendary accretion.

      LiTEHATuBE. — DawsoH, Egypt and Syria; Hull, Ml. Seir, Sinai and Western Pal: Naville, "The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the E.xodus," Egyp Exploration Fund, 1885; Kyle, "Bricks without Straw at Pithom: A Reexamination of Naville's Works," Records of the Past. VIII, 1901. 304-7; Wright, Scientific Confirmations of OT Hist, 83-117.

      George Frederick Wright REDEEMER, re-dem'er, REDEMPTION, rS-

      demp'shun (p'^S , parak, "to tear loose," "to rescue,"

      n~S , padhah, 5X3 , ga'al; ayopaX,ta, agordzo, refer- ring to purchase, XuTpoB|j,ai, lulroumai, from XvTpov, lutron, "a ransom") :

      1 . Gradual Moralizing of Idea of Redemption

      2. Redemption as Life in Individual

      3. Redemption as Social

      4. Redemption as Process

      5. Moral Imphcations in Scriptural Idea of Redeemer

      6. Uniqueness of Son of God as Redeemer Literature

      The idea of redemption in the OT takes its start from the thought of property (Lev 26 26; Ruth 4 4 ff). Money is paid according to law to buy back something which must be dehvered or rescued (Nu 3 51; Neh 5 8). From this start the word "re- demption" throughout the OT is used in the general sense of deliverance. God is the Redeemer of Israel in the sense that He is the Dehverer of Israel (Dt 9 26; 2 S 7 23; 1 Ch 17 21; Isa 52 3). Theidea of deliverance includes dehverance from all forms of evil lot, from national misfortune (Isa 62 9; 63 9; cf Lk 2 38), or from plague (Ps 78 35.52), or from calamity of any sort (Gen 48 16; Nu 25 4.9). Of course, the general thought of the relation of Israel to God was that God had both a claim upon Israel (Dt 16 15) and an obhgation toward Israel (1 Ch 17 21; Ps 25 22). Israel belonged to Him, and it was by His own right that He could move into the hfe of Israel so as to redeem Israel. On the other hand, obligation was upon Him to redeem Israel.

      In the NT the idea of redemption has more a suggestion of ransom. Men are held under the curse of the law (Gal 3 13), or of sin itself (Rom 7 23 f). The Redeemer purchases their deliverance by offer- ing Himself as payment for their redemption (Eph 1 7; 1 Pet 1 18).

      Throughout both the OT and the NT there is to be observed a gradual morahzing of the meaning of redemption. The same process of 1. Gradual moralizing has continued throughout Moralizing all the Christian ages. Starting with of Idea the idea of redemption price, conceived

      almost in material terms, religious thought has advanced to conceptions entirely moral and spiritual. Through the Scriptures, too, the idea of redemption becomes more specific with the prog- ress of Christian revelation. In the beginning

      God is the Redeemer from distresses of all kinds. He redeems from calamity and from sorrows. This general idea, of course, persists throughout the revelation and enters largely into our thinking of today, but the growing moral discernment of the Bib. writers comes to attach more and more im- portance to sin as the chief disturber of man's wel- fare. We would not minimize the force of the Scriptural idea that God is the Deliverer from all misfortune to which man falls heir, but the Scrip- tural emphasis moves more and more to deliverance from sin. Paul states this deliverance as a deliver- ance from the law which brings sin out into ex- pression, but we must not conceive his idea in any artificial fashion. He would have men delivered not only from the law, but also from the conse- quences of evil doing and from the spirit of evil itself (Rom 8 2).

      In trying to discern the meaning of redemption from sin, toward which the entire progress of Bib.

      and Christian thought points, we may 2. Redemp- well keep in mind the Master's words tion as Life that He came that men might have in Indi- life and might have it more abundantly

      vidual (Jn 10 10). The word "life" seems

      to be the final NT word as a statement of the purpose of Christ. God sent His Son to bring men to life. The word "life," however, is indefinite. Life means more at one period of the world's history than at another. It has the ad- vantage, nevertheless, of always being entirely in- telUgible in its essential significance. Our aim must be to keep this essential significance in mind and at the same time to provide for an increasing ful- ness and enlargement of human capacity and en- deavor. The aim of redemption can only be to bring men to the fullest use and enjoyment of their powers. This is really the conception impUcit even in the earliest statements of redemption. The man redeemed by money payment comes out of the prison to the light of day, or he comes out of slavery into freedom, or he is restored to his home and friends. The man under the law is redeemed from the burden and curse of the law. Paul speaks of his experience under the law as the experience of one chained to a dead body (Rom 7 24). Of course, rehef from such bondage would mean hfe. In the more spiritual passages of the NT, the evil in men's hearts is hke a bKght which paralyzes their higher activities (Jn 8 33-51).

      In all redemption, as conceived of in Christian terms, there is a double element. There is first the deliverance as from a curse. Something binds a man or weights him down; redemption relieves him from this load. On the other hand, there is the positive movement of the soul thus reheved toward larger and fuUer hfe. We have said that the Bib. emphasis is always upon deliverance from sin as the essential in redemption, but this deliverance is so essential that the life cannot progress in any of its normal activities until it is redeemed from evil. Accordingly in the Scriptural thought all manner of blessings follow deliverance. The man who seeks first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness finds all other things added unto him (Mt 6 33). Mate- rial, intellectual and social blessings follow as matters of course from the redemption of the inner spirit from evil. The aim of redemption, to beget in men's hearts the will to do right, once fulfilled, leads men to seek successfully along all possible avenues for life. This, of course, does not mean that the redeemed life gives itself up to the culti- vation of itself toward higher excellencies. It means that the redeemed hfe is delivered from every form of selfishness. In the unselfish seeking of life for others the redeemed Hfe finds its own greatest achievement and happiness (Mt 16 25).




      Just as the idea of redemption concerned itself

      chiefly with the inner spirit, so also it concerns itself

      with the individual as the object of

      3. Redemp- redemption. But as the redemption tion as of the inner spirit leads to freedom in Social all realms of life, so also the redemption

      of the individual leads to large social transformations. It is impossible to strike out of the Scriptures the idea of a redeemed humanity. But humanity is not conceived of in general or class terms. The object of redemption is not humanity, or mankind, or the mas,ses. The object of redemp- tion is rather men set in relation to each other as members of a family. But it would do violence to the Scriptural conception to conceive of the indi- vidual's relations in any narrow or restricted fashion (1 Cor 12 12-27).

      An important enlargement of the idea of redemp- tion in our own time has come as men have con- ceived of the redemption of individuals in their social relationships. Very often men have thought of redemption as a snatching of individuals from the perils of a world in itself absolutely wicked. Even the material environment of men has at times been regarded as containing something inherently evil. The thought of redemption which seems most in line with Scriptural interpretation would seem to be that which brings the material and social forces within reach of individual wilk. Paul speaks of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain waiting for the revelation of the sons of God (Rom 8 22). This graphic figure sets before ua the essentially Christian conception of the redemp- tion of the forces in the midst of which men are placed. Those redeemed for the largest life, by the very force of their fife, will seize all powers of this w'orld to make them the servants of Divine purposes. The seer saw a great multitude which no man could number, of every kindred and nation and tongue, shouting the joys of salvation (Rev 7 9), yet the implication nowhere appears that these were redeemed in any other fashion than by sur- rendering themselves to the forces of righteousness. We have said that the aim of redemption is to bring men to the largest and fullest life. We have

      also said that "Ufe" is a general term.

      4. Redemp- To keep close to the Scrijotural con- tion as ceptions we would best say that the Process aim of redemption is to make men like

      Christ (Rom 8 9). Otherwise, it might be possible to use the word "life" so as to imply that the riotous exercise of the faculties is what we mean by redemption. The idea of re- demption, as a matter of fact, has been thus inter- preted in various times in the history of Christian thinking. Life has been looked upon as sheer quantitative exuberance — the lower pleasures of sense being reckoned as about on the same plane with the higher. We can see the moral and spirit- ual anarchy which would thus be brought about. In Christ's words to His disciples He once used the expression, "Ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you" (.In 15 3). In this par- ticular context the idea does not seem to be that of an external washing. Christ seems rather to mean that His disciples are cleansed as a vineyard is cleansed by pruning away some of the branches that others may bear fruit. In other words, the redemption of life is to be interpreter! so that stress is laid upon the qualitative rather than the quanti- tative. Christ indeed found place in His instruc- tions and in His own hfe for the normal and healthy activities of human existence. He was not an as- cetic; He went to feasts and to weddings, but His emphasis was always upon life conceived of in the highest terms. We can say then that the aim of re- demption is to beget in men Ufe like that in Christ.

      Moreover, redemption must not be conceived of in such fashion as to do away with the need of re- sponse upon the part of the individual 5. Moral will. The hteral suggestion of ransom Implications has to do with paying a price for a in Scrip- man's deliverance, whether the man is tural Idea willing to be delivered or not. Of course, the assumption in the mind of the Bib. writers was that any man in prison or in slavery or in sickness would be overjoyed at being redeemed ; but in dealing with men whose lives are set toward sin we cannot always make this assump- tion. The dreadfulness of sin is largely in the love of sinning which sinning begets. Some thinkers have interpreted redemption to mean almost a seizing of men without regard to their own will. It is very easy to see how this conception arises. A man who himself hates sin may not stop to real- ize that some other men love sin. Redemption, to mean anything, must touch this inner attitude of will. We cannot then hold to any idea of redemp- tion which brings men under a cleansing process without the assent of their o'mi wills. If we keep ourselves alive to the growing moral discernment which moves through the Scriptures, we must lay stress always upon redemption as a moral process. Not only must we say that the aim of redemption is to make men hke Christ, but we must say also that the method of redemption must be the method of Christ, the method of appealing to the moral will. There is no Scriptural warrant for the idea that men are redeemed by fiat. The most we can get from the words of Christ is a statement of the persistence of God in His search for the lost: '[He goeth] after that which is lost, until he finds it' (Lk 15 4). Some would interpret these words to mean that the process of redemption continues until every man is brought into the kingdom. We cannot, in the hght of the NT, limit the redeeming love of God; but we cannot, on the other hand, take passages from figurative expressions in such sense as to limit the freedom of men. The redemption must be conceived of as respecting the moral choices of men. In our thought of the Divine search for the control of inner human motive we must not stop short of the idea of men redeemed to the love of righteousness on its own account. This would do away with the plan of redeeming men by merely reheving them of the consequences of their sins. Out of a changed life, of course, there must come changed consequences. But the Scriptural teach- ing is that the emphasis in redemption is alwaj's moral, the turning to life because of what life is.

      Having thus attempted to determine, at least in outline, the content of the Christian idea of redemp- tion, it remains for us to point out some impUca- tions as to the work of the Redeemer. Through- out the entire teaching on redemption in the Scriptures, redemption is set before us primarily as God's own affair (Jn 3 16). God redeems His people; He redeems them out of love for them. But the love of God is not to be conceived of as mere indulgence, partiality, or good-humored aflection. The love of God rests down upon moral foundations. Throughout the Scriptures, therefore, we find im- plied often, if not always clearly stated, the idea that God is under obhgations to redeem His people. The progress of later thinking has expanded this implication with sureness of moral discernment. We have come to see the obligations of power. The more powerful the man the heavier his obligations in the discharge of this power. This is a genuinely Christian conception, and this Christian conception we apply to the character of God, feeling confident that we are in line with Scriptural teaching. Hence we may put the obligations of God somewhat as follows: God is the most obligated being in the uni-




      verse. If a man is under heavy obligations to use aright the power of controlling the forces already at work ill the world, how much heavier must be the obhgatiqns on the Creator who started these forces ! The obUgation becomes appalling to our human thought when we think that creation includes the calling of human beings into existence and endowing them with the unsolicited boon of freedom. Men are not in the world of their own choice. Vast masses of them seem to be here as the outworking of impulses almost blind. The surroundings of men make it very easy for them to sin. The tend- encies which at least seem to be innate are too often tragically inclined toward evil. Men seem, of themselves, utterly inadequate for their own redemption. If there is to be redemption it must come from God, and the Christian thought of a moral God would seem to include the obligation on the part of God to redeem those whom He has sent into the world. Christ has made clear forever the absolutely binding nature of moral considerations. If the obhgation to redeem men meant everything to Christ, it must also mean everything to the God of Christ. So we feel in line with true Christian thinking in the doctrine that redemption comes first as a discharge of the obligations on the part of God Himself.

      If we look for the common thought in all the Christian statements of God's part in redemption we find it in this: that in all these statements God is conceived of as doing all that He can do for the redemption of man. If in earUer times men conceived of the human race as under the dominion of Satan, and of Satan as robbed of his due by the deliverance of man and therefore entitled to some compensation, they also conceived of God Himself as paying the ransom to Satan. If they thought of God as a feudal lord whose dignity had been offended by sin, they thought of God as Himself paying the cost due to offended dignity. If their idea was that a substitute for sinners must be furnished, the idea included the thought of God as Himself providing a substitute. If they con- ceived of the universe as a vast system of moral laws — broken by sin — whose dignity must be upheld, they thought of God Himself as providing the means for main- taining the dignity of the laws. If they conceived of men as saved by a vast moral influence set at work, they thought of this influence as proceeding, not from man, but from God. The common thought m theories of re- demption then, so far as concerns God's part, is that God Himself takes the initiative and does all He can in the discharge of the obligation upon Himself. Each phras- ing of the doctrine of redemption is the attempt of an age of Christian thinking to say in its own way that God has done all that He can do for men.

      It is from this standpoint that we must approach the part played by Christ in redemption. "This is

      not the place for an attempt at formal 6. Unique- statement, but some elements of ness of Son Christian teaching are, at least in out- of God as line, at once clear. "The question is, Redeemer first, to provide some relation between

      God and Christ which wiU make the redemptive work of Chrisst really effective. Some have thought to find such a statement in the con- ception that Christ is a prophet. They would empty the expression, "Son of God," of any unique meaning; they would make Christ the Son of God in the same sense that any great prophet could be conceived of as a son of God. Of course, we would not minimize the teaching of the Scripture as to the full humanity of Christ, and yet we may be per- mitted to voice our behef that the representation of Christ as the Redeemer merely in the same sense in which a prophet is a redeemer does not do justice to the Scripture teaching; and we feel, too, that such a solution of the problem of Christ would be inadequate for the practical task of redemption. If Christ is just a prophet giving us His teaching we rejoice in the teaching, but we are confronted with the problem as to how to make the teaching effective. If it be urged that Christ is a prophet who in Himself realized the moral ideal, we feel constrained to reply that this really puts Christ

      at a vast distance from us. Such a doctrine of Christ's person would make Him the supreme reli- gious genius, but the human genius stands apart from the ordinary mass of men. He may gather up into Himself and realize the ideals of men; He may voice the aspirations of men and realize those aspirations; but He may not be able to make men like unto Himself. Shakespeare is a consummate literary genius. He has said once and for all many things which the common man thinks or half thinks. When the common man comes upon a phrase of Shakespeare he feels that Shakespeare has said for all time the things which he would him- self have said if he had been able. But the appre- ciation of Shakespeare does not make the ordinary man like Shakespeare; the appreciation of Christ has not proved successful in itself in making men like unto Christ.

      If, on the contrary, without attempting formal theological construction, we put some real meaning into the idea of Christ as the Son of God and hold fast to a unique relationship between Christ and God which makes Christ the greatest gift that God can give us, we find indeed that Christ is lifted up to essentially Divine existence; but we find also that this divinity does not estrange Him from us. Redemption becomes feasible, not merely when we have a revelation of how far up man can go, but when we have also a revelation of how far down God can come. If we can think of God as having in some real way come into the world through His Son Jesus Christ, that revelation makes Christ the Lord who can lead us to redemption.

      Such a conception furnishes the dynamic which we must have in any real process of redemption. We need not only the ideal, but we need power by which to reach the ideal. If we can feel that the universe is under the sway of a moral God, a God who is under obligations to bear the burdens of men, and who willingly assumes these obligations, we really feel that moral life at its fullest and best is the greatest fact in the universe. Moreover, we must be true to the Scriptures and lift the entire conception of redemption beyond the realm of conscience to the realm of the heart. What the conscience of God calls for, the love of God wilhngly discharges. The Cross of Christ becomes at once the revelation of the righteousness of God and the love of God. Power is thus put back of human conscience and human love to move forward toward redemption (Rom 8 3.5-39).

      The aim of the redemption in Christ then is to lift men out of death toward hfe. The mind is to be quickened by the revelation of the true ideals of human life. The conscience is to be reenforced by the revelation of the moral God who carries on all things in the interests of righteousness. The heart is to be stirred and won by the revelation of the love which sends an only begotten Son to the cross for our redemption. And we must take the work of Christ, not as a solitary incident or a mere historic event, but as a manifestation of the spirit which has been at work from the beginning and works forever. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13 8); the spirit of God revealed in the cross of Christ is the same yes- terday, today and forever. We have in the cross a revelation of holy love which, in a sense, over- powers and at the same time encourages. The cross is the revelation of the length to which God is wiUing to go in redemption rather than set aside one jot or tittle of His moral law. He will not redeem men except on terms which leave them men. He will not overwhelm them in any such manner as to do away with their power of free choice. He will show men His own feeling of holiness and love. In the name of a holy love which they can forever

      Redness of Eyes Refuge, Cities of



      aspire after, but which they can never fuUy reach, men call to Him for forgiveness and that forgiveness men find forever available.

      It remains to add one further item of Scriptural teaching, namely that redemption is a continuous process. If we may again use the word "life," which has been the key to this discussion, we may say that the aim of redemption is to make men progressively alive. There are not limits to the development of human powers touched by the redemptive processes of God. The cross is a reve- lation of Divine willingness to bear with men who are forever being redeemed. Of course, we speak of the redeemed man as redeemed once and for all. By this we mean that he is redeemed once and for all in being faced about and started in a right di- rection, but the progress toward full life may be faster or slower according to the man and the cir- cumstances in the midst of which he is placed. Still the chief fact is the direction in which the man is moving. The revelation of God who aids in redemption is of the God who takes the direction as the chief fact rather than the length of the stride or the rate of the movement. Every man is ex- pected to do his best. If he stumbles he is supposed to find his way to his feet; if he is moving slowly, he must attempt to move faster; if he is moving at a slower rate than he can attain, he must strive after the higher rate, but always the dynamic force is the revelation of the holy love of God.

      The Scriptures honor the prophets in whatever land or time they appear. The Scriptures welcome goodness under any and all circumstances. They have a place for a "light that hghteneth every man that cometh into the world," but they still make it clear that the chief force in the redemption of men is the revelation of holy love in Jesus Christ. The redemption, we repeat, is never conceived of in artificial or mechanical terms. If any man hath not the spirit of Christ he does not belong to Christ (Rom 8 9). The aim of redemption is to beget this spirit, and this spirit is hfe.

      Literature. — H. C. Sheldon, Systematic Theology; Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology; Brown. Christian Theology in Outline; Mackintosh. Doctrine of Person of Christ; Bowne, Studies in Christianity; Tymms, The Christian Atonement.

      Francis J. McConnell REDNESS, red'nes, OF EYES. See Dhunk-

      ENNESS, II.

      REDOUND, r5-dound' (from re, "back," and undare, "to surge as a wave") : To be sent back as a reaction, to overflow; occurs only as the tr of Trepurirei/w, perisseuo, "to be over and above," "to superabound" (frequent in the NT) ; in 2 Cor 4 15, "might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God," RV "may cause the thanks- giving to abound."

      REED, red: (1) inS , 'ahu, tr-^ "reed-grass" (Gen

      41 2.18; Job 8 11m). ' See Flag. (2) nnX , 'ebheh, W^ "swift," m "reed" (Job 9 26). The "ships of reed" are the light skiffs made of plaited reeds used on the Nile; ef "vessels of papyrus" (Isa 18 2).

      (3) D"'TQ5?? , 'aghammim, tr'' "reeds," m "marshes," Heb "pools" (Jer 51 32); elsewhere "pools" (E.x 7 19; 8 5; Isa 14 23, etc). See Pools.

      (4) riliy , 'aruih; S-xt, dchi, tr^ "meadows," AV "paper reeds" (Isa 19 7). See Meadows. (5) nif) , kdneh; KdXafiot, kdlamos (the Eng. "cane" comes from Heb via Lat and Gr canna), "stalk" (Gen 41 5.22); "shaft" (Ex 37 17, etc); "reed," or "reeds" (1 K 14 15; 2 K 18 21; Isa 36 6;

      42 3; Ps 68 30, AV "spearman"); "calamus" (Ex 30 23; Cant 4 14; Ezk 27 19); "sweetcane," m "calamus" (Isa 43 24; Jer 6 20); "bone"

      (Job 31 22); used of the cross-beam of a "balance" (Isa 46 6); "a measuring reed" (Ezk 40 3); "a staff of reed," i.e. a walking-stick (Isa 36 6; Ezk 29 6); the "branches" of a candlestick (Ex 37 18). ^ (6) KdXaiios, kdlamos, "a reed shaken with the wind" (Mt 11 7; Lk 7 24); "a bruised reed" (Mt 12 20); they put "a reed in his right hand" (Mt 27 29.30); "They smote his head with a reed" (Mk 15 19); "put it on a reed" (Mt 27 48; Mk 15 36); "a measuring reed" (Rev 11 1; 21 15.16); "a pen" (3 Jn ver 13).

      It is clear that kaneh and its Gr equivalent kalamos mean many things. Some refer to differ- ent uses to which a reed is put, e.g. a cross-beam of a balance, a walking-stick, a measuring rod, and a pen (see above), but apart from this kaneh is a word used for at least two essentially different things: (1) an ordinary reed, and (2) some sweet-smelling substance.

      Reed {Arundo donax).

      (1) The most common reed in Pal is the Arundo donax (N.O. Gramineae), known in Arab, as ka^ah- farasi, "Persian reed." It grows in immense quantities in the Jordan valley along the river and its tributaries and at the oases near the Dead Sea, notably around ''Ain Feshkhah at the northwest corner. It is a lofty reed, often 20 ft. high, of a beautiful fresh green in summer when all else is dead and dry, and of a fine appearance from a distance in the spring months when it is in full bloom and the beautiful silky panicles crown the top of every reed. The "covert of the reed" (Job 40 21) shelters a large amount of animal and bird life. This reed will answer to almost all the requirements of the above references.

      (2) Kdneh is in Jer 6 20 qualified 310n n:]5, kdneh ha-tdhh, "sweet" or "pleasant cane," and in Ex 30 23, Dipi n5]5,J;|'rae/i6/ioseTO,"sweet calamus," or, better, a "cane of fragrance." Cant 4 14; Isa 43 24; Ezk 27 19 all apparently refer to the same thing, though in these passages the kdneh is unquali- fied. It was an ingredient of the holy oil (Ex 30 23); it was imported from a distance (Jer 6 20;



      Redness of Eyes Refuge, Cities of

      Ezk 27 19), and it was rare and costly (Isa 43 24). It may have been the "scented calamus" {Axorus calamus) of Pliny {Nil, xii.48), or some other aromatic scented reed or flag, or, as some think, some kind of aromatic bark. The sweetness refers to the scent, not the taste. See also Bulrush; Papyrus. E. W. G. Masterman

      REED-GRASS (Gen 41 2,18; Job 8 11 m). See Flag, (2); Reed, (1).

      HEED, MEASURING, mezh'tlr-ing (HTOH HDp , k'neh ha-middah) : In Ezekiel's vision of the temple a "man" (an angel) appears with a "measuring reed" to measure the dimensions of the temple (Ezk 40 3 ff; 42 16 ff). The reed is described as 6 cubits long, "of a cubit and a handbreadth each," i.e. the cubit used was a handbreadth longer than the common cubit (see Cubit; Weights and Measures; Temple). In the Apocalypse this idea of a measuring reed reappears for measuring the temple (Rev 11 1) and the holy city (21 15.16, "a golden reed"). The thought conveyed is ex- actitude in the dimensions of these edifices, symbolic of the symmetry and perfection of God's church.

      James Orb

      REELAIAH, re-el-a'ya, re-el-l'a (!T;'??'1 , r^'el- yah): One of the 12 chiefs who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2 1| Neh 7 7). In the passage in Neh the name is "Raamiah" (H^'!??'!, r&'amydh), and in 1 Esd 5 8 "Resaias." Which is the origi- nal, it is almost impossible to decide; "Reelaiah" seems preferable.

      REELIAS, rS-el'i-as (A, 'PeA.ias, Rhedias [Fritzsche], B, followed by Swete, BopoXelas, Boroleias; AV Reelius): One of the "leaders" with Zerubbabel in the return from exile (1 Esd 5 8, m "Reelaiah"). It occupies the place of "Bigvai" in Ezr 2 2; Neh 7 7, but in form it must be the equivalent of "Reelaiah" of Ezr and "Raamiah" of Neh. It is perhaps a duplicate of "Resaias."

      REESAIAS, re-g-sa'yas, re-S-sI'as: AV; RV RESAIAS (q.v.).

      REFINER, rS-fln'er, REFINING, r5-fin'ing: Two Heb words have been tr'^ "refine" : (1) D12 , paraph, lit. to "fuse" (Zee 13 9; Isa 48 10; Mai 3 2.3, etc). The same word is rendered also "tried" (Ps 66 10); "melt" (Jer 6 29 AV); "purge" (Isa 1 25). (2) pp-l , zaixik, lit. to "strain" or "sift." In the case of silver and gold the term probably re- ferred to some washing jjrocess in connection with refining as in Mai 3 3 both paraph and zaJcak are used (1 Ch 28 18; 29 4; Job 28 1). The same word in Isa 25 6 referred to the straining of wine. Gr -rrvpSui, puroo, in the passive, lit. "to be ignited," is tr'^ "refined," in Rev 1 15; 3 18.

      The ancient process of refining gold has already been described under Metallurgy (q.v.). Most of the Bible references are to the refining of silver (Prov 25 4; Zee 13 9; Isa 48 10). The silver used by the ancients was probably obtained by smelting lead sulphide

      ore, rich in silver (argen-

      tiferous galena) . After the gio^ypipe and Small Fur- ore had been reduced to nace.— Thebes. a metallic condition, the , , , • , ^ lead was separated from the silver by blowing hot air over the surface of the melted metal. _ The lead was thus changed to lead oxide which, in a pow- dered condition, was driven away by the air blast.

      The resulting lead oxide, called in the Bible silver dross, was used for glazing pottery (Prov 26 23), a use to which it is still put by Syrian jjottcrs. The description of refining in Ezk 22 lS-22 may indi- cate that a flux (cf "as with lye," Isa 1 25 ARVm) was sometimes added to the melted metal to dis- solve the oxides of copper, lead, tin and iron as they formed, thus leaving the silver pure. Crude processes similar to those described above are used in the Taurus Mountains today.

      Figurative: In the various Bible references the refining of precious metals is used fig. to illustrate the kind of trial God's children are called upon to go through. If they are of the right metal the dross will finally be blown away, leaving pure, clear, shining silver. If of base metal they will be like the dross described in Jer 6 29.30. The refiner may blow fiercely, but in vain, for nothing but lead dross appears. James A. Patch

      REFORM, re-form' ("ID^ , ya.'^ar) : The word in RV is found only in Lev 26 23, in the phrase "ye will not be reformed." The meaning is, "to be instructed," or, more fully, "to let one's self be chastened," i.e. by God's discipline to learn the lessons of this chastening.

      The Heb word is the same In a similar connection in Jer 6 8, where it is rendered, "Be thou instructed," and in 31 18, " r was chastised," Ps 2 10 ("instructed"); Prov 29 19 ("corrected") use the Heb term of admoni- tion by the words of man.

      AV also has "reform" in 2 Esd 8 12; Wisd 9 18.

      REFORMATION, ref-or-ma'shun : The word is found only in He 9 10, being the tr of Si6pduais, diorthosis, in its only occurrence. This Gr word means etymologically "making straight," and was used of restoring to the normally straight condition that which is crooked or bent. In this passage it means the rectification of conditions, setting things to rights, and is a description of the Messianic time.

      REFRESH, r5-fresh', REFRESHING, rS-fresh'- ing; "Refresh" occurs a few times in the OT as the tr of 11)33 , naphash, "to take breath," figurative "to be refreshed" (Ex 23 12; 31 17; 2 S 16 14); of HIT, rawah, "to have room" (1 S 16 23; Job 32 20, m "find relief," AVm "may breathe"); of n?D, sa'adh, "to support" (1 K 13 7); and in the NT as the tr of amwaiia, anapauo, "to give rest" (1 Cor 16 18; 2 Cor 7 13; Philemvs7.20; in com- pound middle, Rom 15 32 AV); also of ava-^/ix'^-, anapsucho, "to invigorate," "revive" (2 Tim 1 16), and other words. "Refreshing" is in Isa 28 12 mar- ge'ah, "rest" or "quiet"; and in Acts 3 19, dvd'fiv^is, andpsuxis, "seasons of refreshing," through the coming of Jesus, the Christ; cf 2 Esd 11 46 and AV Sir 43 22 (aop6cu). W. L. Walker

      REFUGE, ref'ilj : A place of resort and safety. The principal words in the OT are norTO , mah^eh (Ps 14 6; 46 1; 62 7.8; Isa 4 6, etc')' and Dlitl, 7nand!} (2 S 22 3; Ps 59 16, etc), both applied chiefly to God as a "refuge" for His people. For AV "refuge" in Dt 33 27, RV has "dwelling-place," and in Ps 9 9, "high tower," Conversely, RV has "refuge" for AV "shelter" in Ps 61 3, and "hope" in Jer 17 17,

      REFUGE, CITIES OF (ubpJTSn "'137 , 'are ha-mik- Idt; TrdXcis twv i;'Ya8€vTT]p(MV, poleis ton phugadeu-

      lerion [cf 1 Mace 10 28], and other 1. Location forms) : Six cities, three on each side of

      the Jordan, were set apart and placed in the hands of the Levites, to serve as places of asylum for such as might shed blood unwittingly. On the

      Refuse Regeneration



      E. of the Jordan they were Bezer in the lot of Reu- ben, Ramoth-gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in the territory of Manasseh. On the W. of the Jordan they were Hebron in Judah, Shechem in Mt. Ephraim, and Kedesh in Naphtah (Nu 35 6. 14; Josh 20 2.7 ff; 2113.; Bezer is named in ver 36, but not described as a City of Refuge). An account of these cities is given in separate arts, under their names. Dt 19 2 speaks of three cities thus to be set apart, referring appar- ently to the land W. of the Jordan.

      From time immemorial in the East, if a man were

      slain the duty of avenging him has lain as a sacred

      obligation upon his nearest relative.

      2. Purpose In clistricts where more primitive con-

      ditions prevail, even to this day, the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing is not too strictly observed, and men are often done to death in revenge tor what was the purest accident. To prevent such a thing where possible, and to provide for a right administration of justice, these cities were instituted. Open high- ways were to be maintained along which the man- slayer might have an unobstructed course to the city gate.

      The regulations concerning the Cities of Refuge are found in Nu 35; Dt 19 1-13; Josh 20. Briefly,

      everything was to be done to facilitate

      3. Regu- the flight of the manslayer, lest the lations avenger of blood, i.e. the nearest of

      kin, should pursue him with hot heart, and, overtaking him, should smite him mortally. On reaching the city he was to be received by the elders and his case heard. If this was satisfactory, they gave him asylum until a regular trial could be carried out. They took him, apparently, to the city or district from which he had fled, and there, among those who knew him, witnesses were examined. If it were proved that he was not a wilful slayer, that he had no grudge against the person killed, and had shown no sign of purpose to injure him, then he was declared innocent and con- ducted back to the city in which he had taken refuge, where he must stay until the death of the high priest. Then he was free to return home in safety. Until that event he must on no account go beyond the city boundaries. If he did, the avenger of blood might slay him without blame. On the other hand, if he were found guilty of de- liberate murder, there was no more protection for him. He was handed over to the avenger of blood who, with his own hand, took the murderer's life. Blood-money, i.e. money paid in compensation for the murder, in settlement of the avenger's claim, was in no circumstances permitted; nor could the refugee be ransomed, so that he might "come again to dwell in the land" until the death of the high priest (Nu 35 32).

      A similar right of refuge seems to have been recog- nized in Israel as attaching to the altar in the temple at Jerus (1 K 1 50; 2 28; cf Ex 21 12 f). This may be compared with the right of asylum connected with the temples of the heathen. W. Ewing

      REFUSE, r5-f uz' : Formerly used with the addi- tional meaning "reject," and hence the change from AV to RV in 1 S 16 7; Ezk 5 6; 1 Tim 4 4; 1 Pet 2 7, etc.

      REFUTE, re-fut': Only in Jude ver 22, ARVm "And some refute while they dispute with you," where RV in the text reads "And on some have mercy, who are in doubt."

      The Gr text of vs 22.2.3 is very uncertain, being given very differently in the various MSS. RV te.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\t foiiows the two oldest MSS, S and B. Instead of i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, eledte, "have mercy." the reading eAeyxcTs, rligrheir, "refute.''

      "convict," has the powerful support of A C. the best cur- sives, Vulg, Memphitic, Armenian and Ethiopian VSS, and is placed in the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf and TregeUes (WH in list of "Suspected Readings" says: " Some primitive error probable: perhaps the first iAeare an interpolation"). Cf ver 15. where the same Gr word occurs in the same sense (AV "convince," RV "con- vict"); cf also 1 Tim 5 20; Tit 1 9. where the same idea of refuting the sinful occurs.

      D. MiALL Edwards REGEM, re'gem (D^T , reghein, "friend" [?]); A Calebite, the son of Jahdai (1 Ch 2 47), men- tioned as the eponym of a Calebite family or clan.

      REGEM-MELECH, re'gem-me'lek, -mel'ek (Djn tjbp , reghevi jnelekh) : One of a deputation sent to inquire concerning the propriety of continuing the commemoration of the destruction of the temple by holding a fast (Zee 7 2). The text of the passage is in disorder. The name may mean "friend of the king"; hence some have sought to remove the difficulty by interpreting reghem melekh as a title, not a personal name, reading the clause, "They of Beth-el had sent Shabezer [q.v. (2)], the friend of the king."

      REGENERATION, re-jen-er-a'shun, re- :

      I. The Term Explained

      1. First Biblical Sense (Eschatological)

      2. Second Biblical Sense (Spiritual)

      II. The Biblic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l Doctrine of Regener.^tion

      1. In the OT

      2. In the Teaching of .Jesus

      3. In Apostolic Teaching

      III. Later Develop.ment of the Doctrine

      IV. Present Significance Literature

      /. The Term Explained. — The theological term "regeneration" is the Lat tr of the Gr expression i!-a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\tiiyei>e<7la, palingenesia, occurring twice in the NT (Mt 19 28; Tit 3 5). The word is usually written TToKiyyeiieala, paliggenesla, in classical Gr. Its mean- ing is different in the two passages, though an easy transition of thought is evident.

      In Mt 19 28 the word refers to the restoration of the world, in which sense it is synonymical to the expressions d-n-OKarda-Tacrts irdfTiov, 1. First apokaldstasis pdnton, "restoration of

      Biblical all things" (Acts 3 21; the vb. is

      Sense (Es- found in Mt 17 11, dTro/caTno-T^iret chatologi- TrdvTa, apokatasttsei pdnia, "shall re- cal) store all things"), and dva\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\pv^ii, and-

      psuxis, "refreshing" (Acts 3 19), which signifies a gradual transition of meaning to the second sense of the word under consideration. It is supposed that regeneration in this sense denotes the final stage of development of all crea- tion, by which God's purposes regarding the same are fully realized, when "all things [are put] in subjection under his feet" (1 Cor 15 27). "This is a "regeneration in the proper meaning of the word, for it signifies a renovation of all visible things when the old is passed away, and heaven and earth are become new" (cf Rev 21 1). To the Jew the regeneration thus prophesied was inseparably con- nected with the reign of the Messiah.

      We find this word in the same or very similar senses in profane literature. It is used of the renewal of the world in Stoical philosophy. Jos {Ant, XI. Hi, 9) speaks of the andktesis kal patiggenesia i^s patridos, "a new foundation and regeneration of the fatherland," after the return from the Bab captivity. Philo (ed. Mangey, ii. 144) uses the word, speaking of the post-diluvial epoch of the earth, as of a new world, and Marcus Aurelius Antoni- nus (xi.l), of a periodical restoration of all things, laying stress upon the constant recurrence and uniformity of all happenings, which thought the Preacher expressed by "There is no new thing under the sun" (EccI 1 9). In most places, however, where the word occurs in philo- sophical writings, it is used of the "reincarnation" or "subsequent birth" of the individual, as in the Buddhistic and Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls (Plut., ed. Xylander, ii.998c; Clem. Alex., ed. Potter, 539) or else of a revival of life (Philo i. 1591. Cicero uses



      Refuse Regeneration

      the word in his letters to Atticus (vi.6) metaphorically of his return from exile, as a new lease of life granted to him. See EacHATOLoaY of the NT, IX.

      This sense is undoubtedly included in the full Bib. conception of the former meaning, for it is unthinkable that a regeneration in the 2. Second eschatological sense can exist without Biblical a spiritual regeneration of humanity

      Sense or the individual. It is, however,

      (Spiritual) quite evident that this latter concep- tion has arisen rather late, from an analysis of the former meaning. It is found in Tit 3 5 which, without absolute certainty as to its meaning, is generally interpreted in agreement with the numerous nouns and vbs. which have given the dogmatical setting to the doctrine of regeneration in Christian theology. Clem. Alex, is the first to differentiate this meaning from the former by the addition of the adj. TrvevfiariKri, 'pneumalikt, "spiritual" (cf anapsuxis, Acts 3 20; see Re- freshing). In this latter sense the word is typi- cally Christian, though the OT contains many adum- brations of the spiritual process expressed thereby.

      //. The Biblical Doctrine of Regeneration. — It is well known that in the earlier portions of the OT, and to a certain degree all through the 1. In the OT, religion is looked at and spoken OT of more as a national possession, the

      benefits of which are largely visible and tangible blessings. The idea of regeneration here occurs therefore — though no technical expres- sion has as yet been coined for the process — in the first meaning of the word elucidated above. Whether the Divine promises refer to the Messianic end of times, or are to be realized at an earlier date, they all refer to the nation of Israel as such, and to indi- viduals only as far as they are partakers in the benefits bestowed upon the commonwealth. This is even true where the blessings prophesied are only spiritual, as in Isa 60 21.22. The mass of the people of Israel are therefore as yet scarcely aware of the fact that the conditions on which these Divine prornises are to be attained are more than ceremonial and ritual ones. Soon, however, great disasters, threatening to overthrow the national entity, and finally the captivity and dispersion which caused national functions to be almost, if not altogether, discon- tinued, assisted in the growth of a sense of indi- vidual or personal responsibility before God. The sin of Israel is recognized as the sin of the individual, which can be removed only by individual repent- ance and cleansing. This is best seen from the stirring appeals of the prophets of the exde, where frequently the necessity of a change of attitude toward Jeh is preached as a means to such regen- eration. This cannot be understood otherwise than as a turning of the individual to the Lord. Here, too, no ceremony or sacrifice is sufficient, but an interposition of Divine grace, which is repre- sented under the figure of a washing and sprinkling from all iniquity and sin (Isa 1 18; .ler 13 2.3). It is not possible now to follow m full the development of this idea of cleansing, but already in Isa 62 15 the sprinkling of many nations is mentioned and is soon understood in the sense of the "baptism which proselytes had to undergo before their recep- tion into the covenant of Israel. It was the syinbol of a radical cleansing like that of a "new-born babe, which was one of the designations of the proselyte (cf Ps 87 5; see also the tractate Y'hhamolh 62a). Would it be surprising that Israel, which had been guilty of many sins of the Gentiles, needed a similar baptism and sprinkling? This is what Ezk 36 25 suggests: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." In other passages the cleansing and refining power of fire is

      alluded to (e.g. IVIal 3 2), and there is no doubt that John the Baptist found in such passages the ground for his practice of baptizing the Jews who came to him (Jn 1 2.5-2S and ii's).

      The turning of Israel to God was necessarily meant to be an inward change of attitude toward Him, in other words, the sprinkling with clean water, as an outward sign, was the emblem of a pure heart. It was Isaiah and Jeremiah who drew atten- tion to this (Isa 57 15; Jer 24 7; 31 33-35; 32 38-40, et passim). Here again reference is made to individuals, not only to the people in general (.ler 31 34). This promised regeneration, so lovingly offered by Jeh, is to be the token of a new covenant between God and His people (Jer 31 31; Ezk 11 19-21; 18 31..32; 37 23.24).

      The renewing and cleansing here spoken of is in reality nothing else than what Dt 30 6 had prom- ised, a circumcision of the heart in contradistinction to the flesh, the token of the former (Abrahamic) covenant (of circumcision, Jer 4 4). As God takes the initiative in making the covenant, the conviction takes root that human sin and depravity can be effectually eliminated only by the act of God Himself renewing and transforming the heart of man (Hos 14 4) . This we see from the testimony of some of Israel's best sons and daughters, who also knew that this grace was found in the way of repentance and humiliation before God. The cla-ssical expression of this conviction is found in the praj'er of David: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right [m "stedfast"] spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit" (Ps 51 10-12). Jeremiah puts the following words into the mouth of Ephraim: "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned" (Jer 31 18). Clearer than any passages of the OT, John the Baptist, forerunner of Christ and last flaming torch of the time of the earlier covenant, spoke of the baptism, not of water, but of the Holy Spirit and of fire (Mt 3 11; Lk 3 16; Jn 1 33), leading thus to the realization of OT foreshadowings which became possible by faith in Christ.

      In the teaching of Jesus the need of regeneration has a prominent place, though nowhere are the reasons given. The OT had suc- 2. In the ceeded — and even the gentile con- Teaching science agreed with it — in convincing of Jesus the people of this need. The clearest assertion of it and the explanation of the doctrine of regeneration is found in the conver- sation of Jesus with Nicodemus (Jn 3). It is based upon (1) the observation that man, even the most punctilious in the observance of the Law, is dead and therefore unable to "live up" to the demands of God. Only He who gave hfe at the beginning can give the (spiritual) life necessary to do God's will. (2) Man has fallen from his virginal and Divinely appointed sphere, the realm of the spirit, the Kingdom of God, living now the perishing earthly life. Only by having a new spiritual nature imparted to him, by being "born anew" (.In 3 3, RVm "from above," Gr &vaieev, dnothen), by being "born of the Spirit" (3 G.8), can he live the spiritual life which God requires of man.

      These words are a NT exegesis of Ezekiel's vision of the dead bones (37 1-10). It is the "breath from Jeh," the Spirit of God, who alone can give life to the spiritually dead.

      But regeneration, according to Jesus, is more than life, it is also purity. As God is pure and sin- less, none but the pure in heart can see God (Mt 5 8). This was always recognized as impossible to mere human endeavor. Bildad the Shuhite de- clared, and his friends, each in his turn, expressed



      very similar thoughts (Job 4 17; 14 4): "How then can man be just with God? Or liow can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold, even the moon hath no brightness, and the stars are not pure in his sight: how much less man, thatisaworm! and the son of man, that is a worm!" (25 4-6).

      To change this lost condition, to impart this new life, Jesus claims as His God-appointed task: "The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost" (Lk 19 10); "I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly" (Jn 10 10). This life is eternal, imperishable: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand" (Jn 10 28). This life is imparted by Jesus Himself: "It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life" (Jn 6 63). This life can be received on the condition of faith in Christ or by coming to Him (Jn 14 6). By faith power is received which enables the sinner to overcome sin, to "sin no more" (Jn 8 11).

      The parables of Jesus further illustrate this doc- trine. The prodigal is declared to have been ' 'dead" and to be "alive again" (Lk 15 24). The new life from God is compared to a wedding garment in the parable of the Marriage of the King's Son (Mt 22 11). The garment, the gift of the inviting king, had been refused by the unhappy guest, who, in consequence, was 'cast out into the outer darkness' (Mt 22 13).

      Finally, this regeneration, this new life, is ex- plained as the knowledge of God and His Christ: "And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ" (Jn 17 3). This seems to be an allusion to the passage in Hos (4 6): "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: be- cause thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me."

      It may be said in general that the teaching of the apostles on the subject of regeneration is a develop- ment of the teaching of Jesus on the 3. In lines of the adumbrations of the OT.

      Apostolic Considering the differences in the per- Teaching sonal character of these writers, it is remarkable that such concord of views should exist among them. St. Paul, indeed, lays more stress on the specific facts of justification and sanctification by faith than on the more compre- hensive head of regeneration. Still the need of it is plainly stated by St. Paul. It is necessary to salvation for all men. "The body is dead because of sin" (Rom 8 3-11; Eph 2 1). The flesh is at enmity with God (Eph 2 15); all mankind is "darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God" (4 IS). Similar passages might be multiplied. Paul then distinctly teaches that thus is a new life in store for those who have been spirit- ually dead. To the Ephesians he writes: "And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins" (2 1), and later on: "God, being rich in mercy, .... made us alive together with Christ" (2 4. .5). A spiritual resurrection has taken place. This regeneration causes a complete revolution in man. He has thereby passed from under the law of sin and death and has come under "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8 2). The change is so radical that it is possible now to speak of a "new creature" (2 Cor 5 17; Gal 6 15, m "new creation"), of a "new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth" (Eph 4 24), and of "the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col 3 10). All "old things are passed away; behold, they are become new" (2 Cor 6 17).

      St. Paul is equally explicit regarding the author of this change. The "Spirit of God," the "Spirit of Christ" has been given from above to be the source of all new life (Rom 8); by Him we are proved to be the "sons" of God (Gal 4 6); we have been adopted into the family of God {uiodea-la, hidothesia, Rom 8 15; Gal 4 5). Thus St. Paul speaks of the "second Adam," by whom the life of righteousness is initiated in us; just as the "first Adam" became the leader in transgression, He is "a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15 45). St. Paul him- self experienced this change, and henceforth ex- hibited the powers of the unseen world in his life of service. "It is no longer I that live," he exclaims, "but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me" (Gal 2 20).

      Regeneration is to St. Paul, no less than to Jesus, connected with the conception of purity and knowl- edge. We have already noted the second NT passage in which the word "regeneration" occurs (Tit 3 5): "According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing [m "laver"] of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Sav- iour." In 1 Cor 12 13 such cleansing is called the baptism of the Spirit in agreement with the oft- repeated promise (Joel 2 28 [in the Heb text 3 1]; Mt 3 11; Mk 1 8; Lk 3 16; Acts 1 5; 11 16). There is, of course, in these passages no reference to mere water-baptism, any more than in Ezk 36 25. Water is but the tertium comparationis. As water cleanseth the outer body, so the spirit puri- fies the inner man (cf 1 Cor 6 11; 1 Pet 3 21).

      The doctrine that regeneration redounds in true knowledge of Christ is seen from Eph 3 15-19 and 4 17-24, where the darkened understanding and ignorance of natural man are placed in contradis- tinction to the enlightenment of the new life (see also Col 3 10). The church redeemed and regen- erated is to be a special "possession," an "heritage" of the Lord (Eph 1 11.14), and the whole creation is to participate in the final redemption and adoption (Rom 8 21-23).

      St. James finds less occasion to touch this subject than the other writers of the NT. His Ep, is rather ethical than dogmatical in tone, still his ethics are based on the dogmatical presuppositions which fully agree with the teaching of other apostles. Faith to him is the human response to God's desire to impart His nature to mankind, and therefore the indispensable means to be employed in securing the full benefits of the new life, i.e. the sin-conquering power (1 2-4), the spiritual enlightenment (1 5) and purity (1 27). There seems, however, to be little doubt that St. James directly refers to regen- eration in the words: "Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (1 18). It is supposed by some that these words, being addressed "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (1 1), do not refer to individual regeneration, but to an election of Israel as a nation and so to a Christian Israel. In this case the aftermath would be the redemption of the Gentiles. I understand the expression "first-fruits" in the sense in which we have noticed St. Paul's final hope in Rom 8 21-32, where the regeneration of the believing people of God (regardless of nationality) is the first stage in the regeneration or restoration of all creation. The "implanted [RVm "inborn"] word" (Jas 1 21; cf 1 Pet 1 23) stands parallel to the PauUne expres- sion, "law of the Spirit" (Rom 8 2).

      St. Peter uses, in his sermon on the day of Pente- cost, the words "refreshing" (Acts 3 19) and "restoration of all things" (3 21) of the final com-



      pletion of God's plans concerning the whole creation, and accordingly looks here at God's people as a whole. In a similar sense he says in his Second Ep., after mentioning "the day of God": "We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet 3 13). Still he alludes very plainly to the regeneration of individuals (1 Pet 1 3.23). The idea of a second birth of the believ- ers is clearly suggested in the expression, "newborn babes" (1 Pet 2 2), and in the explicit statement of 1 Pet 1 23: "having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth." It is in this sense that the apostle calls God "Father" (1 17) and the behevers "children of obedience" (1 14), i.e. obedient children, or children who ought to obey. We have seen above that the agent by which regeneration is wrought, the incorruptible seed of the word of God, finds a parallel in St. Paul's and St. James's theology. All these expressions go back probably to a word of the Master in Jn 15 3. We are made partakers of the word by having re- ceived the spirit. This spirit (cf the Pauline "life- giving spirit," 1 Cor 15 45), the "mind" of Christ (1 Pet 4 1), is the power of the resurrected Christ active in the life of the believer. St. Peter refers to the same thought in 1 Pet 3 15.21. By regen- eration we become "an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession," in whom Divine virtues, "the excellencies of him who called you" (1 Pet 2 9), are manifested. Here the apostle uses well-known OT expressions fore- shadowing NT graces (Isa 61 6; 66 21; Ex 19 6; Dt 7 6), but he individualizes the process of regen- eration in full agreement with the increased light which the teaching of Jesus has brought. The theology of St. Peter also points out the contact of regeneration with purity and holiness (1 Pet 1 15.16) and true knowledge (1 14) or obedience (1 14; 3 16). It is not surprising that the idea of purity should invite the OT parallel of "cleansing by water." The flood washed away the iniquity of the world "in the days of Noah," when "eight souls were saved through water: which also after a true likeness [RVm "in the antitype"] doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation [RVm "in- quiry," "appeal"] of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection [-Ufe] of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 3 20.21).

      The teaching of St. John is very closely aUied with that of Jesus, as we have already seen from the multitude of quotations we had to select from St. John's Gospel to illustrate the teaching of the Master. It is esp. interesting to note the cases where the apostle didactically elucidates certain of these pronouncements of Jesus. The most remarkable apostoUc gloss or commentary on the subject is found in Jn 7 39. Jesus had spoken of the change which faith in Him ("commg to him") would cause in the lives of His disciples; how Di- vine energies hke "rivers of water" should isssue forth from them; and the evangelist continues m explanation : ' 'But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." This recognition of a special mani- festation of Divine power, transcending the expe- rience of OT believers, was based on the declaration of Christ, that He would send "another Comforter [RV "advocate," "helper," Gr Paraclete], that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth" (Jnl4 16,17). , . „ . .^ ,

      In his Epp. St. John shows that this Spirit be- stows the elements of a Godlike character which makes us to be "sons of God," who before were "children of the devil" (1 Jn 3 10.24; 4 13, etc).

      This regeneration is "eternal life" (1 Jn 5 13) and moral similarity with God, the very character of God in man. As "God is love," the children of God will love (1 Jn 5 2). At the same time it is the life of God in man, also called fellowship with Christ, victorious life which overcomes the world (1 Jn 5 4); it is purity (1 Jn 3 3-6) and knowl- edge (1 Jn 2 20).

      The subject of regeneration lies outside of the scope of the Ep. to the He, so that we look in vain for a clear dogmatical statement of it. Still the ep. does in no place contradict the dogma, which, on the other hand, underlies many of the statements made. Christ, "the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises" (8 6), has made "purification of sins" (1 3). In contra- distinction to the first covenant, in which the people approached God by means of outward forms and ordinances, the "new covenant" (8 13) brought an "eternal redemption" (9 12) by means of a Divine cleansing (9 14). Christ brings "many sons unto glory" and is "author of their salvation" (2 10). Immature Christians are spoken of (as were the proselytes of the OT) as babes, who were to grow to the stature, character and knowledge of "full- grown men" (5 13.14).

      ///. Later Development of the Doctrine. — Very soon the high spiritual meaning of regeneration was obscured by the development of priestcraft within the Christian church. When the initiation into the church was thought of as accomphshed by the mediation of ministers thereto appointed, the ceremonies hereby employed became means to which magic powers were of necessity ascribed. This we see plainly in the view of baptismal regeneration, which, based upon half-understood passages of Scrip- ture quoted above, was taught at an early date. While in the post-apostolic days we frequently iind traces of a proper appreciation of an underlying spiritual value in baptism (cf Didache, vii) many of the expressions used are highly misleading. Thus Gregory Nazianzen {Ora- Hons, xi.2) calls baptism the second of the three births a child of God must experience (the first is the natural birth, the third the resurrection). This birth is "of the day, free, delivering from passions, taking away every veil of our nature or birth, i.e. everything hiding the Divine image in which we are created, and leading up to the life above" (Ulhnann, Gregor v. Naziem, 323). Cyril of Jerus {Cat., xvii, c. 37) ascribes to baptism the power of absolution from sin and the power of endow- ment with heavenly virtues. According to Augustine baptism is essential to salvation, though the baptism of blood (martyrdom) may take the place of w^ater-baptism, as in the case of the thief at the cross (Aug., De Anima et Eius Origine, i.ll, c. 9; h.l4, c. 10; ii.l6, C. 12). Leo the Great compares the spirit-filled water of baptism with the spirit-filled womb of the Virgin, in which the Holy Spirit engenders a sinless child of God (Serm. x.xiv.3; XXV. 5; see Hagenbach, Dogmengeschichte, § 137).

      In general this is still the opinion of pronotmced sacra- mentarians, while evangelical Christianity has gone back to the teaching of the NT.

      IV. Present Significance. — Although a clear dis- tinction is not always maintained between regen- eration and other experiences of the spiritual life, we may summarize our belief in the following theses:

      (1) Regeneration implies not merely an addition of certain gifts or graces, a strengthening of certain innate good qualities, but a radical change, which revolutionizes our whole being, contradicts and overcomes our old fallen nature, and places our spiritual center of gravity wholly outside of our own powers in the realm of God's causation.

      (2) It is the will of God that all men be made partakers of this new life (1 Tim 2 4) and, as it is clearly stated that some fall short of it (Jn 5 40), it is plain that the fault thereof lies with man. God requires all men to repent and turn unto Him (Acts 17 30) before He will or can effect regeneration. Conversion, consisting in repentance and faith in Christ, is therefore the human response to the offer of salvation which God makes. This response gives occasion to and is synchronous with the Di- vine act of renewal (regeneration). The Spirit of God enters into union with the believing, accept-

      Regeneration Rehoboam



      ing spirit of man. This is fellowship with Christ (Rom 8 10; 1 Cor 6 17; 2 Cor 5 17; Col 3 3).

      (3) The process of regeneration is outside of our observation and beyond the scope of psychological analysis. It takes place in the sphere of subcon- sciousness. Recent psychological investigations have thrown a flood of light on the psychic states ■which precede, accompany and follow the work of the Holy Spirit. "He handles psychical powers; He works upon psychical energies and states; and this work of regeneration lies somewhere within the psychical field." The study of religious psychology is of highest value and greatest importance. The facts of Christian experience cannot be changed, nor do they lose in value by the most searching psychological scrutiny.

      Psychological analysis does not eliminate the direct workings ol the Holy Spirit. Nor can it disclose its process; the "underlying laboratory where are wrought radical remedial processes and structiu-al changes in the psychical being as portrayed in exphcit scripttiral utter- ances: ' Create in me a clean heart ' (Ps 51 10); 'Ye must be bom again' (Jn 3 7 AV) ; 'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new' (2 Cor 5 17 AV), is in the region of subconsciousness. To look in the region of consciousness for this Person or for His work is fruitless and an effort fraught with endless confusion. Christian psychology thus traces to its deep-lying retreat the Di- vine elaboration of the regenerated hfe. Here God works in the depths of the soul as silently and securely as if on the remotest world of the stellar universe" (H. E. Warner, P&ychology of the Christian Life, 117).

      (4) Regeneration manifests itself in the conscious soul by its effects on the will, the intelligence and the affections. At the same time regeneration supplies a new life-power of Divine origin, which enables the component parts of human nature to fulfil the law of God, to strive for the coming of God's kingdom, and to accept the teachings of God's spirit. Thus regenerate man is made con- scious of the facts of justification and adoption. The former is a judicial act of God, which frees man from the law of sin and absolves him from the state of enmity against God; the latter an endue- ment with the Spirit, which is an earnest of his in- heritance (Eph 1 14). The Spirit of God, dwelling in man, -tvitnesses to the state of sonship (Rom 8 2.15.16; Gal 4 6).

      (5) Regeneration, being a new birth, is the starting-point of spiritual growth. The regenerated man needs nurture and training. He receives it not merely from outside experiences, but from an immanent power in himself, which is recognized as the power of the life of the indwelling Christ (Col 1 26.27). Apart from the mediate dealings of God with man through word and sacraments, there is therefore an immediate communication of life from God to the regenerate.

      (6) The truth which is mentioned as the agent by whom regeneration is made possible (Jn 8 32; Jas 1 18; 1 Pet 1 23), is nothing than the Divine Spirit, not only the spoken or written word of God, which may convince people of right or wrong, but which cannot enable the will of man to forsake the wrong and to do the right, but He who calls Himself the Truth (.In 14 6) and who has become the motive power of regenerated life (Gal 2 20).

      (7) Recent philosophy expressive of the reaction from the mechanical view of bare materialism, and also from the depreciation of personality as seen in socialism, has again brought into prominence the reality and need of personal life. Johannes Muller and Rudolf Eucken among others emphasize that a new life of the spirit, independent of outward conditions, is not only possible, but necessary for the attainment of the highest development. This new life is not a fruit of the free play of the tend- encies and powers of natural life, but is in sharp

      conflict with them. Man as he is by nature stands in direct contrast to the demands of the spiritual life. Spiritual life, as Professor Eucken says, can be implanted in man by some superior power only and must constantly be sustained by superior life. It breaks through the order of causes and effects; it severs the continuity of the outer world; it makes impossible a rational joining together of reaUties; it prohibits a monistic view of the immediate con- dition of the world. This new life derives its power not from mere Nature; it is a manifestation of Divine life within us (Hauptprobleme der Re- ligionsphilosophie, Leipzig, 1912, 17 ff; Der Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt, Leipzig, 1907; Grundlinien einer neuen Lebensanschauung, Leipzig, 1907; Johannes Mtiller, Bmisteine filr personliche Kuhur, 3 vols, Mtinchen, 1908). Thus the latest development of idealistic philosophy corroborates in a remarkable way the Christian truth of regen- eration. See also Conversion.

      LiTERATuBE. — NT Theologics by 'Weiss. Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Schlatter, Feine, Stevens, Sheldon, "Weinel. Textbooks on Systematic Theology: arts. "Bekehrung" by R. Seeberg; " Wiedergeburt " by O. Kirn in Hauck- Herzog RE': "Regeneration" by J. V. Bartlett in HDB; "Conversion" by J. Strachan in ERE: George Jackson, The Fact of Conversion, London, 190S; Newton H. Marshall, Conversion; or, the New Birth, London, 1909; J. Herzog. Der Begriff der Bekehrung, Giessen, 1903; P. Feine, Bekehrung im NT und in der Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1908; P. Gennrich, Die Lehrevonder Wiedergeburt, 'Lieipzig, 1907. Psychological: W. James, Varieties of Religious Ex- perience, 189-258; G. Stanley Hall, Adolescence, II, 281- 362; G. A. Coe, The Spiritual Lj/e, New York. 1900; E. D. Starbuck, Psychology of Religion, New York, 1911; G. B. Cutten, Psychological Phenomena of Christianity, London, 1909; H. E. Warner, The Psychology of the Christian Life, New York, 1910; H. W. Clark, The Philosophy of Christian Experience, London, 1906; Harold Begbie, Broken Earthenware, or Twice-Born Men, London, 1909; M. Scott Fletcher, The Psychology of the NT, London, 1912.

      John L. Nuelsen

      REGENERATION, BAPTISMAL. See Bap- tismal Regeneration.

      REGION, re'jun: A "district," as in modern Eng. The word "region" is used by EV inter- changeably with "country," "coasts," etc, for various Heb and Gr terms, but "region round about" is usually in AV and invariably in RV the tr of Teplx<^po$, perlchoros, "surrounding country." For a possible technical use of "region" in Acts 16 6 and RV 18 23; see Galatia.

      REGISTER, rej'is-ter. See Genealogy; Qdi-


      REHABIAH, re-ha-bl'a (H'^^ni, r'habhyah, irr^DnT , r'habhyahu, "Jeh is wide") : Son of Eliezer, and grandson of Moses. Eponym of a Levitical family (1 Ch 23 17; 24 21; 26 25).

      REHEARSE, rS-htirs' {DW , sum, in'n , dabhar, ~?5 7 ndghadh, njH, tdnah; dva-yy^Xu, anaggello): Usually means simply "to relate," "to tell," "to declare" (Ex 17 14; Jgs 5 11; 1 S 8 21; 17 31: Acts 14 27); with "rehearse from the beginning' in Acts 11 4 for dpxo/juii, drchomai, "begin" (so RV). RV has preserved uniformity by translating anaggello by "rehearse" also in Acts 15 4, and has introduced "rehearse" as the tr of i^vi^ofiai, exegeamai, through- out (Lk 24 35; Acts 10 8; 15 12.14; 21 19), except in Jn 1 18 ("declare"). Sir 19 7, AVhas "rehearse" for SevTep6u, deuteroo, "repeat" (so RV).

      REHOB, re'hob (ahn, r'hobh; 'Poiip, Rho6b, ■Padp, Bhadb):

      (1) Etymologically the word means "broad" and might be applied either to a road or a plain. Rehob is given (Nu 13 21) as the northern limit



      Regeneration Rehoboam

      of Israel as reached by the spies. This agrees with the position assigned to Beth-rehob in the narrative of the settlement of the Danites (Jgs 18 28). It is mentioned again along with the kingdom of Zobah in connection with the wars of Saul (1 S 14 47 LXX Lag.), and as having been associated with Zobah and Maacah against David in the Ammon- ite war and as having been defeated by him (2 S 10 6). Robinson sought to identify it with Hunin, but it hardly suits the references. Buhl {GAP, 240) following Thomson {LB, II, 547) seeks it at Paneas (modern Banids). This would suit all the requirements of the capital, Beth-rehob, which might then be the second Rehob, assigned as part of the territory of Sidon to the tribe Asher (Josh 19 28.30; Jgs 18 28). We must, however, assign to the kingdom of Rehob a territory extending from the settlements of the Danites to the "enter- ing in of Hamath" or to Libo (modern Leboue), i.e. the Great Plain of Coele-Syria bounded by Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon and within the limits indicated.

      (2) Two separate towns belonging to Asher (Josh 19 28; 19 30). One of them was given to the Gershonite Levites (Josh 21 31), and one is mentioned as remaining in the hands of the Canaan- ites (Jgs 1 31).

      (3) Father of Hadadezer, king of Aram Zobah, who was overwhelmed by David at the Euphrates (2 S 8 3.12).

      (4) One of the Levites who sealed Nehemiah's covenant on the 24th Tishri, 444 BC (Neh 10 11).

      W. M. Christie REHOBOAM, re-ho-bo'am (Dy?nn , r'habh'am, "the people is enlarged," or perhaps "Am is wide"; 'PoPoapi, Rhobodm; "Roboam," Mt 1 7AV):

      1. The Disruption of the Kingdom

      2. Underlying Causes ol Disruption

      3. Shemaiah Forbids Civil War

      4. Rehoboam's Prosperity

      5. Shishak's Invasion

      6. His Death

      The son and successor of Solomon, the last king to claim the throne of old Israel and the first king of Judah after the division of the kingdom. He was bom c 978 BC. His mother was Naamah, an Ammonitess. The account of his reign is contained in 1 K 14 21-31; 2 Ch 10-12. The incidents leading to the disruption of the kingdom are told in 1 K 11 43—12 24; 2 Ch 9 31—11 4.

      R. was 41 years old (2 Ch 12 13) when he began to reign (LXX 1 K 12 24a says 16 years). He ascended the throne at Jerus imme- 1. The Dis- diately upon his father's death with ruption apparently no opposition. North

      of the Israel, however, was dissatisfied, a,nd

      Kingdom the people demanded that the king meet them in popular assembly at Shechem, the leading city of Northern Israel. True, Israel was no longer, if ever, an elective monarchy. Nevertheless, the people claimed a constitutional privilege, based perhaps on the transaction of Samuel in the election of Saul (1 S 10 2.5), to be a party to the conditions under which they would serve a new king and he become their ruler. David, in making Solomon his successor, had ignored this wise provision, and the people, having lost such a privilege by default, naturally deemed their neg- ligence the cause of Solomon's burdensome taxes and forced labor. Consequently, they would be more jealous of their rights for the future, and R. accordingly would have to accede to their demand. Having come together at Shechem, the people agreed to accept R. as their king on condition that he would lighten the grievous service and burdensome taxes of his father. R. asked for three days' time m which to consider the request. Against the advice

      of men of riper judgment, who assured him that he might win the people by becoming their servant, he chose the counsel of the younger men, who were of his own age, to rule by sternness rather than by kindness, and r(;lurned the people a rough answer, saying: "My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions" (1 K 12 14). R., however, misjudged the temper of the people, as well as his own ability. The people, led by Jeroboam, a leader more able than himself, were ready for rebellion, and so force lost the day where kindness might have won. The threat of the king was met by the Marseillaise of the people: "What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David " (1 K 12 16). Thus the ten tribes de- throned R., and elected Jeroboam, their champion and spokesman, their king (see Jeroboam). R., believing in his ability to carry out his threat (1 K 12 14), sent Adoram, his taskmaster, who no doubt had quelled other disturbances, to subdue the popu- lace, which, insulted by indignities and enraged by R.'s renewed insolence, stoned his messenger to death. Reahzing, for the first time, the seriousness of the revolt, R. fled ignominiously back to Jerus, king only of Judah and of the adjacent territory of the tribe of Benjamin. The mistake of R. was the common mistake of despots. He presumed too much on privilege not earned by service, and on power for which he was not wilUng to render ade- quate compensation.

      It is a mistake, however, to see in the disruption the shattering of a kingdom that had long been a harmonious

      whole. From the earhest times the con- 9 TTnHprlv federationof tribes was imperfectly cement- z. unaeny- g^_ They seldom imited against their com- ing Causes mon foe. No mention is made of Judah of Disrup- in ths list of tribes who fought with Deb- ^. *^ orah against Sisera. A chain of cities held

      lion ]r)y i^Q Canaanites, stretching across the

      country from E. to W., kept the North and the South apart. Different physical characteristics produced different types of life in the two sections. Old jealousies repeatedly fanned into new flame intensified the divisions due to natural and artificial causes. David labored hard to break down the old antagonisms, but even in his reign Israel rebelled twice. Northern Israel had produced many of the strongest leaders of the nation, and it was not easy for them to submit to a ruler from the Judaean dynasty. Solomon, following David's policy of unification, drew the tribes closely together tlirough the centralization of worship at Jerus and through the general splendor of his reign, but he, more than any other, finally widened the gulf between the North and the South, through his unjust discrimi- nations, his heavy taxes, his forced labor and the gen- eral extravagances of his reign. The reUgion of Jeh was the only bond capable of holding the nation together. The apostasy of Solomon severed tliis bond. The prophets, with their profound knowledge of religious and pohtical values, saw less danger to the true wor- ship of Jeh in a divided kingdom than in a united nation ruled over by E., who had neither political sagacity nor an adequate conception of the greatness of the reUgion of Jeh. Accordingly, Ahijah openly en- couraged the revolution, while Shemaiah gave it passive support.

      Immediately upon his return to Jerus, R. col- lected a large army of 180,000 men (reduced to

      120,000 in LXX B), for the purpose 3. She- of making war against Israel. The

      maiah expedition, however, was forbidden

      Forbids by Shemaiah the prophet on the

      Civil War ground that they should not fight

      against their brethren, and that the division of the kingdom was from God. Notwith- standing the prohibition, we are informed that "there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continuaUy" (1 K 14 30; 2 Ch 12 15).

      R. next occupied himself in strengthening the territory which still remained to him by fortifying a number of cities (2 Ch 11 .5-12). These cities were on the roads to Egypt, or on the western hills

      Rehoboth Rekem



      of the Judaean Shephelah, and were doubtless forti- fied as a protection against EgjTDt. According to 2 Ch 11 13-17, Rehoboam's prosperity

      4. Reho- was augmented by an immigration of beam's priests and Levites from Israel, who Prosperity came to Jems because of their opposi- tion to the idolatrous worship insti- tuted by Jeroboam. AH who were loyal to Jeh in the Northern Kingdom are represented as follow- ing the example of the priests and Levites in going to Jerus, not simply to sacrifice, but to reside there permanently, thus strengthening R.'s kingdom. In view of the fact that R. added to the innovations of his father, erected pillars of Baal in Jerus long before thej' were common in Northern Israel, and that he permitted other heathen abominations and immoralities, it seems that the true worship of Jeh received little encouragement from the king him- self. As a further evidence of his prosperity, Ch gives an account of R.'s family. Evidently he was of luxurious habit and followed his father in the possession of a considerable harem (2 Ch 11 18-23). He is said to have had 18 wives and 60 concubines, (2 Ch 11 21; LXX B and Jos, A7it, VIII, x, 1 give "30 concubines").

      One of the direct results of the disruption of the

      kingdom was the invasion of Pal by Shishak, king

      of Egypt, in the 5th year of R. Shi-

      5. Shi- shak is Sheshonk I, the first king of shak's the XXIId or Bubastite Dynasty. He Invasion is the same ruler who granted hospi- tality to Jeroboam when he was obliged

      to flee from Solomon (1 K 11 40). The LXX (IK 12 24e) informs us that Jeroboam married Ano, the sister of Shishak's wife, thus becoming brother- in-law to the king of Egypt. It is therefore easy to suppose that Jeroboam, finding himself in straits in holding his own against his rival, Rehoboam, called in the aid of his former protector. The results of this invasion, however, are inscribed on the temple at Karnak in Upper EgjTJt, where a list of some ISO (Curtis, "Chronicles," ICC) towns cap- tured by Shishak is given. These belong to North- ern Israel as well as Judah, showing that Shishak exacted tribute there as well as in Judah, which seems scarcely reconcilable with the view that he invaded Pal as Jeroboam's ally. However, the king of Israel, imploring the aid of Shishak against his rival, thereby made himself vassal to Eg>-pt. This would suffice to make his towns figure at Kar- nak among the cities subjected in the course of the campaign. The Chronicler saw in Shishak an instrument in the hand of God for the punishment of R. and the people for the national apostasy. According to 2 Ch 12 3, Shishak had a force of 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen to which Jos adds 400,000 foot-soldiers, composed of Lubim, Sukkiim and Ethiopians. No resistance appears to have been offered to the advance of the invading army. Not even Jerus seems to have stood a siege. The palace and the temple were robbed of all their treasures, including the shields of gold which Solo- mon had made. For these R. later substituted shields of brass (vs 9.10). R. died at the age of fifty-eight, after having reigned in Jerus for 17 years. His son Abijah became his

      6. His successor. He was buried in Jerus. Death Jos says that in disposition he was a

      proud and foolish man, and that he "despised the worship of God, till the people them- selves imitated his wicked actions" (Ant, VIII, x, 2).

      S. K. MoSIMAN

      REHOBOTH, rS-hoTaoth, re-ho'both (tlinhn, r'hobhdth, "broad places"; 'Eip\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\>x

      256, 260; see also Expos T, XI, 239 [Konig], 377 [Sayce]), and it is almost certainly identical with the ruin Ruhaibeh, 8 hours S.W. of Beersheba. Robin- son {BR, I, 196-97) describes the ruins of the an- cient city as thickly covering a "level tract of 10 to 12 acres in extent"; "many of the dwellings had each its cistern, cut in the solid rock"; "once this must have been a city of not less than 12,000 or 15,000 inhabitants. Now it is a perfect field of ruins, a scene of unutterable desolation, across which the passing stranger can with difficulty find his way." Huntington {Pal and Its Transforma- tion, 124) describes considerable remains of a sub- urban population extending both to the N. and to the S. of this once important place.

      E. W. G. Masterman REHOBOTH BY THE RIVER ("insn ninJT), r'hobhdth ha-nahdr; B, "PomPw9 ['PmPmO in Ch] T] irapd TTOTaiiov, Rhooboth [Rhoboth] he para potamori, A, TuPm9, Rhoboth) : This city is mentioned only as the residence of Shaul, one of the rulers of Edom (Gen 36 37; 1 Ch 1 48). There is nothing to guide us with certainty as to the situation of the city. Onom places it in Idumaea (Gebaleue), but no trace of a name resembling this has been found in the district. "The river" usually means the Euphrates. If the city could have been so far from Edom, it might be identified with Rahaba on the W. of the river, 8 miles S. of its confluence with the Khabur. Winckler thinks it might possibly be on the boundary between Pal and Egj-pt, "the river" being W&dy el-'Arlsh, "the brook of Egypt" (Nu 34 5; Josh 15 4, etc). W. Ewing

      REHOBOTH-IR,r.-lir,r.-ir('T'y Tib.h'} , r'hobhdth

      Hr, "Rehoboth City"; LXX t) 'Poupis fPooipie]

      iroXts, he Rhoobos [Rhooboth] polis,

      1. Probably "the city Rhoobos, Rhooboth") : The Rebit second of the cities built by Asshur Ninua (RV by Nimrod) in Assyria (Gen 10

      11.12). Unlike the other three, the exact equivalent of this name is not found in Assjt lit. Fried. Delitzsch points out (TT^o lag das Para- dies? 260 f) that r'hobhdth is the equivalent of the Assyr rebite, "streets," and suggests that the site referred to may be the Rebit Ninua, "streets of Nineveh," mentioned by Sargon of Assyria in con- nection with_the peopling of Maganubba (Khorsa- bad or Dur-Sarru-kIn ; see Nikb\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'Eh); and it was through this tract that Esar-haddon, his grandson, caused the heads of the kings of Kundi and Sidon to be carried in procession when he returned from his expedition to the Mediterranean.

      Though the probabilities in favor of Rebit Ninua

      are great, it is doubtful wliether a suburb could

      have been regarded as a foundation

      2. Or, Pes- worthy of a primitive ruler, and that sibly, the a very important city, Assur, the old Old Capi- capital of Assyria, would rather be tal, Assur expected. One of the groups express- ing its name is composed of the char- acters Sag-uru, or, dialectically, Sab-eri, the second element being the original of the Heb 'ir. As the "center-city," Assur may have been regarded as the city of broad spaces {r'hobhdth) — its ruins are of considerable extent. The German explorers there have made many important discoveries of temples, temple-towers, palaces and streets, the most pictur- esque anciently being the twin tower-temples of Anu (the sky) and Adad (Hadad). The ruins lie on the Tigris, about 50 miles S. of Nineveh. It practically ceased to be the capital about the middle of the 8th cent. BC. See Nineveh. T. G. Pinches

      REHTJM, re'hum (D^ITI , r'hum, or DFI"] , r^hum) : (1) One of the twelve heads of the Jewish com-



      Rehoboth Rekem

      munity returning from captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2; Neh 7 7 (by a copyist's error "Nehum"]; 12 3; 1 Esd 5 8, "Roimus").

      (2) A Pera officer of high rank (lit. "master of judgment, taste, reason") who with others wrote a letter against Jerus to King Artaxerxes (Ezr 4

      (3) Son of Bani, a Levite, one of the wall-builders under Nehemiah (Neh 3 17).

      (4) One of the signers of the covenant in Neh 10 25.

      (5) In Neh 12 3 (omitted in LXX) one Rehum is mentioned with those who went up with Zerub- babel. It is probable that we should read here "Harim" (Din for Dinn of 12 15).

      W. N. Stearns REI, re'I (ly-l , reH, "friendly"; 'Pr^o-il, Rhesei): Rei, Shimei and the Gibborim who belonged to David are Usted among those who did not join Adonijah in his attempt on the throne (1 K 1 8). The name is very uncertain. Winckler {Geschichte, II, 247) identifies him with Ira, the Jairite, who was a "priest to David" (2 S 20 26 RVm); he tries to prove that this Ira (or Jair) was a priest of Beth- lehem. Stade {GVI, I, 293, n. 1) holds that Shi- mei and Rei were two officers of David's body- guard. Jos (Ant, VII, xiv, 4) has l> AaoufSov

      REIGN, ran: The Heb word n^Dbtl , vial'khulh, may be rendered "kinghood," "royal dignity," "kingdom," "government" ("reign"). The vb. is ^b'Q, malakh, "to be king" ("to reign as king"), "to' become king," "to accede to the throne," "to assume royal power publicly" and, generally speak- ing, "to become powerful." In the NT vjefiovla., hegemonla, pauiKela, basileia, fiaaiKeiiiv, bas- ileuein. The word is used, either as a noun or as a vb., of Jeh (God), the Messiah (Christ) and men (kings, etc); then of such terms as sin, death, grace; of the woman in Rev and, conditionally, of the Christians; once, ironically, of the Corinthians. "Reign" as a noun referring to the time of reign- ing occurs in 1 K 6 1 (Solomon); 2 K 24 12 (Nebuchadnezzar); 1 Ch 4 31 (David; cf 1 Ch 29 30)- 2 Ch 36 20 ("until the reign of the kingdom of Persia"); Neh 12 22 (Darius); Est 2 16 (Ahasuerus); Lk 3 1 (Tiberius Caesar). More often occurs the vb. "to reign," malakh, basileuein. It is applied to: (1) Jeh at the close of the song of Moses (Ex 15 18); "Jeh reigneth" (1 Ch 16 31; cf Ps 93 1; 96 10; 99 1; Rev 19 6); "God reigneth over the nations" (Ps 47 8); "Jeh of hosts will reign in mount Zion" (Isa 24 23: cf Mic 4 7); "Thy God reigneth" (Isa 52 7); "Thou hast taken thy great power, and didst reign" (Rev 11 17, meanmg, probably, "thou didst assume thy might ); (2) the Messiah (Christ) as a just and righteous king (Jer 23 5); an eternal king (Lk 1 33; cf Rev 11 15); punishing and subdumg His enemies (Lk 19 14.27; 1 Cor 15 25).

      (3) Men (kings, etc), in regard to the source of their power ("By me [i.e. the wisdom of God], kings reign rProv 8 151); respecting legitimate succession__ (2 Ch 23 3)- meaning "to have power or dominion (Uen 37 8 and Job 34 30); in regard to an essential char- artpristic (Isa 32 1); in connection with the covenant of Jeh with David (ier 33 21); then the word is used in 1 S 12 12 where Samuel reminds the children of Israel of their demanding a king of him (cf ver 14) ; of Saul

      (1 8 13 l;cfll 12);ofaaurssonIsh-bosheth(2 S 2 10); of David (2 S 5 4 f ; cf 3 21) ; of Adonijah (1 K 1 11.24; cf 2 15) ; of Solomon (1 K 1 13); quite frequently of the kings of Judah and Israel (in the Books of K and Ch) ; of thokingsof Edom (Gen 36 31); of Jabin, king of Canaan, in Hazor (Jgs 4 2); of Abimelech, Jerubbaal's son, in .Totham's fable (Jgs 9 8-15) ; of Hanun. king of the Am- monites (2 8 10 1); of Rezon and his men in Damascus (1 K 11 24); of Hazael and Ben-hadad, kings of Syria (2 K 8 15 and 13 24); of Esar-haddon, king of Assyria (2 K 19 37); of Ahasuerus, king of Persia (Est 1 1); of Archelaus (Mt 2 22).

      (4) In the NT the term basileuein, "to reign," is used to illustrate and emphasize the power of sin, death and grace (Rom 5 14.17.21 and 6 12). Sin, the vitiating mental factor, is to be looked upon as being constantly and resolutely bent on main- taining or regaining its hold upon man, its power being exercised and reinforced by the lusts of the body. Death, the logical outcome of sin, at once testifies to the power of sin and its inherent corrup- tion, while grace is the restoring spiritual factor following up and combating everywhere and always the pernicious influence of sin. It strives to de- throne sin, and to establish itself in man as the only dominating force. (5) In describing the future glorious state of the believers, the NT uses the expression of those who endure (in faith; cf 2 Tim 2 12) ; of those 'purchased unto God with the blood of the Lamb' (Rev 5 10) ; of those partaking in the first resurrection (Rev 20 6) ; of the servants of God, "they shall reign for ever and ever" (22 5) ; on the other hand, it teaches us not to anticipate the privileges of heaven, while our Christian life is anything but satisfactory (1 Cor 4 8), and Rev 17 18 shows us the terrible fate of the woman, the great city (the corrupt church), "which reigneth over the kings of the earth." See further King, Kingdom. William Baur

      REINS, ranz (p'l^'? , kilyah; v€<(>p6s, nephrds, words promiscuously tr"* "heart," "inward parts," "kidneys" or "reins." The latter word, which is derived from Lat renes through OFr. reins, has given place in modem Eng. to the word "kidneys" [see Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary of the Eng. Language, 398]. RV has, however, retained the older word, at least in the m, in all passages in which it is found in AV): According to Heb psy- chology the reins are the seat of the deepest emo- tions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know. Thus RV has substituted "heart" for "reins" in the text of Job 19 27; Ps 7 9; 16 7; 26 2; 73 21; Prov 23 16; Jer 11 20; 12 2; 17 10; 20 12; the tr "inward parts" is found but once (Ps 139 13). In one passage AV has tr"* the Heb haldg ("loins") with "reins" (Isa 11 5), where the RV has rightly substituted "waist" (q.v.). The (5r word nejphros (which is etymologically allied to the Middle Eng. nere, Ger. Niere; see Skeat, ibid, 231, s.v. "Kidney") is found in 1 Maco 2 24; Rev 2 23. See Kidneys. H. L. E. Luerinq

      REKEM, re'kem (Qp,"1 , rekem, "friendship"):

      (1) One of the five kings of Midian slain by the Israelites under Moses (Nu 31 8; Josh 13 21 [B, 'P6)3ok, Rhdbok, A, 'P6koh, Rhokom]). Like his companions, he is called a "king" in Nu, but a "prince" or "chieftain" in the pa.ssage in Josh. The two references are hardly related; both are based on an earlier tradition.

      (2) Eponym of a Calebite family (1 Ch 2 43 ["PiKo/ji, Rhekom]). Probably a town in Southern Judah. A town of this name is given as belonging to Benjamin (Josh 18 27).

      (3) A city of Benjamin, mentioned with Irpeel and Taralah (Josh iS 27); the site is unknown. See also Rakem. Horace J. Wolf



      RELATIONSHIPS, re-la'shun-ships, FAMILY:

      I. CoXSANGriNITT

      1. In General

      2. Parents and Children

      3. Brothers and Sisters

      4. Uncles, Aunts, Co^lsins, Kinsmen II. Affinity

      1. Husband and ^Vife

      2. Father-in-Law, etc

      3. Brother-in-Law, etc

      III. Other Domestic Relations

      1. Foster-Father

      2. Master and Servants

      3. Host and Guest

      4. The Dependent Stranger

      The family or domestic relations of the Bible in- clude (1) those of consanguinity or blood relation- ship, (2) affinity or marriage relationship, and (3) legal convention. Those of consanguinity may be divided into lineal and collateral groups; the former are those of parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and ancestors and descendants in general; the latter are those of brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts in relation to nephews and nieces, cousins of variotis degrees, including mere tribes- men and even remoter kinsfolk. The relations of affinity include besides that of husband and wife or concubine, the relations among rival wives, and their children, those of father-in-law and mother- in-law in relation to son-in-law and daughter-in- law, and those of brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. The domestic relations based on legal convention are either legal fictions or the results of agreement: among the former we must include those of foster- father or mother and foster-children; among the latter the relations between master and the various classes of servants and slaves held by the ancient Hebrews, those between host and guest, esp. where they became covenant brothers, and between the citizen and the stranger who had attached himself to him for his protection.

      /. Consanguinity. — Genealogies were carefully

      kept by the ancient Hebrews (cf those of Gen, Nu,

      Ch, Ezr, Neh, Alt, Lk), not only be-

      1. In cause they formed the basis of a man's General title to his property (Nu 27 8-11;

      exceptional case, 36 1-12), but also because on one's pedigree depended the right of his family to intermarry with the priestly caste. De- scent was traced through the father; a man's closest association was therefore with his father's family, and he was ordinarily referred to as the son of his father, thus Isaac the son of Abraham (Gen 26 19), Joshua the son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh (Nu 14 6). Still there are instances of men named for their mothers (Joab the son of Zeruiah), and a man's relation with his mother's family was fully recognized in the laws forbidding incest. No lineal relatives were permitted to intermarry (Lev 18 7.10). The relations of ancestors and descendants were considered so close that the ordinary terms of relationship between children and parents are used constantly in relation to grandparents and remoter ancestors. The wishes of a great-grandfather are respected long after his death as the wishes of a father (Jer 35 16).

      The father (3S , 'abh; irar-^p, pattr) was the

      head of the family (mishpakdh) or household [ba-

      yith), which was a religious (1 S 20

      2. Parents 6.29; Ex 12 3; Job 1 5) as well as and a social and political unit, consisting Children usually of a combination of families

      in the modern sense. A.s long as polyg- amy prevailed a family ^^-ould include at least the several groups of children of the wi\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'e3 and concu- bines. The Bible rejiresents the Ileb father as commanding (Gen 50 16; Jer 35 6fT; Prov 6 20), instructing (Prov 18; 4 1), and rebuking (Geii 37 10; Nu 12 14); at the same time, as loving

      (Gen 25 28; 37 4; 44 20), pitying (Ps 103 13), and blessing his household (Gen 27 41), rejoicing over its triumphs (Prov 10 1; 15 20), or grieving over its misfortunes (Gen 37 35). The mother, too (DX, 'em-; ^tjti;/), ?rafter), naturally displays love and care (Gen 25 28; Prov 4 3; Isa 49 15; 66 13). To the Heb woman childlessness was con- sidered the greatest of misfortunes (1 S 1 10 ff, of Hannah; Gen 30 23, of Rachel). Children were , looked upon as a blessing from God (Ps 127 3) and V the defenders of the home (vs 4.5). In early life a child was more directly under the control of the mother than the father; the mother was its first teacher (Prov 1 8). Thereafter the father was ex- pected to direct the training of the son (]3 , hen; viis, huios, TiKvov, teknon) (Gen 18 19; Ex 12 26; 13 8.14.15; Dt 6 7), whae the daughter (H?, hath; dv/dT-qp, thugdter) probably remained with the mother until her marriage (Mic 7 6). Both parents are looked upon in the Law as objects of honor (Ex 20 12 H Dt 5 16 [the Fifth Command- ment]; Ex 21 15; Lev 20 9; Dt 27 16; Prov 20 20; Ezk 22 7; Mic 7 6), obedience (Gen 28 7; Lev 19 3; Dt 21 18 ff; Prov 1 8; 30 17) and love (1 K 19 20; Prov 28 24; 30 11). The control of parents was so great as to include the right to sell daughters in marriage, but not, without restrictions, into slavery (Ex 21 7-11; cf 22 16 ff; Neh 5 5), and never into a life of shame (Lev 19 29); they could chastise children (Dt 8 5; 21 18; Prov 13 24; cf Ecclus 30 1-13), and in the early days even exerted the power of life and death over them (Gen 22; Jgs 11 39; Lev 18 21; 20 2-5; 2 K 23 10; cf Mt 15 4). This power, at least for sacrificial purposes, was entirely removed by the Law, and changed, even for punishment, in the case of a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and disobedient son to a mere right of complaint to the proper au- thorities (Dt 21 18-21), who were to put him to death. Infanticide by exposure, such as was com- mon among other ancient peoples, seems never to have been practised by the Hebrews. That the children were nevertheless the chattels of the parents seems to be attested from the fact that they could be seized for the debts of the father (2 K 4 1). The father could annul the vows of his daughter (Nu 30 3-5), and damages for wrongs done to her were paid to him, as in Eng. law "for loss of serv- ices" (Dt 22 29). A widowed or divorced daughter could return to her father (Gen 38 11; Lev 22 13; Ruth 1 15). At his death the mother would be- come the actual, if not the legal, head of the house- hold (2 K 8 1-6, the Shunammite woman; Tob

      1 8, Tobit's grandmother; cf the position of the mother of Jesus). This was esp. true of the queen mother (g'hhirah), whose name is usually given in the accounts of the kings of Judah (1 K 1 11;

      2 19, where a throne at the king's right hand was set for the king's mother; 11 26; 14 21.31; 15 2.10. 13; 22 42; 2 K 8 26; 10 13; 14 2; 15 2.33; 18 2; 21 1.19; 22 1; 23 31..36; 24; 2 Ch 22 2; Jer 13 18; 22 26; see Queen Mother). While it is true that the position of the widowed mother depended to some extent on the will of her son (1 K 2 18 ff), it must be remembered that the sense of filial duty was highly developed among all classes in Pal (Josh 2 13.18; 6 23; 1 S 22 3; 2 S 19 37; 1 K 19 20). The rebellion of children marked the acme of social degeneration (Mic 7 6; Prov 30 11); on the other hand the "great day" according to Malachi (4 5 [Heb 3 23]) is one of conciliation of parents and children.

      The terms "brother" (HX , 'ah; aSeXrpos, adel- phos) and "sister" (pi^H}^ ,'ahdlh; aSe\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



      20 12) or of one mother (Gen 43 7; Lev 18 9; 20

      17). The brother as well as the father was the natural protector of the honor of his

      3. Brothers sister; thus, the sons of Jacob speak of and Sisters Dinah as "our daughter" (Gen 34 17).

      Absalom feels more deeply aggrieved over the crime against Tamar than does David him- self (2 S 13 21). The brother's other duties toward a sister were very much like those of a father (Cant 8 8) . The Law strictly forbids the intermarriage of brother and sister, whether of the same father and mother or not, whether born at home or born abroad, as a "disgraceful thing" {he^edh, a different word from fye^edh, "kindness" (Lev 18 9.11; 20 17) . In earlier times marriage between half-brother and sister was allowable (Gen 20 12; cf 2 S 13 13).^ Ill fact, we are expressly told that the laws against incest were not obeyed by the Egyptians or the Canaanites (Lev 18 3ff; 20 23). Brotherly sentiment was highly developed (Gen 24 60; Josh 2 13; Prov 17 17; cf Lev 25 35; Dt 15 11 f; 25 3); the dwelhng of brothers together in unity is considered good and pleasant (Pa 133 1). Brothers were ever ready to protect or avenge each other (2 S 3 27). Indeed, it is part of the unwritten, common law, recognized though not necessarily approved in the Bible, that the brother or next of kin, the go'el, is expected to avenge a death (Nu 35 19 ff; Dt 19 6; Josh 20 3; 2 S 14 11), and no punishment is meted out to prevent such self-help, unless it occurs in a refuge-city. A brother was also expected to ransom a captive or slave (Lev 25 48; Ps 49 7). Half-brothers were of course not so near as brothers of the full blood (cf Joseph and his brothers), and it is not surprising to find the sons of a wife despising and driving out the son of a harlot (Jgs 11 1, Jephthah). The words "brother" and "sister" are used frequently of more distant relationships (see below) and figuratively of a friend. The Heb nil, dodh (Lev 10 4, "uncles"; Nu 36 11, "cousins"; 1 S 14 50), coming from a primitive caressing word, possibly in-

      4. Uncles dicating "dandle," "fondle." "love," Aunts ' means both "uncle" and 'beloved." Cousins It 's used of the father's and also of the Kinsmen mother's brother, and the correspond- ing fem. form (nnil , dodhdh) is used

      of the father's sister (Ex 6 20; cf Nu 26 59) and even of the father's brother's wife (Lev 18 14; 20 20). Intermarriage between nephew and aunt (i.e. father's sister, mother's sister, or father's brother's wife, or, in general, uncle's wife) was pro- hibited (Lev 18 12.13.14; 20 19.20), though nothing is said of intermarriage between uncle and niece nor between cousins (of Nu 36 11). On the relations between uncle and nephew compare the Bible accounts of Jacob and Laban, Abraham and Lot, David and Joab, etc. In a more general sense the word dodh is used of kinsmen. Am 6 10 (where the dodh, "even he that burneth him" [m'ljar'phd, perhaps "maternal uncle"; Jew Enc, s.v. "Crema- tion"], takes charge of a dead body); ben dodh is used of cousin (cf ben 'dhi 'immo, "son of the brother of his mother," etc) and balh dodh of a female cousin. For other relations of this and remoter de- grees the word for brother is loosely used (e.g. of nephews. Gen 13 8; 14 14, etc; of tribesmen. Lev

      21 10; and of more distant relatives, Dt 2 4.8; 23 7)

      //. Affinity.— The husband (llJii?, 'Ish; cf b??, ba^al, Hos 2 16; di'-fip, antr), though in a sense

      leaving father and mother for his wife 1. Husband (n'lBS, 'ishshah; yvrlj, gum) (Gen 2 and Wife 24), under normal conditions remained

      a member of his father's family. If such passages as Gen 2 24; 21 10; 24 5.67; 30 3;

      31 31; Jgs 4 17ff; 5 24 ff; 8 19; 9 3, indicate the existence in pre-Bib. times of a matriarchate, the allusions are at least too vague to justify the predication of its persistence in Bib. times. The wife was "taken" by her husband, or "given" by her father or, in the case of a servant, by her master or mistress (Gen 2 22; 16 3; 34 9.21), and although the contract was between the men (Gen 29; 34 16; Ex 22 16; Dt 22 29; Ruth 4 10) or the parents (Gen 21 21; 24), it is probable that the consent of the girl was usually asked (Gen 24 58). Love between the young people was given due consid- eration (as in the case of Samson, Shechem, Jacob and Rachel [Gen 29 18], David and Michal [1 S 18 20]); at least it developed among married people, so that Hosea could compare the attitude of hus- band toward wife to that of Jeh toward Israel. As a matter of legal right, it is probable that throughout the Orient long before the events narrated in the Book of Est, every man did "bear rule in his own house" (Est 1 22). In fact a precedent for the Pers decree has been traced as far back as the first human pair (Gen 3 16). Nevertheless, we find many instances in which the wife seems to take the lead in the affairs of the household, as in the case of Samson's parents (Jgs 13 23), of the Shunammite woman (2 K 4), of Jael (Jgs 4 18 ff; 5 24 ff), of Achsah (.losh 15 18 f; Jgs 1 12 f), and in less pleasant matters of Jezebel (1 K 18 4; 21), Sap- phira (Acts 5 2), and Zeresh (Est 5 14), who were at least consulted in the affairs of their several households. Abraham is even commanded by the voice of God, "In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice" (Gen 21 12). That most women were not so fortunate is probably best at- tested by the fact that at least in the earlier times the best of them had to resort to stratagem to ac- complish their purposes (as in the cases of Rebekah [Gen 27 6 ff], Rachel [Gen 31 34], Leah [Gen 30 16] and Abigail [1 S 25 18 ff], and even to get information as to their husband's affairs [Sarah, Gen 18 10; Rebekah, Gen 27 5]). Perhaps their humbler sisters in later days accomplished their ends by being so contentious as to attract the notice of two proverb-collectors (Prov 21 9; 26 24), Though we have no instance of the exercise of the right of life and death over the wife by the husband, and though it is clear that the Heb husband had no power of sale (cf Ex 21 8), it is frequently asserted on the basis of the one-sided divorce doctrine of the OT (Dt 24 1), and on the basis of analogy with other ancient laws, as well as because the wife is spoken of in conjunction with property (Ex 20 17) and because the husband exercised the right to annul the wife's vows (Nu 30 6), that the wife occupied in the ordinary Heb home a very subordi- nate position. It must not be forgotten, however, that the husband owed duties to the wife (Ex 21 10). It must also be borne in mind that great di- vergence existed at different times and places, and in different stations of society. Most of our OT evidence pertains to the wealthier classes. The two extremes of the women that are "at ease in Zion" (Isa 32 9-20; cf Am 4 1 ff; 6 1 ff) and the busy "good wife" described in Prov 31 10 ff are hardly exceeded in the most complex society today. The latter probably gives the fairer as well as the more wholesome picture of the functions of the wife in the home, and it is significant that her husband as well as her sons are expected to call her blessed (Prov 31 28).

      It is difficult to estimate the extent to which polygamy and concubinage were practised in ancient Pal, but it is clear that the former practice was dis- couraged even among kings (Dt 17 17), and the latter, an outgrowth of slavery, was not held in high repute (cf Dt 21 10-14). The position of a

      Relationships Renew



      less-favored wife (Dt 21 15, "hated") was natu- rally unpleasant, and her relations with other wives of her husband decidedly bitter — they were called each other's garoth, lit. "vexers" (RV "rivals," Lev 18 IS; 1 S 1 6, AV "adversary"; of Ecclus 37 11) — even when they were sisters (as in the case of Rachel and Leah, Gen 30 1). Hence the Law forbade the marrying of two sisters (Lev 18 18). On the other hand so strong was the desire of a Heb mother for children that the childless wife welcomed the children of a maidservant born to her husband as her own (Gen 30 1-12, etc) .

      In normal Heb society, for reasons already ex- plained, the relations of a family with the husband's parents (Dn, Mm, from 711)3)1, hamoth)

      2. Father- were closer than those with the wife's ia-Law, etc parents Cjrih , hothen, fem. fljriH ,

      holheneth; ivevdepbi^ -d, pentherds, -d). Where under special conditions a man remained with his wife's tribe after marriage, as in the case of Jacob, serving out his mohar, or Moses fleeing from the wrath of the Egyptians, or the sons of Elime- lech sojourning in the land of Moab because of the famine in Pal, his identity with his own tribe was not destroyed, and at the first opportunity the natu- ral impulse was to return to his own country. The bride, on the other hand, leaving her people, would become a member of her husband's family, with all the rights and duties of a daughter (Mic 7 6). Thus Judah can order Tamar burned for violation of the obligations of a widow (Gen 38 24). No doubt the position of the daughter-in-law varied in the Heb home between the extremes of those who vexed their parents-in-law unto the death (Gen 26 35; 27 46; 28 8) and the one who said to her mother-in-law, "Jeh do so to me .... if aught but death pari; thee and me" (Ruth 1 17). Parents-in-law and children-in-law were considered too closely related to intermarry (Lev 18 15; 20 12.14).

      A woman's brother acting in loco 'parentis might

      perform all the offices of a father-in-law and possibly

      be called hothen (Gen 24 .50.55; 34

      3. Brother- 11 ff). Naturally, brothers-in-law and in-Law, etc sisters-in-law would be considered too

      closely related to intermarry (Lev 18 16.18; 20 21). Nevertheless the husband's brother (C3^ , yahham) was expected to marry the childless widow to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance (Dt 25 5-10). This custom dated back to Canaanitic practice (Gen 38 8), and from the connection between marrying the childless widow and the redemption of land may be called a part of the land law of Pal (Ruth 4 1-12; cf Jer 32 6ff). In practice the Levirate was probably considered more in the nature of a moral duty than a privilege (Dt 25 7; Ruth 4 6), and devolved not only on the brother, but on other members of a deceased husband's family in the order of the near- ness of their relationship to him (Ruth 3 12). In the Heb family brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would form part of the same household. In this relation as in others we find both ideal friendship (David and Jonathan, 1 S 18 3; 2 8 1 26) and petty jealousies (in the matter of Moses' wife, Nu 12 1).

      ///. Other Domestic Relations.— The Heb TOk , 'omen, fem. HJIOS? , 'omenelh (participle of 'dman),

      lit. "nourishing," is tr"" "nursing father" 1. Foster- (Nu 11 12; Isa 49 23), "nursing Father mother" (Isa 49 23), "nurse" (Ruth

      4 16; 2 S 4 4), or simply as the equivalent of "bringing up" (2 K 10 1.5; Est 2 7). In the case of Esther and of Ahab's children, and possibly in the other instances referred to, the rela- tion of foster-parents is suggested. The foster-

      children under such conditions obeyed the words of the foster-father as the words of a father (Est 2 20). Michal is spoken of as the mother of Merab's two children (2 S 21 8) because she reared them (Sanhedhnn 19h) . Adoption in the Rom sense was, however, hardly to be expected in a polygamous society where the childless father could remarry. Nevertheless, Jacob adopts Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 48 5), and thereby makes them the fathers of tribes. According to Jos, while Abraham was child- less he adopted Lot {Ant, I, vii, 1), and thedaughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses (Ant, II, ix, 7; cf Ex 2 10). In NT times the notion of adoption was so familiar that Paul uses the word figuratively of conversion (vioBea-ta, huiothesia, Rom 8 15; 9 4; Gal 4 5; Eph 1 5).

      The "family" as the word is used of ancient

      peoples included dependents. The Heb mishpahah

      is connected with the word shiphhah,

      2. Master "maidservant," as the Lat familia and is connected with, famulus, "servant." Servants For a discussion of the various classes

      of servants and slaves, Heb and foreign, male and female, see Slavery.

      When Lot protested against betraying his visitors

      to the men of Sodom, forasmuch as they had come

      under the shadow of his roof, and he

      3. Host even preferred to give his daughters to and Guest the mob rather than fail in his duties as

      a host (Gen 19 8), he was acting on the ancient principle of guest-friendship (cf Gr xenia), which bound host and guest by sacred ties. In the light of this principle the act of Jael, who receives Sisera as a guest, and then betrays him, becomes startling and capable of explanation only on the basis of the intense hatred existing at the time, and justifiable, if at all, only on the theory that all is fair in war (Jgs 4 18-21; 5 24-27). The nomads of ancient times and even the post-exilic Hebrews , like the Arabs of today, were bound by a temporary covenant whenever there was "salt between them," that is, in the relation of host and guest (Ezr 4 14; cf the expression "covenant of salt," 2 Ch 13 5; Nu 18 19). In the early Christian church break- ing bread together served as a sort of a b'rlth 'ahlm, or covenant of brothers. In large households such as those of a king, those that ate at the table were members of the household (2 S 9 11, compared to sons; cf also 2 S 9 7.10.13; 19 28; 1 K 2 7; 4 27; 18 19). See Hospitality.

      The ger or stranger (as indicated by the expres- sion "thy stranger" [Ex 20 10; Lev 25 6; Dt 5 14; 29 11; 31 12; cf Dt 1 16], Heb

      4. The De- gero, Ut. "his stranger") attached pendent himself to an influential Hebrew for Stranger protection. Thus we read of a "so- journer of the priest's" (Lev 22 10,

      toshabh; cf 25 6) who was in many respects a de- pendent, but still to be distinguished from a serv- ant (Lev 22 11). The Mosaic Law commands that such strangers be treated with consideration (Ex 12 49; 20 10; 22 21 ff; 23 9; Lev 19 33; Dt 1 16; 10 18; 14 21, etc; Ps 146 9) and even with love (Dt 16 14; Lev 19 34). See Stranger. Nathan Isaacs and Ella Davis Isaacs RELEASE, rg-les': (1) The forgiveness of a debt (nCJICtJ , sA'jwiWa/j [Dt 15 1.2.9; 31 10; see Jubilee Year]), with vb. shdmat, "to release," vs 2.3. (2) To exempt from taxation or militarv service (nnjn, hanahah, "release," "rest" [Est 2 18]). Some would render "granted a holiday." (3) To set a prisoner or slave at liberty (a.wo\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\6ui, apoluo, "to let go free" [Mt 27 15 || Jn 19 10], etc).

      RELIGION, rS-lij'un: "Religion" and "religious" in Elizabethan Eng. were used frequently to denote



      Relationships Renew

      the outward expression of worship. This is the force of Bpria-Kela, threskeia, tr"! "religion" in Acts 26 5; Jas 1 26.27 (with adj. thrtskos, "religious"), while the same noun in Col 2 18 is rendered "wor- shipping" ("cult" would give the exact meaning). And in the same external sense "religion" is used by AV for 'Karpela, latreia, "worship" (so RV), in 1 Maco 1 43; 2 19.22. Otherwise "Jews' re- ligion" (or "religion of the Jews") appears in 2 Mace 8 1; U 38 (RV bis); Gal 1 13.14 ('Ioi.5cii

      RELIGION, COMPARATIVE. See Compara- tive Religion.

      RELIGION, SCIENCE OF. See Comparative Religion.

      REMAINDER, rt-man'der OVi"; , yathar, "to be left," ni-)STlJ, sh''erUh, "remnant"): In 2 S 14 7 "residue" would have been clearer (cf Ps 76 10), but the changes of RV in Lev 6 16; 7 16.17 are pointless (contrast Ex 29 34).

      REMALIAH, rem-a-ll'a (in^bu"1 , r'malyahu^ "whom Jch has adorned") : The father of Pekah (2K15 2.5ff; Isa 7 4ff; 8 6). The contemptuous allusion to Pekah as "the son of Remaliah" in Isa 7 4 (similarly "the son of Kish," 1 S 10 11) may be a slur on Remaliah's humble origin.

      REMEMBER, re-mem'bcr, REMEMBRANCE,

      rS-mem'brans: "Remember" is mostly the tr, in the OT, of ~I?T , zakhar, and in the NT of /j-fdofun, mndomai (Mt 5 23; 26 75; Jn 2 17, etc), and of lj.vT)ixoveiii>, mnemoneilo (Mt 16 9; Mk 8 18; Lk 17 32, etc), and "remembrance" the tr of deriva- tives of these {zekher, anamnesis, etc). There are a few other words. "To remember" is used of God in remembering persons (Gen 8 1; 19 29, etc), His covenant (Gen 9 15; Ex 2 24; Ezk 16 60, etc), in answering prayer (Jgs 16 28; Neh 13 14.22; Ps 20 3, etc), and in other ways. Men are e.xhorted to "remember" God's dealings with them. His commandments (Dt 8 2.18; Jgs 8 34; 1 Ch 16 12, etc), the Sabbath (Ex 20 8), etc. A spe- cially solemn command is that relating to the Lord's Supper in Lk 22 19; 1 Cor 11 24.25, "This do in remembrance of me." "Remembrancer" (writer of chronicles) occurs in AVm of 2 S 8 16; 20 24; 1 K 4 3; 1 Ch 18 15 (text "recorder," RVm "chronicler"). In Isa 62 6, RV reads, "ye that are Jeh's remembrancers." RV has frequent changes on AV text, as "have marked" (1 S 15 2); "make mention of" (Ps 20 7; 77 11; Cant 1 4); "remember" for "be ye mindful of" (1 Ch 16 15); "memorial" for "remembrance" (Isa 57 8); in ARV, "to his holy memorial name" (Ps 30 4; 97 12, ERV "to his holy name," m "Heb 'memorial' ") ; in 2 Tim 1 5, "having been reminded of" for AV "call to remembrance," etc. W. L. Walker

      REMETH, re'meth, rem'eth (inpn , remeth; B, 'Pejiiids, Rhemmds, A, 'Pa|id9, Rhamdth): A place in the territory of Issachar named with En-gannim (Josh 19 21). It is probably identical with Ra- moth of 1 Ch 6 73, and Jarmuth of Josh 21 29. It is represented today by the village er-Rameh, situated on a hill which rises abruptly from the green plain about 11 miles S.W. of Jenin (En- gannim). While the southern boundary of Issa-

      char was, roughly, the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, the possessions of the tribes seem some- times to have overlapped. See Jarmuth; Ramoth.

      REMISSION, rS-mish'un, OF SINS (ii<|>e

      REMMON, rem'on Cii^l , rimmon, Josh 19 7). See Rimmon.

      REMMON-METHOAR, rem'on-meth'S-ar, rem'- on-mS-tho'ar (Itjn'Sn 112") , rimmon ha^m'tho'dr [Josh 19 13]). See Rimmon, (3).

      REMNANT, rem'nant: Remnant is the tr of in;;, yelker, "what is left over" (Dt 3 11; 28 54; Josh 12 4, etc); of "lifllJ, sh''dr, "the rest" (Ezr 3 8AV; Isa 10 20.21.22; 11 16, etc; Zeph 1 4); more frequently of rT'"!S5U} , sh'-'erith, "residue," etc (2 K 19 4.31; 2 Ch 34 9; Ezr 9 14; Isa 14 30, etc). As the tr of the last-mentioned two words, "remnant" has a special significance in the proph- ecies of Isaiah, as denoting "a holy seed," or spiritual kernel, of the nation which should survive impending judgment and become the germ of the people of God, being blessed of God and made a blessing (cf Mic 2 12; 4 7; 5 7.8; 7 18; also Zeph 2 7; 3 13; Hag 1 12.14; Zee 8 6; Joel 2 32). Paul, in Rom 9 27, quotes from Isa 10 22 f, "the remnant [kaldleimma, "what is left over"] shall be saved"; cf also Rom 11 5 (where the word is leimma) with 2 K 19 4. Several other Heb words are less frequently tr"* "remnant": 'ahar, "after"; yalhar, "to be left over," etc; in the NT (AV) we have also loipds, "left," "remaining" (Mt 22 6; Rev 11 13, etc).

      Pov "remnant" RV has "overhanging part" (Ex 26 12), "rest" (Lev 14 18, etc); on the other hand, gives "remnant" for "posterity" (Gen 45 7), for "rest" (.Josh 10 20; 1 Ch 4 4.3; Isa 10 19), for "residue" (Hag 2 2; Zee 8 11). etc.

      W. L. Walker

      REMPHAN, rem'fan. See Rephan.

      RENDING, ren'ding, OF GARMENTS. See

      Burial, IV; Dress.

      RENEW, re-nu': The word is used in various senses: (1) of material things, e.g. Ps 104 30; here it means to give a new appearance, to refresh, to restore the face of the earth; (2) in 1 S 11 14, to establish more firmly the kingdom by reinstalling King Saul; (3) in 2 Ch 15 8, to rebuild or repair the broken altar; (4) in Lam 5 21, "renew our days," restore the favors of former days; (5) in Isa 41 1, 'let them gather together, or marshal their strongest arguments for answer'; (6) in Ps 103 5;

      Repair Rephaim



      Isa 40 31, it refers to the restoring of spiritual strength; (7) in the NT it invariably refers to spirit- ual renewal, e.g. Rom 12 2; 2 Cor 4 16; Eph 4 23; Col 3 10; Tit 3 5; He 6 6; all derivatives of Kaivos, kainos, "new." G. H, Gebberdinq

      REPAIR, rg-pdr' (nDn)2 , mahseh, "refuge"): In Joel 3 16, for AV "The Lord will be the hope of his people" AVm renders "place of repair," or, "harbour" = haven of repair. RV gives "refuge." Other words arepTH, hazak, "to strengthen," "har- den," "fix" (2 K 12 5 and often; Neh 3); b5S^, raphd\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "to heal" (1 K 18 30); 'VO'S ,'amadh,''io cause to stand still" (Ezr 9 9); "T^n , haydh, "to revive" (1 Ch 11 8); "IJD, saghar,' "to close up" (1 K 11 27).

      In RV Ajioc for vnoppawTM, huporrdpto, "to patch up" (Sir 50 1); Eiricr«6iiifiu, episkeudzo, "to get readv" (1 Mace 12 37). In 1 Mace 14 34 occurs "reparation" (modern Eng. "repairs") for eTravopSiocrL?, epandrthosis, "straigtiten- '°g"P-" M. O. Evans

      REPENTANCE, rS-pen'tans:

      I. OT Terms

      1. To Repenti — "to Pant," "to Sigii"

      2. To Repent — "to Turn" or "Return" II. NT Terms

      1. Repent — "to Care," "Be Concerned"

      2. Repent — " to Change tlie Mind "

      3. Repent — "to Turn Over" or "Unto" III. The Psychological Elements

      1. The Intellectual Element

      2. The Emotional Element

      3. The Volitional Element Literature

      To get an accurate idea of the precise NT mean- ing of this highly important word it is necessary to consider its approximate synonyms in the original Heb and Gr. The psychological elements of re- pentance should be considered in the light of the general teaching of Scripture.

      /. OT Terms. — The Heb word DFIJ , naham, is an onomatopoetio term which implies difficulty in

      breathing, hence "to pant," "to sigh," 1. Repent, "to groan," Naturally it came to "to Pant," signify "to lament" or "to grieve," "to Sigh" and when the emotion was produced

      by the desire of good for others, it merged into compassion and sympathy, and when incited by a consideration of one's own character and deeds it means "to rue," "to repent." To adapt language to our understanding, God is represented as repenting when delayed penalties are at last to be inflicted, or when threatened evils have been averted by genuine reformation (Gen 6 6; Jon 3 10). This word is tr"^ "repent" about 40 t in the OT, and in nearly all cases it refers to God. The principal idea is not personal relation to sin, either in its experience of grief or in turning from an evil course. Yet the re- sults of sin are manifest in its use. God's heart is grieved at man's iniquity, and in love He bestows His grace, or in justice He terminates His mercy. It indicates the aroused emotions of God which prompt Him to a different course of dealing with the people. Similarly when used with reference to man, only in this case the consciousness of personal transgression is evident. This distinction in the application of the word is intended by such declara- tions as God "is not a man, that he should repent" (1 S 15 29; Job 42 6; Jer 8 6).

      The term 2W , shubh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance.

      It is used extensively by the jirophets, 2. Repent, and makes prominent the idea of a "to Turn" radical change in one's attitude toward or "Return" sin and God. It implies a conscious,

      moral separation, and a personal de- cision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with refer-

      ence to man's turning away from sin to righteous- ness (Dt 4 30; Neh 19; Ps 7 12; Jer 3 14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man (Ex 32 12; Josh 7 26). It is employed to indi- cate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Ps 85 4). When the term is tr"^ by "return" it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man (1 S 7 3; Ps 90 13 [both terms, naham and sliilbh]; Isa 21 12; 55 7). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are tr"* by "repent" and "return" (Ezk 14 6; Hos

      12 6; Jon 3 8).

      //. NT Terms. — The term tieTaiiiXo/iai, meta-

      melomai, literally signifies to have a feeling or

      care, concern or regret; like naham,

      1. Repent, it expresses the emotional aspect of "to Be repentance. The feeling indicated by Careful" or the word may issue in genuine repent- "Concemed ance, or it may degenerate into mere "With" remorse (Mt 21 29,32; 27 3). Judas

      repented only in the sense of regret, remorse, and not in the sense of the abandonment of sin. The word is used with reference to Paul's feeling concerning a certain course of conduct, and with reference to God in His attitude toward His purposes of grace (2 Cor 7 8 AV; He 7 21).

      The word ixeravoiu, metanoeo, expresses the true NT idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner's

      return to God. The term signifies

      2. Repent, "to have another mind," to change "to Change the opinion or purpose with regard to the Mind" sin. It is equivalent to the OT word

      "turn," Thus it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (Mt 3 2; Mk 1 15; Acts 2 38). The idea expressed by the word is intimately associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as faith (Acts 20 21), and as conver- sion (Acts 3 19); also with those experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as re- mission and forgiveness of sin (Lk 24 47; Acts 5 31). It is sometimes conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed relation to sin and God (Mk 14; Lk 3 3; Acts

      13 24; 19 4). As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life (Mt 3 8).

      The word i-maTp^ipa, epistrepho, is used to bring

      out more clearly the distinct change wrought in

      repentance. It is employed quite

      3. Repent, frequently in Acts to express the posi- "to Turn five side of a change involved in NT Over" or repentance, or to indicate the return "Upon," to God of which the turning from sin "Unto" is the negative aspect. The two con- ceptions are inseparable and comple- mentary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from sin to God (Acts 9 35; 1 Thess 1 9); to strengthen the idea of faith (Acts 11 21); and to complete and emphasize the change required by NT repentance (Acts 26 20).

      There is great difficulty in expressing the true idea of a change of thought with reference to sin when we translate the N'T "repentance" into other languages. The Lat version renders it "exercise penitence" (pocnitentiam agere). But "penitence" etymologically signifies pain, grief, distress, rather than a change of thought and purpose. Thus Lat Christianity has been corrupted by the pernicious error of presenting grief over sin rather than aban- donment of sin as the primary idea of NT repent- ance. It was easy to make the transition from penitence to penance, consequently the Romanists represent Jesus and the apostles as urging people to do penance (poenilentiam agile). The Eng.



      Repair Rephaim

      word "repent" is derived from the Lat repoenitere, and inherits the fault of the Lat, making grief the principal idea and keeping in the background, if not altogether out of sight, the fundamental NT conception of a change of mind with reference to sin. But the exhortations of the ancient prophets, of Jesus, and of the apostles show that the change of mind is the dominant idea of the words em- ployed, while the accompanying grief and conse- quent reformation enter into one's experience from the very nature of the case.

      ///. The Psychological Elements. — Repentance

      is that change of a sinner's mind which leads him

      to turn from his evil ways and live.

      1. The In- The change wrought in repentance is tellectual so deep and radical as to affect the Element whole spiritual nature and to involve

      the entire personality. The intellect must function, the emotions must be aroused, and the will must act. Psychology shows repentance to be profound, personal and all-pervasive. The intellectual element is manifest from the nature of man as an intelligent being, and from the demands of God who desires only rational service. Man must apprehend sin as unutterably heinous, the Divine law as perfect and inexorable, and himself as coming short or falling below the requirements of a holy God (Job 42 5.6; Ps 51 3; Rom 3 20).

      There may be a knowledge of sin without turning

      from it as an awful thing which dishonors God and

      ruins man. The change of view may

      2. The lead only to a dread of punishment Emotional and not to the hatred and abandon- Element ment of sin (Ex 9 27; Nu 22 34;

      Josh 7 20; _ 1 S 15 24; _ Mt 27 4). An emotional element is necessarily involved in repentance. WhUe feeling is not the equivalent of repentance, it nevertheless may be a powerful impulse to a genuine turning from sin. A penitent cannot from the nature of the case be stolid and indifferent. The emotional attitude must be altered if NT repentance be experienced. There is a type of grief that issues in repentance and another which plunges into remorse. There is a godly sorrow and also a sorrow of the world. The former brings life; the latter, death (Mt 27 3; Lk 18 23; 2 Cor 7 9.10). There must be a consciousness of sin in its effect on man and in its relation to God before there can be a hearty turning away from unrighteousness. The feeling naturally accompanying repentance implies a conviction of personal sin and sinfulness and an earnest appeal to God to forgive according to His mercy (Ps 51 1.2.10-14).

      The most prominent element in the psychology of repentance is the voluntary, or volitional. This

      aspect of the penitent's experience is

      3. The Vo- expressed in the OT by "turn," or Utional "return," and in the NT by "repent," Element or "turn." The words employed m

      the Heb and Gr place chief emphasis on the will, the change of mind, or of purpose, because a complete and sincere turning to God in- volves both the apprehension of the nature of sin and the consciousness of personal guilt (Jer 25 5; Mk 1 15; Acts 2 38; 2 Cor 7 9.10). _ The de- mand for repentance implies freewill and individual responsibility. That men are called upon to repent there can be no doubt, and that God is represented as taking the initiative in repentance is equally clear. The solution of the problem belongs to the spiritual sphere. The psychical phenomena have their origin in the mysterious relations of the human and the Divine personalities. There can be no external substitute for the internal change. Sack- cloth for the body and remorse for the soul are not to be confused with a determined abandonment of sin and return to God. Not material sacrifice,

      but a spiritual change, is the inexorable demand of God in both dispensations (Ps 51 17; Isa 1 11; Jer 6 20; Hos 6 6).

      Repentance is only a condition of salvation and not its meritorious ground. The motives for repentance are chiefly found in the goodness of God, in Divine love, in the pleading desire to have sinners saved, in the inevitable consequences of sin, in the universal demands of the gospel, and in the hope of spiritual life and membership in the kingdom of heaven (Ezk 33 11; Mk 1 15; Lk 13 1-5; Jn 3 16; Acts 17 30; Rom 2 4; 1 Tim 2 4). The first four beatitudes (Mt 5 .3-6) form a heavenly ladder by which penitent souls pass from the do- minion of Satan into the Kingdom of God. A con- sciousness of spiritual poverty dethroning pride, a sense of personal unworthiness producing grief, a willingness to surrender to God in genuine humility, and a strong spiritual desire developing into hunger and thirst, enter into the experience of one who wholly abandons sin and heartily turns to Him who grants repentance unto life.

      Literature. — Various theological worlis and comms. Note osp. Strong, Systematic Theology, III, 8.32-.36; Broadus on Mt 3 2, American Comm.; art. "Busse" (Penance), PRE.

      Byron H. DeMent

      REPETITIONS, rep-S-tish'unz: In Mt 6 7 only, "Use not vain repetitions," for paTTokoyia, hal- tulogeo (so SB), a word found nowhere else and spelled variously in the MSS, hattologeo in K L M, etc, batologeo in F G, hlattologeo in D (probably influenced by the Lat blatero, "talk idly"); pre- sumably connected with ^arTapl^u, hattarizo, "stammer," and perhaps formed under the influence of the Aram. h'ta\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "speak carelessly," or batel, "useless." Whether, however, hattalogeo means the constant repetition of the same phrase or the mechanical recitation of a long series of obscure or meaningless formulas (if, indeed, a distinction between the acts was thought of) cannot be deter- mined. Either practice is abundantly evidenced as a "heathen" custom of the day, and either can be classed as "much speaking." See Prayer.

      Burton Scott Easton

      REPHAEL, re'fa-el, ref'a-el (bXS"] , r'vha'el, "God has healed" ; 'Pa<)>a'()\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, Rhaphael) : The eponym of a family of gatekeepers (1 Ch 26 7). The name occurs in Tob and En ("Raphael"); it probably belongs to a group of late formations. See Gray, HPN, 225, 311.

      REPHAH, re'fa (nST , rephah [the form is cor- rupt] ; 'Pa

      REPHAIAH, rS-ta'ya, rS-fi'a (ni^S") , r'phayah, probably "Jeh is healing"; LXX 'Pa

      (1) In David's family, LXX also Rhaphdl (1 Ch 3 21).

      (2) A captain of Simeon (1 Ch 4 42).

      (3) A grandson of Issachar, LXX also Rhaphard (1 Ch 7 2).

      (4) A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 9 43; in 8 37 called "Raphah" [HSn]; LXX also Raphai).

      (5) One of the repairers of the wall under Ne- hemiah (Neh 3 9).

      REPHAIM, ref'a-im, re-fa'im (D'^NS"; , r-phd'lm, from S3T , raphd', "a terrible one," hence "giant," as in 1 Ch 20 4, 5?S"in "'"l"'"?";, y'lldhe hd-raphd' , ".sons of the giant"; AV Rephaims): A race of aboriginal or early inhabitants E. of the Jordan in Ashteroth- karnaim (Gen 14 5) and in the vale of Rephaim S.W. of Jerus (Josh 15 8). They associated with

      Rephaim, Vale of Restoration



      other giant races, as the Emim and Anakkn (Dt 2 10.11) and the Zamzummim (ver 20). It is probable that they were all of the same stock, being given different names by the different tribes who came in contact with them. The same Heb word is rendered "the dead," or "the shades" in various passages (Job 26 5m; Ps 88 10m; Prov 2 18m; 9 18m; 21 16m; Isa 14 9m; 26 14.19m). In these instances the word is derived from HST , rdpheh, "weak," "powerless," "a shadow" or "shade."

      H. Porter

      REPHAIM, VALE OF (DiNp-| pW, 'emek r'phd'im; koiXcis 'Paa€£|i, koilds Rhaphaelm, KoiXds TMv Tirdvwv, koilds ton Titdnon) : This was a fertile vale (Isa 17 5), to the S.W. of Jerus (Josh 15 8; 18 16; AV "Valley of the Giants"), on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Here David repeatedly defeated the invading Philis (2 S 5 18. 22; 23 13; 1 Ch 11 15; 14 9). It is located by Jos between Jerus and Bethlehem {Ant, VII, iv, i; xii, 4). It corresponds to the modern el-Bika\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ which falls away to the S.W. from the lip of the valley of Hinnom. The name in ancient times may perhaps have covered a larger area, including practically all the land between Jerus and Bethlehem, where the head- waters of Nahr Rubin are collected.

      W. EwiNG

      REPHAN, re'fan: A name for Chiun, the planet Saturn. See Astrology, 7 ; Chiun.

      REPHIDIM, ref'i-dim (D-il^Sn, r'phidhim, "rests"; 'PaiSCv, Rhaphidin): A station in the Wanderings, between the wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai (Ex 17 1.8; 19 2; Nu 33 14). The host expected to find water here; to their dis- tress the streams were dry, and water was miracu- lously provided. Palmer {Desert o/ the Exodus, 158 ff) states cogent reasons for identifying Rephi- dim with Wddy Feirdn. It is the most fertile part of the peninsula, well watered, with a palm grove stretching for miles along the valley. Palmer speaks of passing through the palm grove as a "most delightful" walk; "the tall, graceful trees afforded a deUcious shade, fresh water ran at our feet, and, above all, bulbuls flitted from branch to branch uttering their sweet notes." His camp was pitched at "the mouth of Wddy ^Aleydt, a large open space completely surrounded by steep, shelving mountains of gneiss, the fantastic cleavage of which added greatly to the beauty of the scene. Palms and tamarisks were dotted all around, and on every knoll and mountain slope were ruined houses, churches, and walls, the relics of the ancient mo- nastic city of Paran. Behind our tents rose the majestic mass of Serbal, and beneath the rocky wall opposite ran a purling brook, only a few inches in depth, but still sufficiently cool, clear, and refresh- ing."

      Such a place as this the Amalekites would natu- rally wish to preserve tor themselves against an invading people. For these desert dwellers, in- deed, the possession of this watered vale may well have been a matter of life and death.

      If this identification is correct, then Jebel Tahu- neh, "Mount of the mill," a height that rises on the N. of the valley, may have been the hill from which Moses, with Aaron and Hur, viewed the battle.

      W. EwiNG

      REPROBATE, rep'rO-bat: This word occurs in the Eng. Bible in the following pas.sages: Jer 6 30 (RV "refuse"); Rom 1 28; 2 Cor 13 5.6.7; 2 Tim 3 8; Tit 1 16. In all these cases the Gr has d56/cifios, adokimos. The same Gr word, however, is found with other renderings in Isa 1 22 ("dross"); Prov 25 4 ("dross"); 1 Cor 9 27 ("castaway," RV "rejected"). The primary meaning of ado-

      kimos is "not-received," "not-acknowledged." This is applied to precious metals or money, in the sense of "not-current," to which, however, the connotation "not-genuine" easily attaches itself. It is also applied to persons who do not or ought not to receive honor or recognition. This purely negative conception frequently passes over into the positive one of that which is or ought to be rejected, either by God or men. Of the above passages 1 Cor 9 27 uses the word in this meaning. Probably Rom 1 28, "God gave them up unto a reprobate mind," must be explained on the same principle : the nous of the idolatrous heathen is per- mitted by God to fall into such extreme forms of evil as to meet with the universal rejection and reprobation of men. Wettstein's interpretation, "an unfit mind," i.e. incapable of properly per- forming its function of moral discrimination, has no linguistic warrant, and obliterates the word- play between "they refused to have God in their knowledge [ouk edokimasan]," and "God gave them up to a reprobate [ = unacknowledged, adokimos] mind." Even Tit 1 16, "unto every good work reprobate," affords no instance of the meaning "unfit," but belongs to the following rubric.

      The close phonetic resemblance and etymological affinity of dokimos to the vb. dokitndzo, "to try," "test," has caused the notion of "being tested," "tried," and its opposite of "being found wa,nting in the test" to associate itself more or less distinctly with the adjs. dokimos and adokimos. Thus the more complex meaning results of that which ia acknowledged or rejected, because it has approved or not approved itself in testing. This connotation is present in 2 Cor 13 5.6.7; 2 Tim 3 8; Tit 1 16; He 6 8. In the first two of these passages the word is used of Christians who ostensibly were in the true faith, but either hypothetically or actually are represented as having failed to meet the test. "Reprobate unto every good work" (Tit 1 16) are they who by their life have disappointed the ex- pectation of good works. The "reprobate [rejected] land" of He 6 8 is land that by bearing thorns and thistles has failed to meet the test of the husband- man. It should be noticed, however, that adoki- mos, even in these cases, always retains the mean- ing of rejection because of failure in trial; cf in the last-named passage: "rejected and nigh unto cursing."

      Literature. — Cremer, Bihlisch-theologisches WQrter- buch der neutestamentlichen Grdcitdt^°, 356-57.

      Geerhardus Vos REPROOF, rS-proof, REPROVE, rS-prdov': "Reprove" in Elizabethan Eng. had a variety of meanings ("reject," "disprove," "convince," "re- buke"), with "put to the proof" (see 2 Tim 4 2 RVm) as the force common to all, although in modern Eng. the word means only "rebuke" (with a connotation of deliberateness). AV uses the word chiefly (and RV exclusively, except in 2 Esd 12 32; 14 13; 2 Mace 4 33) for HD^, ydkhah, and ^X^7X". elegcho, words that have very much the same ambiguities of meaning. Hence a fairly easy rendition into Eng. was possible, but the result included all the ambiguities of the original, and to modern readers such a passage as "But your reproof, what doth it reprove? Do ye think to reprove words" (Job 6 25.26 ARV) is virtually incomprehensible. The meaning is, approximately: "What do your rebukes prove? Are you quibbling about words?" In Jn 16 8 no single word in modern Eng. will translate elegcho, and "reprove" (AV), "convince" (AVm), and "convict" (R,V) are all unsatisfactory. The sense is: "The Spirit will teach men the true meaning of these three words: sin, righteousness, judgment."

      Burton Scott Easton



      Rephaim, Vale of Restoration

      REPTILE, rep'til, -til: Vulg in Mic 7 17 has

      repUhs for zoh&le, "crawling things," ARV "worms of the earth," AVm "creeping things." See Levia- than; Lizard; Serpent; Tortoise.

      REPUTATION, rep-u-ta'shun : AV uses "repu- tation" where modern Eng. would use "repute," as connoting prominence rather than moral char- acter. Hence RV's change to "repute" in Gal 2 2 (for doK4u, dokeo, "seem," perhaps with a slightly sarcastic touch). RV's alteration of "reputation" into "have in honor" (Acts 5 34; Phil 2 29) is to secure uniformity of tr for the derivatives of ti^uiJ, timt, "honor," but RV retains "reputation" in Sus ver 64. AV's "made himself of no reputation" in Phil 2 7 is a gloss. See Kenosis. On Eocl 10 1 see the commentaries.

      REQUIRE, rS-kwir': "Require" meant origi- nally "seek after," whence "ask," and so (as in modem Eng.) "demand." All meanings are com- mon in AV (e.g. 1 S 21 8; Eccl 3 L5; Ezr 8 22; 1 Cor 4 2), and RV has made little change.

      REREWARD, rer'w6rd. See Rearward.

      RESAIAS, rS-sa'yas, rS-sI'as ('Prio-atas, Rhesaias; AV Reesaias): One of the "leaders" with Zerub- babel in the return (1 Esd 5 8) = "Reelaiah" in Ezr 2 2, "Raamiah" in Neh 7 7. The name is apparently duplicated in 1 Esd 5 8 in the form "Reelias."

      RESEN, re'sen CiDT , re?en; LXX Ado-ev, Ddsen,

      Aia-ifi, Ddsem) : The Gr forms show that the LXX

      translators had 1 , d, for "1 , r, but the

      1. The reading of the M T is to be preferred. Name and Resen — the last of the four cities Its Native mentioned in Gen 10 11.12 as having Equivalent been founded by Nimrod (AV by

      Asshur) — probably represents the Assyr pronunciation of the place-name R^s-Sni, "fountain- head." The only town so named in the inscriptions is one of 18 mentioned by Sennacherib in the Bavian inscription as places from which he dug canals con- necting with the river Khosr — in fact, it was one of the sources of Nineveh's water supply. It probably lay too far N., however, to be the city here intended. Naturally the name "Resen" could exist in any place where there was a spring.

      As the Bib. text requires a site lying between

      Nineveh and Calah (Kouyunjik and Nimroud), it

      is generally thought to be represented

      2. Possibly by the ruins at Selamiyeh, about 3 the Modem miles N. of the latter city. It is note- Selamiyeh worthy that Xenophon {Anab. iii.4)

      mentions a "great" city called Larissa as occupying this position, and Bochart has sug- gested that it is the same place. He supposes that when the inhabitants were asked to what city the ruins belonged, they answered la Resen, "to Resen," which was reproduced by the Greeks as Larissa. Xenophon describes its walls as being 25 ft. wide, 100 ft. high, and 2 parasangs in circuit. Except for the stone plinth 20 ft. high, they were of brick. He speaks of a stone-built pyramid near the city — possibly the temple-tower at Nimroud. See Calah; Nineveh, 10. T. G. Pinches

      RESERVOIR, rez'er-vwor, -vwar (n^pJ^, mik- wdh; AV ditch [Isa 22 11]). See Ditch; Cistern; Pool.

      RESH, resh, rash (1) : The 20th letter of the Heb alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopaedia as r. It came also to be used for the number 200. For name, etc, see Alphabet.

      ^ RESHEPH, re'-shef (aiB'l , resheph, "flame" or "fire-bolt"): Personal name found in Phoen as a divine name. In the OT the name of a descendant of Ephraim, the eponym of an Ephraimite family or clan (1 Ch 7 25).

      RESIDUE, rez'i-du. See Remnant.

      RESPECT, rg-spekt', OF PERSONS: The phrase QiJS Xll); ^ ndsa' phdnlm, means lit. "Uft up the face," and, among other tr", is rendered indifferently "accept" or "respect the person" in AV (contrast Prov 18 5 and 2i 23). As applied to a (prostrate) suppliant, the phrase means "receive him with favor," and is so used in 1 S 25 35; Mai 1 8.9 (cf Gen 19 21, etc). By a shift in force the phrase came to mean "accept the person instead of the cause'' or "show partiality" (Job 13 8.10 ARVJ, and is so used commonly. A literal tr into Gr gave Xaixfidpcj Trpbauirov, lamhdno prosopon (Sir 36 13 [32 16]; Lk 20 21; Gal 2 6), with the noun irpoi7unro\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\T]ix^la. prosopolempsia, "face-taking" (Rom 2 11; Eph 6 9; Col 3 25; Jas 2 1), rendered uniformly "respect of persons" in EV. A noun ■n-poaairoKijinrrrii, prosopoUmpUs, "respecter of per- sons," and a vb. Trpoo-MTroXiy/iTTT^w, prosopolempleo, are found Acts 10 34; Jas 2 9. God's judgment rests solely on the character of the man and will be influenced by no worldly (Eph 6 9) or national (Rom 2 11) considerations. See also Accept. Bdrton Scott Easton

      REST (niD, nWh, nm:)3, m'nuhdh, "cessation from motion," "peace," "quiet," etc; dvairauo-is, andpausis, Karairaijo-is, katdpausis) : "Rest" in the above sense is of frequent occurrence, and is the tr of several words with various applications and shades of meaning, chiefly of the words given above. It is applied to God as ceasing from the work of creating on the 7th day (Gen 2 2 f ) ; as having His place of rest in the midst of His people in the temple (1 Ch 28 2; Ps 132 8.14); as resting in His love among His people (Zeph 3 17, RVm "Heb, 'be silent'"). The 7th day was to be one of rest (Ex 16 23; 31 15; see Sabbath); the land also was to have its rest in the 7th year (Lev 26 4f). Jeh promised His people rest in the land He should give them; this they looked forward to and enjoyed (Dt 12 9; Josh 11 23). "To rest on" often means to come upon to abide, as of the Spirit of Jeh (Nu 11 25 f; Isa 11 2), of wisdom (Prov 14 33), of anger (Eccl 7 9). There is again the "rest" of the grave (Job 3 13.17.18; Isa 67 2; Dnl 12 13). Rest is sometimes equivalent to trust, reliance (2 Ch 14 11, RV "rely"). Hencerest in Jeh (Ps 37 7, etc); "rest" in the spiritual sense is not, however, prominent in the OT. In the NT Christ's great offer is rest to the soul (Mt 11 28). In He 4 1 ff, it is argued from God's having prom- ised His people a "rest" — a promise not realized in Canaan (ver 8) — that there remains for the people of God "a Sabbath rest" (sahhalism6s, ver 9). For "rest" RV has "solemn rest" (Ex 16 23; 31 15, etc), "resting-place" (Ps 132 8.14; Isa 11 10), "peace" (Acts 9 31), "reUef" (2 Cor 2 13; 7 5), etc. See also Remnant. W. L. Walker

      RESTITUTION, res-ti-tu'shun, RESTORATION.

      See Punishments.

      RESTORATION, res-to-ra'shun : The idea of a restoration of the world had its origin in the preach- ing of the OT prophets. Their faith in the unique position and mission of Israel as the chosen people of God inspired in them the conviction that the destruction of the nation would eventually be fol-



      lowed by a restoration under conditions that would insure the reahzation of the original Divine purpose. When the restoration came and passed without fulfilment of this hope, the Messianic era was pro- jected into the future. By the time of Jesus the conception became more or less spirituahzed, and the anticipation of a new order in which the conse- quences of sin would no longer appear was a promi- nent feature of the Messianic conception. In the teaching of Jesus and the apostles such a restora- tion is taken for granted as a matter of course.

      In Mt 17 11 (cf Mk 9 12), the moral and spirit- ual regeneration preached by John the Baptist is described as a restoration and viewed as a fulfil- ment of Mai 4 6. It is to be observed, however, that the work of John could be characterized as a restoration only in the sense of an inception of the regeneration that was to be completed by Jesus. In Mt 19 28 Jesus speaks of a regeneration (iraXij'- yeveala., palmgenesia) of the world in terms that ascribe to the saints a state of special felicity. Per- haps the most pointed expression of the idea of a restoration as a special event or crisis is found in the address of Peter (Acts 3 21), where the restora- tion is described as an djroKardo-raiTis wdvToiv, apo- katdstasis ■pdnlon, and is viewed as a fulfilment of prophecy.

      In all the passages cited the restoration is assumed as a matter with which the hearers are familiar, and consequently its nature is not unfolded. The evidence is, therefore, too limited to justify any attempt to outline its special features. Under such circumstances there is grave danger of reading into the language of the Scriptures one's own conception of what the restoration is to embody. We are probably expressing the full warrant of the Scripture when we say that the reconstruction mentioned in these passages contemplates the restoration of man, under the reign of Christ, to a life in which the consequences of sin are no longer present, and that this reconstruction is to include in some measure a regeneration of both the physical and the spirit- ual world.

      Whether the benefits of the restoration are to accrue to all men is also left undefined in the Scrip- tures. In the passages already cited only the dis- ciples of Christ appear in the field of vision. Cer- tain sayings of Jesus are sometimes regarded as favorable to the more inclusive view. In Jn 12 32 Jesus speaks of drawing all men to Himself, but here, as in Jn 3 14.1.5, it is to be observed that while Christ's sacrifice includes all men in its scope, its benefits will doubtless accrue to those only who respond willingly to His drawing power. The saying of Caiaphas (Jn 11 52) is irrelevant, for the phrase, "the children of God that are scattered abroad," probably refers only to the worthy Jews of the dispersion. Neither can the statements of Paul (Rom 11 32; 1 Cor 15 22; Eph 1 9.10; Col 1 20; 1 Tim 2 4; 4 10; Tit 2 11) be pressed in favor of the restorationist view. They affirm only that God's plan makes provision for the redemption of all, and that His saving will is universal. But men have wills of their own, and whether they share in the benefits of the salvation provided depends on their availing themselves of its privileges. The doctrine of the restoration of all can hardly be deduced from the NT. See also Punishment, Everlasting. Russell Benjamin Miller

      RESURRECTION, rez-u-rek'shun (in the NT dvd(rTaen.s, andstasis, with vbs. dvio-rqjii, anislemi, "stand up," and t-ytCpu, egeiro, "raise." There is no technical term in the OT, but in Isa 26 19 are found the vbs. H^n, hdydh, "live," Dip, kum, "rise," yp , klg, "awake") :

      I. Israel and Immortality

      1. Nationalism

      2. Speculation

      3. Religious Danger

      4. Belief in Immortality

      5. Resurrection

      6. Greek Concepts

      II. Resurrection in the OT and Intermediate Literature

      1. The OT

      2. The Righteous

      3. The Unrighteous

      4. Complete Denial III. Teaching of Christ

      1. Mk 12 18-27

      2. In General

      ly. The Apostolic Doctrine

      1. References

      2. Pauline Doctrine

      3. Continuity

      4. 2 Cor 5 V. Summary

      1. NT Data

      2. Interpretation Literature

      /. Israel and Immortality. — It is very remark- able that a doctrine of life after death as an essential part of religion was of very late de-

      1. Nation- velopment in Israel, although this alism doctrine, often highly elaborated, was

      commonly held among the surrounding nations. The chief cause of this lateness was that Israel's religion centered predominantly in the ideal of a holy nation. Consequently the individual was a secondary object of consideration, and the future of the man who died before the national promises were fulfilled either was merged in the future of his descendants or else was disregarded altogether.

      Much speculation about life after death evidently existed, but it was not in direct connection with

      the nation's religion. Therefore the

      2. Specu- OT data are scanty and point, as might lation be expected, to non-homogeneous con- cepts. Still, certain ideas are clear.

      The living individual was composed of "flesh" and nephesh, or rWh (a trichotomy appears to be post- Bib., despite 1 Thess 5 23; see Psychology). In the individual nephesh and rW^h seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily "breath," as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in Ps 104 29.30). But nep/ies/i came to be used to denote the "inner man" or "self" (Dt 12 20, etc; see Heart), and so in EV is usually rendered "soul." But there are only a very few cases where nephesh is used for the seat of the personahty after death (Ps 30 3; cf 16 10; Isa 38 17; Job 33 18, etc), and nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the nephesh of a dead man is unmistakably his corpse (Lev 19 28; Nu 5 2; Hag 2 13, etc). It seems the question of what survives death was hardly raised; whatever e.xisted then was thought of as something quite new. On the one hand the dead man could be called a "god" (1 S 28 13), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship. But more commonly the dead are thought of as "shades," r'pha'lm (Job 26 5 m, etc), weak copies of the origi- nal man in all regards (Ezk 32 25). But, what- ever existence such "shades" might have, they had passed out of relation to Jeh, whom the "dead praise not" (Ps 115 17.18; Isa 38 18.19), and there was no religious interest in them.

      Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely

      to be anti-religious, as connected with necromancy,

      etc (Dt 14 1; 26 14; Isa 8 19; Ps

      3. Religious 106 28, etc; see Sorcery), or as con- Danger nected with foreign religions. Here,

      probably, the very fact that the sur- rounding nations taught immortality was a strong reason for Israel's refusing to consider it. That Egypt held an elaborate doctrine of individual judgment at death, or that Persia taught the resur-



      rection of the body, would actually tend to render these doctrines suspicious, and it was not until the danger of syncretism seemed past that such beUefs could be considered on their own merits. Hence it is not surprising that the prophets virtually dis- regard the idea or that Eccl denies any immortahty doctrine categorically.

      None the less, with a fuller knowledge of God,

      wider experience, and deeper reflection, the doctrine

      was bound to come. But it came

      4. Belief in slowly. Individualism reaches ex- Immortality plicit statement in Ezk 14, 18, 33

      (cf Dt 24 16; Jer 31 29.30), but the national point of view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of this world only (Ezk 14 14; Ps 37, etc), a doctrine that had surprising vitality and that is found as late as Sir (1 13; 11 26). But as this does not square with the facts of life (Job), a doctrine of im- mortality, already hinted at (II, 1, below), was inevi- table. It appears in full force in the post-Macca- bean period, but why just then is hard to say; perhaps because it was then that there had been witnessed the spectacle of martyrdoms on a large scale (1 Mace 1 60-64).

      Resurrection of the body was the form immor- tahty took, in accord with the religious premises.

      As the saint was to find his happiness

      5. Resur- in the nation, he must be restored to rection the nation; and the older views did not

      point toward pure soul-immortahty. The "shades" led a wretched existence at the best; and St. Paul himself shudders at the thought of "nakedness" (2 Cor 5 3). The nevhesh and rWh were uncertain quantities, and even the NT has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man ("soul," Rev 6 9; 20 4; "spirit," He 12 23; 1 Pet 3 19; St. Paul avoids any term in 1 Cor 15, and in 2 Cor 5 says: "I"). In the Tahn a common view is that the old bodies will receive new souls {Ber. ij. 2 7; 6 7; Vayy. R. 12 2; 15 1, etc; cf SibOr 4 187).

      Where direct Gr influence, however, can be

      predicated, pure soul-immortality is found (cf

      Wisd 8 19.20; 9 15 [but Wisd's true

      6. Greek teaching is very uncertain]; En 102 Concepts 4 — 105; 108; Slav En; 4 Maco; Jos,

      and esp. Philo). According to Jos (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Jos graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast Ant, XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note, moreover, how Lk 6 9; 9 25; 12 4.5 has reworded Mk 3 4; 8 36; Mt 10 28 for Gr readers. Iri a vague way even Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2 Esd 7 88; 2 Cor 4 16; 12 2), while it is commonly held that the souls in the intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a state- ment first appearing in En 22 (Jub 23 31 is hardly serious).

      ' //. Resurrection in the OT and Intermediate Literature. — For the reasons given above, references

      in the OT to the resurrection doctrine 1. The OT are few. Probably it is to be found

      in Ps 17 15; 16 11; 49 15; 73 24, and in each case with increased probability, but for exact discussions the student must consult the comms. Of course no exact dating of these Ps passages is possible. With still higher probability the doctrine is expressed in Job 14 13-15; 19 25- 29, but again alternative explanations are just possible, and, again, Job is a notoriously hard book to date (see Job, Book op). The two certain passages are Isa 26 19 m and Dnl 12 2. In the former (to be dated about 332 [?]) it is promised that the "dew of light" shall fall on the earth and so the (righteous) dead shall revive. But this resurrection

      is confined to Pal and does not include the unright- eous. For Dnl 12 2 see below.

      Indeed, resurrection for the righteous only was

      thought of much more naturally than a general

      resurrection. And still more naturally

      2. The a resurrection of martyrs was thought Righteous of, such simply receiving back what

      they had given up for God. So in En 90 33 (prior to 107 BC) and 2 Mace 7 9.11. 23; 14 46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2 Mace); cf Rev 20 4. But of the idea once given could not be restricted to martyrs only, and the in- termediate lit. contains so many references to the resurrection of the righteous as to debar citation. Early passages are En 91 10 (perhaps pre-Mac- cabean); XII P, Test.^ Judah 25 4 (before 107). A very curious passage is En 25 6, where the risen saints merely live longer than did their fathers, i.e. resurrection does not imply immortality. This pas- sage seems to be unique.

      For a resurrection of unrighteous men (Dnl 12 2; En 22 ll;XIIP,Test. Benj. 10 7.8, Armenian text

      — in none of these cases a general resur-

      3. The Un- rection), a motive is given in En 22 righteous 13: for such men the mere condition

      of Sheol is not punishment enough. For a general resurrection the motive is always the final judgment, so that all human history may be summed up in one supreme act. The idea is not very common, and XII P, Test. Benj. 10 7.8 (Grtext); Bar 50 2; En 51 1; Sib Or 4 178-90; Life of Adam (Gr) 10, and 2 Esd 5 45; 7 32; 14 35 about account for all the unequivocal pas- sages. It is not found in the earliest part of the Talm. XII P, Test. Benj. 10 7.8 (Gr) has two resurrections.

      Finally, much of the lit. knows no immortality

      at all. Eccl, Sir and 1 Mace are the most familiar

      examples, but there are many others.

      4. Complete It is esp. interesting that the very Denial spiritual author of 2 Esd did not think

      it worth while to modify the categori- cal denial in the source used in 13 20. Of course, the Jewish party that persisted most in a denial of any resurrection was the Sadducees (Mt 22 23 and II 's; Acts 23 8), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats.

      ///. Teaching of Christ. — The question is dis- cussed explicitly in the familiar passage Mk 12

      18-27 II Mt 22 23-33 || Lk 20 27-38. 1. Mk 12: The Sadducees assumed that resurrec- 18-27 tion implies simply a resuscitation to

      a resumption of human functions, in- cluding the physical side of marriage. Their error lay in the low idea of God. For the Scriptures teach a God whose ability and willingness to care for His creatures are so unlimited that the destiny He has prepared for them is caricatured if con- ceived in any terms but the absolutely highest. Hence there follows not only the truth of the resur- rection, but a resurrection to a state as far above the sexual sphere as that of the angels. (The possi- bility of mutual recognition by husband and wife is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are asexual.) Luke (20 36) adds the explana- tion that, as there are to be no deaths, marriage (in its relation to births) will not exist. It may be thought that Christ's argument would support equally well the immortality of the soul only, and, as a matter of fact, the same argument is used for the latter doctrine in 4 Mace 7 18.19; 16 25. But in Jerus and under the given circumstances this is quite impossible. And, moreover, it would seem that any such dualism would be a violation of Christ's teaching as to God's care.

      However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the righteous, esp. in the form given

      Resurrection Res. of Christ



      in Lk (cf Lk 14 14). (But that Luke thought of so limiting the resurrection is disproved by Acts 24 15.) Similartyiu Mt 8 11 || Lk 13 2. In Gen- 28; Mk 13 27 |i Mt 24 31. But, as a eral feature in the Judgment, the resur-

      rection of all men is taught. Then the men of Sodom, Tyre, Nineveh appear (Mt 11 22.24; 12 41.42 1| Lk 10 14; 11 32), and those cast into Gehenna are represented as having a body (Mk 9 43-47; Mt 5 29.30; 10 28; 18 8.9). And at the great final assize (Mt 25 31-46) all men appear. In the Fourth Gospel a similar distinc- tion is made (6 39.40.44..54; 11 25), the re.sur- rection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ and their present possession of this union, and (in 5 28.29) the general resur- rection to judgment. Whether these passages imply two resurrections or emphasize only the ex- treme difference in conditions at the one cannot be determined.

      The passages in 4 Mace referred to above read: "They who care for piety with their whole heart, they alone are able to conquer the impulses of the flesh, be- heving that like our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, they do not die to God but live to God" (7 18.19): and "They knew that dying for God they would hve to God, even as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs" (16 25). It is distinctly possible that Our Lord's words may have been known to the author of 4 IMacc, although the possibihty that Christ approved and broadened the tenets of some spirituaUy-minded few is not to be disregarded. More possible is it that 4 Mace influenced Luke's Gr phraseology. See M.ic- CABEE8, Book of, IV.

      IV. The Apostolic Doctrine. — For the apostles,

      Christ's ■victory over death took the resurrection

      doctrine out of the realm of specula-

      1. Refer- tive eschatology. Henceforth it is a ences fact of experience, basic for Chris- tianity. Direct references in the NT

      are found in Acts 4 2; 17 18.32; 23 6; 24 15.21; Rom 4 17; 5 17; 6 5.8; 8 11; 11 15; 1 Cor 6 14; 15; 2 Cor 1 9; 4 14; 5 1-10; Phil 3 10. 11.21; Col 1 18; 1 Thess 4 13-18; 2 Tim 2 18; He 6 2; 11 19.35; Rev 20 4.5 (martyrs only); 20 12.13. Of these only Acts 24 15; Rev 20 12. 13, refer to a general resurrection with absolute unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly con- tained in others and in 2 Tim 4 1 besides.

      A theology of the resurrection is given fully by

      St. Paul. Basic is the conception of the union of

      the believer with Christ, so that our

      2. Pauline resurrection follows from His (esp. Doctrine Rom 6 5-11; Phil 3 10.11). Every

      deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (2 Cor 4 10.11). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accom- plished (Eph 2 6). From another standpoint, the resuiTection is simply part of God's general redemp- tion of Nature at the consummation (Rom 8 11. 18-25). As the believer then into a condi- tion of glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (1 Cor 15 50; Phil 3 21); it becomes a "spii'itual" body, belonging to the realm of the spirit {not "spiritual" in opposition to "material"). Nature shows us how different "bodies" can be — from the "body" of the sun to the bodies of the lowest animals the kind depends merely on the creative will of God (1 Cor 15 38-41). Nor is the idea of a change in the body of the same thing un- familiar: look at the difference in the "body" of a grain of wheat at its sowing and after it is grown! (ver 37). Just so, I am "sown" or sent into the world (probably not "buried") with one kind of body, but my resurrection will see me with a body adapted to my life with Christ and God (vs 42-44). If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body shall be clothed upon my present body (vs 53.54; 2 Cor 5 2-4). otherwise I shall be raised in it

      (ver 52). This body exists already in the heavens (2 Cor 5 1.2), and when it is clothed upon me the natural functions of the present body will be abol- ished (1 Cor 6 13). Yet a motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that is to rise (1 Cor 6 13.14).

      The relation of the matter in the present body

      to that in the resurrection body was a question St.

      Paul never raised. In 1 Cor 6 13.14

      3. Conti- it appears that he thought of the body nuity as something more than the sum of

      its organs, for the organs perish, but the body is raised. Nor does he discuss the even- tual fate of the dead body. The imagery of 1 Thess

      4 16.17; 1 Cor 15 52 is that of leaving the graves, and in the case of Christ's resurrection, the type of ours, that which was buried was that which was raised (1 Cor 15 4). Perhaps the thought is that the touch of the resurrection body destroys all things in the old body that are unadapted to the new state; perhaps there is an idea that the essence of the old body is what we might call "non-material, " so that decay simply anticipates the work the resur- rection will do. At all events, such reflections are "beyond what is written."

      A partial parallel to the idea of the resurrection

      body being aheady in heaven is found in Slav

      En 22 8.9, where the soul receives

      4. 2 Cor, clothing laid up for it (cf Asc Isa 7 Ch 5 22.23 and possibly Rev 6 11). But

      Christ also speaks of a reward being already in heaven (Mt 5 12). A more important question is the time of the clothing in 2 Cor 5 1-5. A group of scholars (Heinrici, Schmiedel, HoltZ- mann, Clemen, Charles, etc) consider that St. Paul has here changed his views from those of 1 Cor; that he now considers the resurrection body to be assumed immediately at death, and they translate vs 2.3 " 'we groan [at the burdens of life], longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven' : because, when we shall be clothed with it, we shall have no more nakedness to experience" (Weizsacker's tr of the NT) . But 2 Cor would have been a most awkward place to announce a change of views, for it was written in part as a defence against inconsistency (1 17, etc). The wiUingness to be ab- sent from the body (5 8) loses all its point if another and better body is to be given at once. The gram- matical reasons for the interpretation above (best stated by Heinrici) are very weak. And the tr given reads into the verse something that simply is not there. Consequently it is far better to follow the older interpretation of Meyer (B. Weiss, Bousset, Lietzmann, Bachmann, Menzies, etc; Bachmann is esp. good) and the obvious sense of the passage: St. Paul dreads being left naked by death, but finds immediate consolation at the thought of being with Christ, and eventual consolation at the thought of the body to be received at the Parousia. (In Phil 1 21-24 this dread is overcome.)

      Of a resurrection of the wicked, St. Paul has little to say. The doctrine seems clearly stated in 2 Cor

      5 10 (and in 2 Tim 4 1, unless the Pauline author- ship of 2 Tim is denied). But St. Paul is willing to treat the fate of the unrighteous with silence.

      V. Summary. — The points in the NT doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous, then, seem to be

      these: The personality of the believer 1. NT survives after death and is with Christ.

      Data But it is lacking in something that will

      be supphed at the consummation, when a body will be given in which there is nothing to hinder perfect intercourse with God. The connec- tion of this body with the present body is not dis- cussed, except for saying that some connection exists, with the necessity of a transformation for those alive at the end. In this state nothing remains



      Resurrection Res. of Christ

      that is inconsistent with the height to which man is raised, and in particular sexual relations (Mk 12 25) and the processes of nutrition (1 Cor 6 13) cease. For this end the whole power of God is available. And it is insured by the perfect trust the believer may put in God and by the resurrection of Christ, with whom the believer has become inti- mately united. The unrighteous are raised for the final vindication of God's dealings in history. Two resurrections are found in Rev 20 5.13 and quite possibly in 1 Thess 4 16; 1 Cor 15 23.24. Hence the phrase first resurrection; see Last Judgment.

      Into the "blanks" of this scheme the beUever is natu- rally entitled to insert such matter as may seem to him best compatible with liis other concepts 2. Internre- °' Christianity and of philosophy. As , ',. ^ is so often the case with passages in the

      lanoil Bible, the student marvels at the way

      the sacred writers were restrained from committing Christianity to metaphysical schemes that growth in human knowledge might afterward show to be false. But the theologian must take care to distin- guish between the revealed facts and the interpretation given them in any system that he constructs to make the doctrine conform to the ideas of his own time or circle — a distinction too often forgotten in the past and some- times with lamentable results. Esp. is it well to remem- ber that such a phrase as " a purely spiritual immortality " rests on a metaphysical dualism that is today obsolete, and that such a phrase is hardly less naive than the expectation that the resurrection body wiU contain identically the material of the present body. We are still quite in the dark as to the relations of what we call "soul" and "body." and so. naturally, it is quite im- possible to dogmatize. A. Meyerin his RGG art. (" Auf- erstehung, dogmatisch") has some interesting sugges- tions. For an ideahstic metaphysic, where soul and body are only two forms of God's thought, the resurrection offers no difficulties. If the body be regarded as the web of forces that proceed from the soul, the resurrection would take the form of the return of those forces to their center at the consummation. If "body" be considered to embrace the totality of effects that proceed from the individual, at the end the individual will find in these effects the e.xact e.xpression of himself (Fechuer's theory). Or resurrection may be considered as the end of evo- lution — the reunion in God of all that has been differ- entiated and so evolved and enriched. Such lines must be followed cautiously, but may be found to lead to results of great value.

      In recent years the attention of scholars has been directed to the problem of how far the teachings of other rehgions assisted the Jews in attaining a resurrection doctrine. Practically only the Pers system comes into question, and here the facts seem to be these: A behef among the Persians in the resurrection of the body is attested for the pre-Christian period by the fragments of Theopompus (4th cent. BC), preserved by Diogenes Laertius and Aeneas of Gaza. That this doctrine was taught by Zoroaster himself is not capable of exact proof, but is probable. But on the precise details we are m great uncertainty. In the Avesta the doctrine is not found in the oldest part (the Gathas), but is mentioned in the 19th Yashl, a document that has certainly under- gone post-Christian redaction of an extent that is not determinable. The fullest Pers source is the Bunda- hesh (.30), written in the 9th Christian cent. It certainly contains much very ancient matter, but the age of any given passage in it is always a problem. Consequently the sources must be used with great caution. It may be noted that late Judaism certainly was affected to some degree by the Pers reUgion (see Tob, esp.), but there are so many native Jewish elements that were leading to a resurrection doctrine that familiarity with the Pers behef could have been an assistance only. Esp. is it to be noted that the great acceptance of the doctrine lies in the post-Maccabean period, when direct Pers influ- ence is hardly to be thought of. See Zoroastrianism.

      Literature. — The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the presuppositions, but Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, is always useful. Brown, The Christian Hope, 1912, is excellent and con- tains a full bibhography. Charles, Bschatologu, and art. " Eschatology " in EB are invaluable, but must be nsed criticaUy by the thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoon's art. "Resur- rection" in DCG is gaod; Bernard's in HDB is not so good. On 1 Cor, Pindlay or (better) Edwards; on 2 Cor Menzies. In German the NT Theologies of Weiss, Holtzmann, Feine; Schaeder's "Auferstehung" in PRE'. On 1 Cor, Heinrici and J. Weiss in Meyer (eds 8 and 9) ; on 2 Cor, Bachmann in the Zahn series. On both Cor epp. Bousset in the Schriften des NT of J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology) , and Lietzraann in his Handbuch. See Body: Eschatology (OT and NT); Flesh; Soul; Spirit.

      Burton Scott Easton


      Apocryphal Gospels.



      1. First Proof: The Life of Jesus

      2. Second Proof: The Empty Grave

      '6. Third Proof: Transformation of the Disciples

      4. Fourth Proof: Existence of the Primitive Church

      5. Fifth Proof: The Witness of St. Paul

      6. Sixth Proof: The Gospel Record

      7. Summary and Conclusion

      8. Theology of the Resurrection Literature

      The Resurrection has always been felt to be vital in connection with Christianity. As a con- sequence, opponents have almost always concen- trated their attacks, and Christians have centered their defence, upon it. It is therefore of the utmost importance to give attention to the subject, as it appears in the NT. There are several converging lines of evidence, and none can be overlooked. Each must have its place and weight. The issues at stake are so serious that nothing must be omitted.

      The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a disappointment when a life which commenced well finishes badly. We 1. First have this feeling even in fiction;

      Proof: The instinct demands that a story should Life of end well. Much more is this true

      Jesus of Jesus Christ. A perfect life char-

      acterized by Divine claims ends in its prime in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a fitting close? Surely death could not end every- thing after such a noble career. The Gospels give the resurrection as the completion of the picture of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that Christ anticipated His own resurrection. At first He used only vague terms, such as, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up." But later on He spoke plainly, and whenever He mentioned His death, He added, "The Son of man .... must be raised the third day." These references are too numerous to be overlooked, and, in spite of diffi- culties of detail, they are, in any proper treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim made for Himself by Jesus Christ (Mt 12 38-40; 16 21; 17 9 23; 20 19; 27 63; Mk 8 31; 9 9.31; 10 34; 14 58; _ Lk 9 22; 18 33; Jn 2 19-21). His ve- racity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a One must be given due credence. We are therefore compelled to face the fact that the resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resur- rection of no ordinary man, but of Jesus — that is of One whose life and character had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 122 f). Is it possible that, in view of His perfect truthfulness of word and deed, there should be such an anti-climax as is involved in a denial of His assur- ance that He would rise again (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, 30)? Consider, too, the death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If that death was the close of a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so Godhke, we are faced with an insol- uble mystery — the permanent triumph of wrong over right, and the impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world (C. H. Robinson, op. cit., 36). So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated event, a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken in close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is to be found in that estimate of Christ which "most entirely fits in with the totality of the facts" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 14).

      Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance of the body. That Jesus died and was buried, and that on the third morning the tomb was empty, is not now seriously



      challenged. The theory of a swoon and a recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss "practi- cally gives its deathblow" (Orr, op. 2. Second cit., 43). At Christ's burial a stone Proof: The was rolled before the tomb, the tomb Empty was sealed, and a guard was placed

      Grave before it. Yet on the third morning

      the body had disappeared, and the tomb was empty. There are only two alternatives. His body must have been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power. If the hands were human, they must have been those of His friends or of His foes. If His friends had wished to take out His body, the question at once arises whether they could have done so in the face of the stone, the seal and the guard. If His foes had con- templated this action, the question arises whether they would seriously have considered it. It is ex- tremely improbable that any effort should have been made to remove the body out of the reach of the dis- ciples. Why should His enemies do the very thing that would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? As Chiysostom said, "If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it" (quoted in Day, Evidence for the Resurrection, 35). Besides, the position of the grave-clothes proves the impossibility of the theft of the body (see Gr of Jn 20 6.7; 11 44; Grimley, Temple of Humanity, 69, 70; Latham, The Risen Master; Ex- pos T, XIII, 293 f ; XIV, 510). How, too, is it pos- sible to account for the failure of the Jews to dis- prove the resurrection? Not more than seven weeks aftenvard Peter preached in that city the fact that Jesus had been raised. What would have been easier or more conclusive than for the Jews to have produced the dead body and silenced Peter forever? "The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians" (Fairbaim, Studies in the Life of Christ, Zbl).

      The fact of the empty tomb with the disap- pearance of the body remains a problem to be faced. It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty tomb is adequate, and that it was part of the primi- tive behef {Foundations, 134, 154). It is important to reahze the force of this admission, because it is a testimony to St. Paul's of the term "third day" (see below) and to the Christian observance of the first day of the week. And yet in spite of this we are told that a belief in the empty tomb is impossible. By some writers the idea of resurrection is inter- preted to mean the revival of Christ's spiritual influence on the disciples, which had been brought to a close by His death. It is thought that the essential idea and value of Christ's resurrection can be conserved, even while the behef in His bodily rising from the grave is surrendered (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 23) . But how can we believe in the resurrection while we regard the basis of the primitive belief in it as a mistake, not to say a fraud? The disciples found the tomb empty, and on the strength of this they believed He had risen. How can the belief be true if the foundation be false? Besides, the various forms of the vision- theory are now gradually but surely being regarded as inadequate and impossible. They involve the change of almost every fact in the Gospel history, and the invention of new scenes and conditions of which the Gospels know nothing (Orr, op. cit., 222). It has never been satisfactorily shown why the disciples should have had this abundant experience of visions; nor why they should have had it so soon after the death of Christ and within a strictly limited period; nor why it suddenly ceased. The disciples were familiar with the apparition of a spirit, hke Samuel's, and with the resuscitation of a body, like

      Lazarus', but what they had not experienced or imagined was the fact of a spiritual body, the com- bination of body and spirit in an entirely novel way. So the old theory of a vision is now virtually set aside, and for it is substituted the theory of a real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ. The question at once arises whether this is not prompted by an unconscious but real desire to get rid of any- thing like a physical resurrection. Whatever may be true of unbelievers, this is an impossible position for those who beheve Christ is alive.

      Even though we may be ready to admit the reahty of telepathic communication, it is impossible to ar- gue that this is equivalent to the idea of resurrec- tion. Psychical research has not proceeded far enough as yet to warrant arguments being built on it, though in any case it is difficult, if not im- possible, to obtain material from this quarter which will answer to the conditions of the physical resur- rection recorded in the NT. "The survival of the soul is not resurrection." "Whoever heard of a spirit being buried?" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 229).

      In view of the records of the Gospels and the gen- eral testimony of the NT, it is impossible to be "agnostic" as to what happened at the grave of Jesus, even though we are quite sure that He who died now lives and reigns. It is sometimes said that faith is not bound up with holding a particular view of the relations of Christ's present glory with the body that was once in Joseph's tomb, that faith is to be exercised in the exalted Lord, and that behef in a resuscitation of the human body is no vital part of it. It is no doubt true that faith today is to be exercised solely in the exalted and glorified Lord, but faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it is difficult to understand how Christian faith can really be "agnostic" with regard to the facts about the empty tomb and the risen body, which are so prominent in the NT, and which form an essential part of the apostohc witness. The attempt to set faith and historical evidence in opposition to each other, which is so marked a characteristic of much modem thought, will never satisfy general Christian intelligence, and if there is to be any real belief in the historical character of the NT, it is impossible to be "agnostic" about facts that are writ so large on the face of the records. When once the evidence for the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the impossibility of any other explanation than that indicated in the NT is at once seen. The evidence must be accounted for and adequately explained. And so we come again to the insuperable barrier of the empty tomb, which, together with the apostolic witness, stands impregnable against all the attacks of visional and apparitional theories. It is becom- ing more evident that these theories are entirely inadequate to account for the records in the Gospels, as well as for the place and power of those Gospels in the early church and in all subsequent ages. The force of the evidence for the empty grave and the disappearance of the body is clearly seen by the explanations suggested by various modern writers (those of Oscar Holtzmann, K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, ch viii, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 69; see also art. by Streeter in Foundations). Not one of them is tenable without doing violence to the Gospel story, and also without putting forth new theories which are not only improbable in themselves, but are without a shred of real historical or literary evidence. The one outstanding fact which baffles all these writers is the empty grave.

      Others suggest that resurrection means a real objective appearance of the risen Christ without implying any physical reanimation, that "the resur- rection of Christ was an objective reality, but was



      not a physical resuscitation" (C. H. Robinson, Sltidies in the Resurreciion of Christ, 12). But the difficulty here is as to the meaning of the term "resurrection." If it means a relurnirom the dead, a rising again {re-), must there not have been some identity between that which was put in the tomb and the "objective reality" which appeared to the disciples? Wherein lies the essential ditTerence between an objective vision and an objective appear- ance? If we believe the apostolic testimony to the empty tomb, why may we not accept their evidence to the actual resurrection? They evi- dently recognized their Master, and this recogni- tion must have been due to some familiarity with His bodily appearance. No difficulty of conceiving of the resurrection of mankind hereafter must be allowed to set aside the plain facts of the record about Christ. It is, of course, quite clear that the resurrection body ot Jesus was not exactly the same as when it was put in the tomb, but it is equally clear that there was definite identity as well as definite dissimilarity, and both elements must be faced and accounted for. There need be no insuper- able difficulty if we believe that in the very nature of things Christ's resurrection must be unique, and, since the life and work ot Jesus Christ transcend our experience (as they certainly should do), we must not expect to bring them within the limita- tions of natural law and human history. How the resurrection body was sustained is a problem quite outside our "^ken, though the reference to "flesh and bones," compared with St. Paul's words about "flesh and blood" not being able to enter the kingdom of God, may suggest that while the resur- rection body was not constituted upon a natural basis through blood, yet that it possessed "all things appertaining to the perfection ot man's nature" (Church ot England Article IV). We may not be able to solve the problem, but we must hold fast to all the facts, and these may be summed up by saying that the body was the same though differ- ent, different though the same. The true descrip- tion of the resurrection seems to be that "it was an objective reality, but that it was not merely a physical resuscitation." We are therefore brought back to a consideration of the tacts recorded in the Gospels as to the empty tomb and the disappearance of the body, and we only ask for an explanation which will take into consideration all the facts recorded, and will do no violence to any part of the evidence. To predicate a new resurrection body in which Christ appeared to His disciples does not explain how in three days' time the body \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\vhich had been placed in the tomb was disposed of. Does not this theory demand a new mu-acle of its own (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 271)?

      The next line of proof to be considered is the transformation of the disciples caused by the resur- rection. They had seen their Master 3 Third die, and through that death they lost Proof: all hope. Yet hope returned three

      Trans- days after. On the day ot the cruci-

      formation fixion they were filled with sadness; of the Dis- on the first day of the week with glad- ciples ness. At the crucifixion they were

      hopeless; on the first day of the week their hearts glowed with certainty. When the message of the resurrection first came they were incredulous and hard to be convinced, but when once they became assured they never doubted again. What could account for the astonishing change in these men in so short a time? The mere removal of the body from the grave could never have trans- formed their spirits and characters. Three days are not enough for a legend to spring up which should so affect them. Time is needed tor a process of legendary growth. There is nothing more strik-

      ing in the history of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in the disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological fact that demands a full explana- tion. The disciples were prepared to believe in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of a resurrection (see Mk 16 II). Men do not imagine what they do not believe, and the women's intention to emlDalm a corpse shows they did not expect His resurrection. Besides, a hallucination involving five hundred people at once, and repeated several times during forty days, is unthinkable.

      From this fact of the transformation ot personal life in so incredibly short a space ot time, we pro- ceed to the next line ot proof, the 4. Fourth existence of the primitive church. Proof: "There is no doubt that the church of

      Existence the apostles believed in the resurrection of the of their Lord" (Burkitt, The Oospel

      Primitive History and Its Transmission, 74). Church It is now admitted on all hands that

      the church of Christ came into exist- ence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts: (1) the Christian society was gathered together by preach- ing; (2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be rejected by Jews as accursed ot God (Dt 21 23) . Yet mul- titudes of Jews were led to worship Him (Acts 2 41), and a great company of priests to obey Him (Acts 6 7) . The only explanation of these facts is God's act of resurrection (Acts 2 36), for nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The apostohc church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the marks of primitive documents, and their evidence is un- mistakable. It is impossible to allege that the early church did not know its own history, that myths and legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received, and that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience for principle, but manipulated their material at will, for any modern church could easily give an account ot its history for the past fifty years or more (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 144). And it is simply absurd to think that the earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing vague or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other members of the church. "As the church is too holy for a foundation ot rottenness, so she is too real for a foundation of mist" (Archbishop Alexander, The Great Question, 10).

      One man in the apostolic church must, however, be

      singled out as a special witness to the resurrection. The

      conversion and work of Saul of Tarsus is

      K VttU our next line of proof. Attention is first

      0. J

      01. fa.ui Jo (Jig conception of Christ which would

      be suggested to a heathen inquirer by a pertisal ot Paul's earUest extant writing (1 Thess). One point at least would stand out clearly — that Jesus Christ was killed (2 15; 4 14) and was raised from the dead (4 14). As this Ep. is usually dated about 51 AD — that is, only about 22 years after the resurrection — and as the same Ep. plainly attributes to Jesus Christ the (unctions of God in relation to men (1 1.6; 2 14; 3 11). we can readily see the force of this testimony to the resurrection. Then a few years later, in an ep. which is universally accepted as one of St. Paul's, we have a much fuller refer- ence to the event. In the well-known chapter (1 Cor ID) where he is concerned to prove (not Christ's resurrection, but) the resurrection of Christians, he naturaUy adduces Christ's resurrection as his greatest evidence, and so gives a list of the various appearances of Christ, ending with one to himself, which he puts on an exact level with the others :

      Res. of Christ Retention of Sins



      " Last of all he was seen of me also." Now it is essential to give special attention to the nature and particularity of tills testimony. "I delivered imto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ; and that he was buried : and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15 3 f). This, as it has often been pointed out. is our earliest authority for the appear- ances of Christ after the resm-rection, and dates from within 30 years of the event itself. But there is much more than this: "He affirms that within 5 years of the crucifixion of Jesus he was taught that ' Ctirist died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures'" (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 267). And if we seelf to appreciate the full bearing of this act and testimony we have a right to draw the same con- clusion : " That within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was, in the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 267).

      Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition — the mention of "the third day." A reference to the passage in the Gospels where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and persistent was this note of time. Why, then, should St. Paul have introduced it in his statement ? AVas it part of the teaching which he had "received"? What is the significance of this plain emphasis on the date of the resurrection ? Is it not that it iSears absolute testimony to the empty tomb ? From all this it may be argued that St. Paul believed the story of the empty tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh, when he could examine it for himself, when he could make the fullest possible inquiry of others, and when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made it impossible for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was not absolutely true. ' ' Surely common sense requires us to beheve that that for which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibihty of doubt" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 271).

      In view, therefore, of St. Paul's personal testimony to his own conversion, his interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after His resurrec- tion, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the apostle's own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence for the resurrection. It is well known that Lord Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each determining to give attention respectively during the long vacation to the conversion of St. Paul and the resurrection of Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both. They met again in the autumn and compared experiences. Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the truth of St. Paul's conversion, and Gilbert West of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, Paul's 2.5 years of suffering and service for Christ were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began with that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to the sight of the risen Christ.

      The next line of proof of the resurrection is the record in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen

      Christ, and it is the last in order to 6. Sixth be considered. By some -writers it is Proof: The put first, but this is in forgetfuhiess Gospel of the dates vfhea the GospeLs ivere

      Record written. The resurrection was believed

      in by the Christian church for a number of years before our Gospels were written, and it is therefore impossible for these records to be our primary and most important evidence. We must get behind them if we are to appreciate fully the force and variety of the evidence. It is for this reason that, following the proper logical order, we have reserved to the last our consideration of the appearances of the risen Christ as given in the Gospels. The point is one of great importance (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 111).

      Now. with this made clear, we proceed to consider the evidence afforded by the records of the post-resurrec- tion appearances of Christ. Modern criticism of the Gospels during recent years has tended to adopt the view that Mk is the earhest, and that Mt and Lk are dependent on it. This is said to be "the one solid result " (W. C. Allen, "St. Matthew," ICC. Preface, vii: Burkitt, The Gospel History, 37) of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If this is so, the question of the records of the resurrection becomes involved in the difficult problem about the supposed lost ending of Mk, which, according to modem criticism, would thus close -without any record of an appearance of the risen Christ. On this point, however, two things may be said at the present juncture:

      (1) There are some indications that the entire question of the criticism of the Gospels is to be reopened (Ramsay, St. Luke the Physician, ch 11; see also Orr. The Resurrec- tion of Jesus, 63 fl). (2) Even if the current theory be accepted, it would not seriously weaken the intrinsic force of the evidence for the resurrection, because, after all, Mark does not invent or "doctor" his material, but embodies the common apostohc tradition of his time (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 62).

      We may, therefore, meanwhile examine the record of the appearances without finding them essentially affected by any particular theory of the origin and relations of the Gospels. There are two sets of appearances, one in Jerus and the other in Galilee, and their number, and the amplitude and weight of their testimony should be carefully estimated. While we are precluded by our space from examin- ing each appearance minutely, and indeed it is unnecessary for our purpose to do so, it is impossible to avoid calling attention to two of them. No one can read the story of the walk to Emmaus (Lk 24), or of the visit of Peter and John to the tomb (Jn 20), without observing the striking marks of reality and personal testimony in the accounts. As to the former incident: "It carries with it, as great literary critics have pointed out, the deepest inward evidences of its o-svn literal truthfulness. For it so narrates the intercourse of 'a risen God' with commonplace men as to set natural and super- natural side by side in perfect harmony. And to do this has always been the difficulty, the despair of imagination. The alternative has been put reason- ably thus: St. Luke was either a greater poet, a more creative genius, than Shakespeare, or — he did not create the record. He had an advantage over Shakespeare. The ghost in Hamlet was an effort of laborious imagination. The risen Christ on the road was a fact supreme, and the Evangelist did but tell it as it was" (Bishop Moule, Meditations for the Church's Year, 108). Other writers whose attitude to the Gospel records is very different bear the same testimony to the impression of truth and reality made upon them by the Emmaus narra- tive (A. Meyer and K. Lake, quoted in Orr, The Resurreclion of Jesus, 176 f).

      It is well known that there are difficulties con- nected with the number and order of these appear- ances, but they are probably due largely to the summary character of the story, and certainly are not sufficient to invalidate the uniform testimony to the two facts: (1) the empty grave, (2) the appear- ances of Christ on the third day. These are the main facts of the combined witness (Orr, op. cit., 212).

      The very difficulties which have been observed in the Gospels for nearly nineteen centuries are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the narra- tives on the part of the whole Christian church. The church has not been afraid to leave these records as they are because of the facts that they embody and express. If there had been no diffi- culties men might have said that everything had been artificially arranged, whereas the differences bear testimony to the reality of the event recorded. The fact that we possess these two sets of appear- ances — one in Jerus and one in Galilee — is really an argument in favor of their credibility, for if it had been recorded that Christ appeared in Galilee only, or Jerus only, it is not unlikely that the account might have been rejected for lack of support. It is well known that records of eyewitnesses often vary in details, while there is no question as to the events themselves. The various booksrecording the story of the Indian mutiny, or the surrender of Napoleon HI at Sedan are cases in point, and Sir William Ramsay has shown the entire compatibility of certainty as to the main fact with great uncertainty as to precise details (Ramsay, St. Paid the Traveller, 29). We believe, therefore, that a careful examination of these



      Res. of Christ Retention of Sins

      ■ appearances will afford evidence of a chain of cir- cumstances extending from the empty grave to the day of the ascension.

      When we examine carefully all these converging lines of evidence and endeavor to give weight to all the facts of the case, it seems impossible 7. Summary to escape from the problem of a physi- andCon- cal miracle. That the prima facie elusion view of the evidence afforded by the

      NT suggests a miracle and that the apostles really believed in a true physical resurrec- tion are surely beyond all question. And yet very much of present-day thought refuses to accept the miraculous. The scientific doctrine of the uniform- ity and continuity of Nature bars the way, so that from the outset it is concluded that miracles are impossible. We are either not allowed to believe (see Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 44), or else we are told that we are not required to believe (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, ch ii), in the reanimation of a dead body. If we take this view, "there is no need, really, for investigation of evidence: the question is decided before the evi- dence is looked at" (Orr, op. cit., 46).

      We challenge the tenableness of this position. It proves too much. We are not at all concerned by the charge of believing in the abnormal or unusual. New things have happened from the beginning of the present natural order, and the Christian faith teaches that Christ Himself was a "new thing," and that His coming as "God manifest in the flesh" was something absolutely unique. If we are not allowed to believe in any Divine intervention which we may call supernatural or miraculous, it is im- possible to account for the Person of Christ at all. "A Sinless Personality would be a miracle in time." Arising out of this, Christianity itself was unique, inaugurating a new era in human affairs. No Chris- tian, therefore, can have any difficulty in accepting the abnormal, the unusual, the miraculous. If it be said that no amount of evidence can establish a fact which is miraculous, we have still to account for the moral miracles which are really involved and associated with the resurrection, esp. the decep- tion of the disciples, who could have found out the truth of the case; a deception, too, that has proved so great a blessing to the world. Surely to those who hold a true theistic view of the world this a priori view is impossible. Are we to refuse to allow to God at least as much liberty as we possess our- selves? Is it really thinkable that God has less spontaneity of action than we have? We may like or dislike, give or withhold, will or not will, but the course of Nature must flow on unbrokenly. Surely God cannot be conceived of as having given such a constitution to the universe as limits His power to intervene if necessary and for sufficient purpose with the work of His own hands. Not only are all things of Him, but all things are through Him, and to Him. The resurrection means the presence of miracle, and "there is no evading the issue with which this confronts us" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 53). Unless, therefore, we are prepared to accept the possibility of the miraculous, all explana- tion of the NT evidence is a pure waste of time.

      Of recent years attempts have been made to account for the resurrection by means of ideas derived from Bab and other Eastern sources. It is argued that mythology provides the key to the problem, that not only analogy but derivation is to be found. But apart from the remarkable variety of conclusions of Bab archaeologists there is nothing in the way of historical proof worthy of the name. The whole idea is arbitrary and baseless, and nreiudiced by the attitude to the supernatural. There IS literally no link of connection between these oriental cults and the Jewish and Christian beliefs in the resur- rection.

      And so we return to a consideration of the various lines of proof. Taking them singly, they must be

      admitted to be strong, but taking them altogether, the argument is cumulative and sufficient. Every effect must have its adequate cause, and the only proper explanation of Christianity today is the resurrection of Christ. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, no mean judge of historical evidence, said that the resurrection was the "best-attested fact in human history." Christianity welcomes all possible sifting, testing, and use by those who honestly desire to arrive at the truth, and if they will give proper attention to all the facts and factors involved, we believe they will come to the conclusion expressed years ago by the Archbishop of Armagh, that the resurrection is the rock from which all the hammers of criticism have never chipped a single fragment {The Great Question, 24).

      The theology of the resurrection is very impor- tant and calls for special attention. Indeed, the prominence given to it in the NT 8. Theology affords a strong confirmation of the of the fact itself, for it seems incredible that

      Resurrec- such varied and important truths tion should not rest on historic fact. The

      doctrine may briefly be summarized: (1) evidential: the resurrection is the proof of the atoning character of the death of Christ, and of His Deity and Divine exaltation (Rom 1 4) ; (2) evangelistic: the primitive gospel included testi- mony to the resurrection as one of its characteristic features, thereby proving to the hearers the assur- ance of the Divine redemption (1 Cor 15 1-4; Rom 4 25); (3) spiritual: the resurrection is regarded as the source and standard of the holiness of the believer. Every aspect of the Christian life from the beginning to the end is somehow associ- ated therewith (Rom 6); (4) eschatological: the resurrection is the guaranty and model of the believer's resurrection (1 Cor 15). As the bodies of the saints arose (Mt 27 52), so ours are to be quickened (Rom 8 11), and made like Christ's glorified body (Phil 3 21), thereby becoming spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15 44), that is, bodies ruled by their spirits and yet bodies. These points offer only the barest outline of the fulness of NT teaching concerning the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ.

      Literature. — Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 190S: W. J. Sparrow Simpson. The Resurrection and Modern Thought; WestCOtt, The Historic Faith and The Gospel of the Resurrection. Very full literary references in Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, 1911, which, although nega- tive in its own conclusions, contains a valuable refuta- tion of many negative arguments.

      W. H. Griffith Thomas

      RETAIN, rS-tan': Several Heb words are thus tr'': ptn, hazak, "to hold fast" (Jgs 7 8; 19 4; Job 2 q'AV [RV "hold fast"]; Mic 7 18); n?37, 'agar, "to shut up" (only in Dnl 10 8.16; 11 6); tyun, tamakh, "to hold" (Prov 3 18; 4 4; 11 16 AV [RV "obtain"]); in one case hdld' (Eccl 8 8). In the NT Kpariu), kralio, is used in Jn 20 23 of the "retaining" of sins by the apostles (see Reten- tion OF Sins); in Rom 1 28, RV has "refused to have," m "Gr, 'did not approve,' " for AV "did not like to retain" {echo); and in Philem ver 13, substi- tutes "fain have kept" for "retained" {katecho). Sir 41 16 has "retain" for diaphuldsso, "keep."

      RETALIATION, r^-tal-i-a'shun, re-. See Law in THE NT; Punishments; Retbibution.

      RETENTION, rS-ten'shun, OF SINS (Kpax^w, krat4d,' "to lay fast hold of" [Jn 20 23]): The opposite of "the remission of sins." Where there was no evidence of repentance and faith, the community of believers were unauthorized to give assurance of forgiveness, and, therefore, could only warn that the guilt of sin was retained, and




      that the sinner remained beneath God's judg- ment.

      While sach retention lias its place in connection with all preaching of the gospel, since the offers of grace are conditional, it is esp. exercised. lils:e the absolution, in the personal deahng of a pastor with a communicant, pre- paratory to the reception of the Lord's Supper. As the absolution is properly an assurance of individual for- giveness, so the retention is an assurance of individual non-forgiveness. Tliat the retention is exercised by the ministry, not as an order, but as the representatives of the congregation of believers to which Christ gave the power of the keys, is shown by Alford, Gr Test., on above passage. See also Melanchthon, Avv^^^^^^ to the "Schmalkald Articles."

      H. E. Jacobs

      RETRIBUTION, ret-ri-bii'shun:

      1. NT Terms

      2. A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace

      3. Witness of Natural Theology

      4. Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin

      5. Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath

      6. Instances of Use of org^ and thumos

      7. Instances of Use of Greek Words for "Vengeance"

      8. Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

      9. Judgment Implies Retribution

      10. Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God's Right- eousness

      11. Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication Literature

      The word as appUed to the Divine administration

      is not used in Scripture, but undoubtedly the idea

      is commonly enough expressed. The

      1. NT words which come nearest to it are Terms ipyv, orge, and SvfjAs, ihumos, wrath

      attributed to God; iKSiKiu, ekdikeo, ^kSIktio-h, ekdikesis, eKSiKos, ekdikos, and SIkij, dike, all giving the idea of vengeance; K&\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\aais, kdlasis, and Tifiuipla, timorla, "punishment"; besides Kphui, krino, and its derivatives, words expressive of judgment.

      Rom 2 is full of the thought of retribution. The apostle, in vs 5.6, comes very near to using the word

      itself, and gives indeed a good descrip-

      2. A Reve- tion of the thing: the day of wrath and lation of revelation of the righteous judgment Wrath as of God, "who will render to every man Well as according to his works." It is well Grace in approaching the subject to remind

      ourselves that there is undoubtedly, as the apostle says, a Revelation of wrath. We are so accustomed to think of the gracious revelation which the gospel brings us, and to approach the subject of the doom of the impenitent under the influence of the kindly sentiments engendered there- by, and with a view of God's gracious character as revealed in salvation, that we are apt to overlook somewhat the sterner facts of sin, and to miscon- ceive the Divine attitude toward the impenitent sinner. It is certainly well that we should let the grace of the gospel have full influence upon all our thinking, but we must beware of being too fully engrossed with one phase of the Divine character. It is an infirmity of human nature that we find it difficult to let two seemingly conflicting concep- tions find a place in our thought. We are apt to surrender ourselves to the sway of one or the other of them according to the pre.ssure of the moment.

      Putting ourselves back into the position of those who have only the light of natural theology, we

      find that all deductions from the per-

      3. Witness fections of Go

      the Holy One, lea-i to the conclusion anno\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\mce(l by the apostle: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom 1 18). Wrath implies punishment, punishment is decreed, pun- ishment is denounced. The word of God but con- firms the verdict which conscience forecasts, Na-

      ture teaches that punishment, retribution, must follow sin. Within the sphere of physical law this is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of Nature is tolerated. Strictly speaking, the laws of Nature cannot be broken, but let a man fail to keep in harmony with them, and the natural consequences will be trouble, punishment, retri- bution. Harmony with law is blessing; collision with law is loss. Thus law in Nature "worketh wrath" to the neglecters of it. Punishment neces- sarily results. So we may well expect that in the higher sphere, God's moral laws cannot be neg- lected or violated with impunity, and Scripture fully justifies the expectation and shows that sin must be punished. All things considered, the fact of punishment for sinners need not surprise; the fact of pardon is the surprising thing. The surprise of pardon has ceased to surprise us because we are so familiar with the thought. We know the "how" of it because of the revelation of grace. Grace, however, saves on certain conditions, and there is no such thing known in Scripture as indiscriminate, necessary, universal grace. It is only from the Bible that we know of the salvation by grace. That same revelation shows that the grace does not come to all, in the sense of saving all; though, of course, it may be considered as presented to all. Those who are not touched and saved by grace remain shut up in their sins. They are, and must be, in the nature of the case, left to the consequences of their sins, with the added guilt of rejecting the offered grace. "Except ye believe that I am he," said Incarnate Grace, "ye shall die in your sins" (Jn 8 24).

      Another conclusion we may draw from the gen- eral Scriptural representation is that the future retribution is one aspect of the natural

      4. Retribu- consequence of sin, yet it is also in tion the another aspect the positive inUiclion Natural of Divine wrath. It is shown to be the Conse- natural outcome of sin in such pas- quence of sages as "Whatsoever a man soweth. Sin that shall he also reap" (Gal 6 7);

      "He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption" (Gal 6 8). It is not without suggestiveness that the Heb word 'dwon means both iniquity and punishment, and when Cain said "My punishment is greater than I can bear" (Gen 4 13), he really said "My iniquity is greater than I can bear"; his iniquity became his punishment. A due consideration of this thought goes a long way toward meeting many of the ob- jections brought against the doctrine of future punishment.

      The other statement, however, remains true and must be emphasized, that there is an actual in- fliction of Divine wrath. All the great

      5. Also the statements about the Divine judgment Positive imply this, and while it is wrong not Infliction to take account of the natural work- of Divine ing out of sin in its terrible conse- Wrath quences, it is equally wrong, perhaps

      more so, to refuse to recognize this positive Divine infliction of punishment. This, indeed, is the outstanding feature of retribution as it assumes form in Scripture. Even the natural con- sequences of sin, rightly viewed, are part of the Divine infliction, since God, in the nature of things, has conjoined sin and its consequences, and part of the positive infliction is the judicial shutting up of the sinner to the consequences of his sin. So in the case of Cain, his iniquity became his punish- ment, inasmuch as God sentenced him to bear the consequences of that iniquity. On the other hand, we might say that even the terribly positive out- pourings of God's wrath upon the sinner are the natural consequences of sin, since sin in its very




      nature calls down the Divine displeasure. Indeed, these two phases of future punishment are so very closely connected that a right view of the matter compels us to keep both before us, and no full ex- planation of the punishment is possible when either phase is ignored.

      The terms in Scripture applied to the doom of sinners all imply Divine displeasure, punitive action, retribution. The two outstanding Gr 6. In- words for "wrath," orge and thumos,

      stances of are both freely applied to God. Orge Use of indicates settled displeasure, whereas

      orgs' and thumos is rather the blazing out of the thumos anger. The former is, as we should ex-

      pect, more frequently applied to God, and, of course, all that is capricious and reprehen- sible in human wrath must be eliminated from the word as used of God. It indicates the settled oppo- sition of His holy nature against sin. It was an affec- tion found in the sinless Saviour Himself, for "he looked round about on them with anger" (Mk 3 5). In the Baptist's warning "to flee from the wrath to come" (Mt 3 7; Lk 3 7), it is unquestionably the wrath of God that is meant, the manifestation of that being further described as the burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire (Mt 3 12). In Jn 3 36 it is said of the unbeliever that "the wrath of God" abideth on him. In Rom it is used at least 9 t in reference to God, first in Rom 1 18, the great passage we have already quoted about "the wrath of God revealed from heaven." The connection is a suggestive one and is often overlooked. In the passage Paul has quite a chain of reasons; he is ready to preach the gospel at Rome for he is not ashamed of the gospel; he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation; it is the "power of God" for therein is revealed the righteousness of God by faith; and this salvation by faith is a necessity "for the wrath of God is re- vealed," etc. Thus the Divine wrath on account of sin is the dark background of the gospel message. Had there been no such just wrath upon men, there had been no need for the Divine salvation. The despising of God's goodness by the impenitent means a treasuring up of "wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Rom 2 3-5). God "visiteth with wrath" (3 5).

      In Rom 4 15 the apostle shows that "the law worketh wrath" (ie. brings down the Divine dis- pleasure), while in 5 9 he shows that believers are saved from wrath — undoubted wrath of God. The other two instances are in 9 22. Men are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2 3); surely not "wrathful children," but liable to the wrath of God, and because of evil deeds cometh "the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph 5 6; Col 3 6). Christ "delivereth us from the wrath to come" (1 Thess 1 10); wrath has come upon the opposing Jews (2 16); but believers are not ap- pointed unto wrath (5 9). With all these specific passages in view, to say nothing of the general teaching of the apostle on the question of coming judgment and punishment, it is utterly impossible to eliminate the idea of the Divine displeasure against sinners, and His consequent retributive action toward them. Even Ritschl, who absolutely denies the great principle of retribution, of positive displeasure, admits that Paul teaches it; hence the only way for him out of the difficulty is to reject Paul's teaching as unauthoritative. Other referen- ces to the "wrath of God" are in He 3 11; 4 3; and 6 passages in the Apocalypse— Rev 6 16 f ; 11 18; 14 10; 16 19; 19 15. Two of these refer to the "wrath of the Lamb," one of the most terrible phrases in the whole of the NT. Thumos is only used in the Apocalypse concerning God (Rev 14

      10-19; 15 1-7; 16 1-19; 19 15). In each case it refers to the manifestation, the blazing forth of the wrath; in the last two passages it is used in combination with orge, and is rendered "fierceness," the fierceness of His wrath.

      Ekdikeo, which means to avenge, Is twice used of God CEev 6 10; 19 2): and ekdikesia, "vengeance," 6t

      (Lie 18 7 fl; Rom 12 19; 2 Thess 1 8; 7 PrpplrTTcA ^^ 10 30). In the first two instances it i w J '** ^'"l ^^ Jesus concerning the Divine

      or Words action; ekdikos, "avenger," occurs once for"Ven- in apphcation to God (1 Thess 4 6); ooanro" dike, "judgment" or "vengeance" is twice

      geauce ^^^^ q, ^^^ ^^ Thess 1 9; .Jude ver 7).

      The use of these terms shows that the pun- ishment infilcted on sinfui men is strictiy punishment of the vindicatory sort, the vindication of outraged justice, the infliction of deserved penalty. Very significant is the passage in 2 1 6. " It is a righteous thing with God to afBlction to them that afflict you." There is no question of bettering the offender.

      It is very remarkable that the terms in Gr which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of

      the offender are never used in the NT of the

      8. Words infliction which comes upon the Impenl- TVTpflnirKr tent; these are paidela and paideuo, iirnT^' ^n*^ they are frequently used of the " chas-

      Chastise- tisement" of believers, but not of the ira- ment" Not penitent. It is often claimed that the TTspfi nt thp word kolasis used in Mt 25 46 carries the u&eu oi me meaning of chastisement for the improve- Impenitent ment of the offender, but although Aris- totle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improve- ment of the offender (what he really says is that it Is to-il pdschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffer- ing It," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoTia is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflict- ing" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Gr is predominantly against making the sup- posed distinction. Both words are used Interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasia is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while ail admit that in Hellenistic Gr the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (He 10 29).

      All the representations of the coming day of

      judgment tell of the fact of retribution, and Christ

      Himself distinctly asserts it. Apart

      9. Judg- from His great eschatological dis- ment courses, concerning which criticism Implies still hesitates and stammers, we have Retribu- the solemn close of the Sermon on the tion Mount, and the pregnant statement of

      Mt 16 27, "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds," and all the apostolic teaching upon the solemn theme is but the unfolding of the same great thought.

      The conception of God as a perfect moral governor demands that His righteousness shall be fully vindi- cated. Looking at the course of his-

      10. Moral tory as it unfolds itself before us, we Sense De- cannot fail to be struck with the anom- mands Vin- alies which are presented. Right- dication of eousness does not always triumph, God's goodness is often put to shame, Righteous- wickedness appears to be profitable, ness and wicked men often prosper while

      good men are under a cloud. Some- times signal Divine interpositions proclaim that God is indeed on the side of righteousness, but too often it seems as if He were unmindful, and men are tempted to ask the old question, "How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the Most High?" (Ps 73 11), while the righteous say in their distress, "Jeh, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?" (Ps 94 3). The moral sense cries out for some Divine vindication, and the Scriptures, in harmony with this feeling, indicate that the final judgment will bring such vindication.

      In the OT it is frequently presented as the solu- tion of the baffling problems which beset the ethical





      sphere, as for instance in that fine utterance of re- ligious philosophy in Ps 73; the Psalmist has before him all the puzzling elements of the 11. Scrip- problem; the prosperity, the insolent ture Indi- and aggressive prosperity of the wicked, cates Car- the non-success, the oppression, the tainty of misery of the righteous; he is well-nigh Vindication overwhelmed by the contemplation, and nearly loses his footing on the eternal verities, until he carries the whole problem into the light of God's presence and revelation, and then he understands that the end will bring the true solution.

      So too the somber ruminations of the Preacher upon the contradictions and anomalies and mysteries of human life, ' 'under the sun," close in the reflection which throws its searchlight upon all the blackness : "This is the end of the matter: .... Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judg- ment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Eccl 12 13 f). In the light of the same truth, the apostles labored, believing that when the Lord comes He "will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make mani- fest the counsels of the hearts" (1 Cor 4 5). The more fully the subject is considered, the more we must feel that for the vindication of righteousness, the justification of the Divine procedure, the recti- fication of wrongs, the explanation of mysteries, the reward and triumph of the righteous and the confession and punishment of the wicked, a great final, retributive judgment is Scriptural, reasonable, necessary.

      Literature. — See arts, on Punishment, Everlast- ing; Judgment; Sheol, etc, and works cited there. Archibald M'Caiq

      REU, re'u, roo (Wl , r^'u; 'PaYav, Rhagaii): A son of Peleg, a descendant of Shem (Gen 11 18 ff; 1 Ch 1 25; Lk 3 35).

      REUBEN, rooTaen, ru'ben ("3^N"1, r^'ubhen; ■PoDpt)v, Rhouhtn) : The eldest son of Jacob, born to him by Leah in Paddan-aram (Gen 1. Jacob's 29 32). This verse seems to suggest Eldest Son two derivations of the name. As it stands in MT it means "behold a son" ; but the reason given for so calling him is "The Lord hath looked upon my affliction," which in Heb is ra'ahh''onyl, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\it. "He hath seen my affliction." Of his boyhood we have only the story of the man- drakes (Gen 30 14). As the firstborn he should really have been leader among his father's sons. His birthright was forfeited by a deed of peculiar infamy (35 22), and as far as we know his tribe never took the lead in Israel. It is named first, indeed, in Nu 1 5.20, but thereafter it falls to the fourth place, Judah taking the first (2 10, etc). To Reuben's intervention Joseph owed his escape from the fate proposed by his other brethren (Gen 37 29). Some have thought Reuben designed to set him free, from a desire to rehabilitate himself with his father. But there is no need to deny to Reuben certain noble and chivalrous qualities. Jacob seems to have appreciated these, and, per- haps, therefore all the more deeply lamented the lapse that spoiled his life (Gen 49 3 f). It was Reuben who felt that their perils and anxieties in Egypt were a fit recompense for the unbrotherly conduct (42 22). To assure his father of Benja- min's safe return from Egypt, whither Joseph required him to be taken, Reuben was ready to pledge his own two sons (ver 37). Four sons born to him in Canaan went donm with Reuben at the descent of Israel into Egypt (46 8 f).

      The incidents recorded are regarded by a certain school of OT scholars as the vague and fragmentary

      traditions of the tribe, wTOUght into the form of a biography of the supposed ancestor of the tribe. This interpretation raises more difficulties than it solves, and depends for coherence upon too many assumptions and conjectures. The narrative as it stands is quite intelligible and self-consistent. There is no good reason to doubt that, as far as it goes, it is an authentic record of the life of Jacob's son.

      At the first census in the wilderness Reuben numbered 46,500 men of war (Nu 1 21); at the second they had fallen to 43,730; see 2. Tribal Numbers. The standard of the camp History of Reuben was on the south side of the

      tabernacle; and with him were Simeon and Gad; the total number of fighting men in this division being 151,450. Tg Pseudojon says that the standard was a deer, with the legend "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord." On the march this division took the second place (Nu 2 10 ff). The prince of the tribe was Elizur ben Shedeur, whose oblation is described in 7 30 ff . The Reubenite among the spies was Shammua ben Zaccur (13 4). It is possible that the conspiracy against Moses, organized by the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram, with the assistance of Korah the Levite (Nu 16), was an attempt on the part of the tribe to assert its rights as representing the firstborn. It is significant that the children of Korah did not perish (26 11). May not the influence of this incident on Moses' mind be traced in his "blessing," wishing for the continuance of the tribe, indeed, but not in great strength (Dt 33 6)? This was a true fore- cast of the tribal history.

      When the high plateau E. of the Dead Sea and the Jordan fell into the hands of the Israelite in- vaders, these spacious pastoral uplands irresistibly attracted the great flock-masters of Reuben and Gad, two tribes destined to be neighbors during succeeding centuries. At their earnest request Moses allowed them their tribal possessions here subject to one condition, which they loyally ac- cepted. They should not "sit here," and so dis- courage their brethren who went to war bej'ond the Jordan. They should provide for the security of their cattle, fortify cities to protect their little ones and their wives from the inhabitants of the land, and their men of war should go before the host in the campaign of conquest until the children of Israel should have inherited every man his in- heritance (Nu 32 1-27). Of the actual part they took in that warfare there is no record, but per- haps "the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben" (Josh 15 6; 18 17) marked some memorable deed of valor by a member of the tribe. At the end of the cam- paign the men of Reuben, having earned the grati- tude of the western tribes, enriched by their share of the spoils of the enemy, returned with honor to their new home. Along with their brethren of Gad they felt the dangers attaching to their position of isola- tion, cut off from the rest of their people by the great cleft of the Jordan valley. They reared therefore the massive altar of Ed in the valley, so that in the very throat of that instrument of severance there might be a perpetual witness to themselves and to their children of the essential unity of Israel. The western tribes misunderstood the action and, dreading re- ligious schism, gathered in force to stamp it out. Ex- planations followed which were entirely satisfactory, and a threatening danger was averted (Josh 22). But the instincts of the eastern tribes were right, as subsequent history was to prove. The Jordan valley was but one of many causes of sundering. The whole circumstances and conditions of life on the E. differed widely from those on the W. of the river, pastoral pursuits and life in the open being contrasted with agricultural and city life.



      Reu Revelation

      The land given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben reached from the Arnon, Wddxj el-Mojib, in the S., to the border of Gad in the N. In Nu 32 34 cities ot Gad are named which lay far S., Aroer being on the very lip of the Arnon; but these are probably to be taken as an enclave in the territory of Reuben. From Josh 13 15 ff it is clear that the northern border ran from some point N. of the Dead Sea in a direction E.N.E., passing to the N. of Heshbon. The Dead Sea formed the western boundary, and it marched with the desert on the E. No doubt many districts changed hands in the course of the history. At the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, e.g., we read that Aroer was in the hands of the Reuben- ites, "and eastward .... even unto the entrance of the wilderness from the river Euphrates" (1 Ch 5 8f). Bezer the city of refuge lay in Reuben's territory (Josh 20 8, etc). A general description of the country will be found under Moab ; while the cities of Reuben are dealt with in separate articles.

      Reuben and Gad, occupying contiguous districts, and even, as we have seen, to some extent over- lapping, are closely associated in the history. Neither took part in the glorious struggle against Sisera (Jgs 5 15 ff). Already apparently the sun- dering influences were taking effect. They are not excepted, however, from "all the tribes of Israel" who sent contingents for the war against Benjamin (Jgs 20 10; 21 5), and the reference in 5 15 seems to show that Reuben might have done great things had he been disposed. The tribe therefore was still powerful, but perhaps absorbed by anxieties as to its relations with neighboring peoples. In guarding their numerous flocks against attack from the S., and sudden incursions from the desert, a warlike spirit and martial prowess were developed. They were "valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skilful in war" (1 Ch 5 18). They overwhelmed the Hagrites with Jetur and Naphish and Nodab, and greatly enriched themselves with the spoil. In recording the raid the Chronicler pays a compliment to their religious loyalty: "They cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust in him" (5 19 ff). Along with Gad and Manasseh they sent a contingent of 120,000 men "with all manner of instruments of war for the battle, .... men of war, that could order the battle array," men who "came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king" (12 37 f). Among David's mighty men was Adina, "a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him" (11 42). In the 40th year of David's reign overseers were set over the Reubenites "for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king" (26 32). Perhaps in spite of the help given to David the Reubenites had never quite got over their old loyalty to the house of Saul. At any rate, when disruption came they joined the Northern Kingdom (1 K 11 31).

      The subsequent history of the tribe is left in much obscurity. Exposed as they were to hostile influences of Moab and the East, and cut off from fellowship with their brethren in worship, in their isolation they probably found the descent into idolatry all too easy, and the once powerful tribe sank into comparative insignificance. Of the im- mediate causes of this decline we have no knowl- edge. Moab established its authority over the land that had belonged to Reuben; and Mesha, in his inscription (M S), while he speaks of Gad, does not think Reuben worthy of mention. They had probably become largely absorbed in the north- ern tribe. They are named as suffering in the invasion of Hazael during the reign of Jehu (2 K 10 32 f). That "they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and played the harlot after the gods of the peoples of the land" is given as the reason for

      the fate that befell them at the hands of Pul, king of Assyria, who carried them away, "and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan" (1 Ch 6 25 f).

      The resemblance of Reuben's case to that of Simeon is striking, for Simeon also appears to have been practically absorbed in the tribe of Judah. The prestige that should have been Reuben's in virtue of his birthright is said to have passed to Joseph (1 Ch 5 1). And the place of Reuben and Simeon in Israel is taken by the sons of Joseph, a fact referred to in the blessing of Jacob (Gen 48 5).

      Ezekiel finds a place for Reuben in his picture of restored Israel (48 6). He appears also — in this case preceded by Judah only — in Rev 7 5.

      W. EwiNG

      REUBENITES, roo'ben-Its p?31S^n, ha-r-^'u- hhem; 8f|(j.oi 'Vov^iyv, dimoi Rhouhtn): Members of the tribe of Reuben (Nu 26 7, etc). Adina, one of David's mighty men, was a Reubenite (1 Ch 11 42).

      REUEL, roo'el (bsw;i, r'^u'el, "God is his friend"; LXX 'Pa-you'^X, /JtogoweZ) :

      (1) In the genealogical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by Basemath (Gen 36; 1 Ch X 35.37) and the father of the father-in-law of Moses, Hobab (Nu 10 29). In the account of the marriage of Zipporah to Moses (Ex 2 16-21) Jethro seems to be called Reuel (cf Hobab). The various names of Jethro perplexed the Talmudists, too; some held that his real name was "Hobab," and that Reuel was his father. Reuel is probably a clan name (Gray, "Nu," ICC), and Hobab is a member of the clan ("son") of Reuel (Nu 10 29 AV reads "Raguel").

      (2) The father of Eliasaph, the prince of Gad (Nu 2 14), called (by some copyist's mistake) "Deuel" in 1 14; 7 42.47; 10 20. LXX has uniformly Rhagouel.

      (3) A Benjamite (1 Ch 9 8).

      Horace J. Wolf REUMAH, roo'ma (H'aiS") , r'umah) : The con- cubine of Nahor (Gen 22* 24).

      REVELATION, rev-5-la'shun:

      I. The Nature of Revelation

      1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion

      2. General and Special Revelation

      (1) Revelation in Eden

      (2) Revelation among the Heathen II. The Process of Revelation

      1. Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God

      2. Stages of Material Development

      III. The Modes of Revelation

      1. The Several Modes of Revelation

      2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes

      3. The Prophet God's Mouthpiece

      4. Visionary Form of Prophecy

      5. "Passivity " of Prophets

      6. Revelation by Inspiration

      7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ

      IV. Biblical Terminology

      1. The Ordinary Forms

      2. "Word of the Lord" and "Torah"

      3. " The Scriptures " Literature

      /. The Nature of Revelation. — The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this

      is not meant merely that, according 1. The to it, all men, as creatures, live, move

      Religion of and have their being in God. It is the Bible meant that, according to it, God has the Only intervened extraordinarily, in the Supernatu- course of the sinful world's develop- ral Re- ment, for the salvation of men other-

      ligion wise lost. In Eden the Lord God had

      been present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his social




      environment (Gen 3 8). This intimate association was broken up by the Fall. But God did not there- fore withdraw Himself from concernment with men. Rather, He began at once a series of inter- ventions in human history by means of which man might be rescued from his sin and, despite it, brought to the end destined for him. These inter- ventions involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by whom God should be known, and whose distinction should be that God should be "nigh unto them" as He was not to other nations (Dt 4 7; Ps 145 IS). But this people was not permitted to imagine that it owed its segregation to anything in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine preference; no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that Jeh had chosen it, not it Him, and that Jeh's choice of it rested solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people permitted to imagine that it was for its own sake alone that it had been singled out to be the sole recipient of the knowledge of Jeh; it was made clear from the beginning that God's mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its ultimate end the blessing of the whole world (Gen 12 2.3; 17; 18 18; 22 18; cf Rom 4 13), the bringing together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign of Jeh, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay for its sin (Gen 12 3). Meanwhile, however, Jeh was known only in Israel. To Israel God showed His word and made known His statutes and judgments, and after this fashion He dealt with no other nation; and therefore none other knew His judgments (Ps 147 19 f). Accord- ingly, when the hope of Israel (who was also the de- sire of all nations) 'came. His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation He brought, though of universal application, was "from the Jews" (Jn 4 22). And the nations to which this salvation had not been made known are declared by the chief agent in its proclamation to them to be, mean- while, "far off," "having no hope" and "without God in the world" (Eph 2 12), because they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of the promise.

      The religion of the Bible thus announces itself, not as the product of men's search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed reli- gion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man.

      It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revelation — which is made by the religion of the Bible in all the stages of its history — that the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, has left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world (Acts 14 17). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His redemptive work, God suffered for a season all the nations to walk in their own ways; but it is added that to none of them has He failed to do good, and to give from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus wooing them to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (Acts 17 27), but as from the foundation of the world openly manifesting Himself to them in the works of His hands, in which His everlasting power and Divinity are clearly seen (Rom 1 20).

      That men at large have not retained Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not due therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to knowledge of Him, but to the darkening of their senseless hearts by sin and to the vanity of their sin-deflected reasonings (Rom 1 21 ff), by means of which they have supplanted the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and serve the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed, precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the truth in unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their knowledge (so it is intimated); and because, moreover, in their sin, the revelation God gives of Himself in His works of creation and providence no longer suffices for men's needs, that God has intervened supernaturally in the course of history to form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the world should be blessed.

      It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several representations two species or stages

      of revelation, which should be dis- 2. General criminated to avoid confusion. There and Special is the revelation which God continu- Revelation ously makes to all men: by it His

      power and Divinity are made known. And there is the revelation which He makes exclu- sively to His chosen people: through it His saving grace is made known. Both species or stages of revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scrip- tures. They are, for example, brought signifi- cantly together in such a declaration as we find in Ps 19: "The heavens declare the glory of God .... their line is gone out through all the earth" (vs 1.4); "The law of Jeh is perfect, restoring the soul" (ver 7). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the praise of the glory of God, the Creator of all that is, which has been written upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. From this he rises, however, quickly to the more full-throated praise of the mercy of Jeh, the covenant God, who has visited His people with saving instruction. Upon this higher revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with adoring gratitude: "O Jeh, my rock, and my redeemer" (ver 14). "The heavens," comments Lord Bacon, "indeed tell of the glory of God, but not of His will according to which the poet prays to be pardoned and sanctified." In so commenting. Lord Bacon touches the exact point of distinction between the two species or stages of revelation. The one is adapted to man as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on becoming sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new needs requir- ing additional provisions to bring him to the end of his existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does not supersede that given to man as man, but supplements it with these new provisions for his attainment, in his new condition of blindness, helplessness and guilt induced by sin, of the end of his being.

      These two species or stages of revelation have been commonly distinguished from one another by the distinctive names of natural and super- natural revelation, or general and special revelation, or natural and soteriological revelation. Each of these modes of discriminating them has its par- ticular fitness and describes a real difference between the two in nature, reach or purpose. The one is communicated through the media of natural phe- nomena, occurring in the course of Nature or of history; the other implies an intervention in the natural course of things and is not merely in source but in mode supernatural. The one is addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is there- fore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to




      a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its con- sequences. But, though thus distinguished from one another, it is important that the two species or stages of revelation should not be set in oppo- sition to one another, or the closeness of their mutual relations or the constancy of their inter- action be obscured. They constitute together a unitary whole, and each is incomplete without the other. In its most general idea, revelation is rooted in creation and the relations with His intelligent creatures into which God has brought Himself by giving them being. Its object is to realize the end of man's creation, to be attained only through knowledge of God and perfect and unbroken communion with Him. On the entrance of sin into the world, destroying this communion with God and obscuring the knowledge of Him derived from Nature, another mode of revelation was necessitated, having also another content, adapted to the new relation to God and the new conditions of intellect, heart and will brought about by sin. It must not be supposed, however, that this new mode of revelation was an ex -post facto expe- dient, introduced to meet an unforeseen contin- gency. The actual course of human development was in the nature of the case the expected and the intended course of human development, for which man was created; and revelation, therefore, in ^ts double form was the Divine purpose for man from the beginning, and constitutes a unitary pro- vision for the realization of the end of his creation in the actual circumstances in which he exists. We may distinguish in this unitary revelation the two elements by the cooperation of which the effect is produced; but we should bear in mind that only by their cooperation is the effect produced. Without special revelation, general revelation would be for sinful men incomplete and ineffective, and could issue, as in point of fact it has issued wherever it alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse (Rom 1 20). Without general revelation, special revelation would lack that basis in the fundamental knowledge of God as the mighty and wise, righteous and good maker and ruler of all things, apart from which the further revelation of this great God's interventions in the world for the salvation of sinners could not be either intelli- gible, credible or operative.

      (1) Revelation in Eden. — Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man. Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to communion ■with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God. And not being a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the worKs of God, saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of vision, and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his heart with a trustful mtimacy of association, inconceivable to sinners. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Eden was not merely "natural. Not only does the prohibition of the forbidden fruit involve a positive commandment (Gen 2 16), but the whole history imphes an immediacy of intercourse with God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the pictur- esque art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless creatures. The impression is strong that what is meant to be conveyed to us is that man dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed with Him imme- diate and not merely mediate communion. In that case we may understand that if man had not faUen. he would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with God, and that the cessation of this immediate in- tercourse is due to sin. It is not then the supernatural- ness of special revelation which is rooted in sin, but, if we may be allowed the expression, the specialness of supernatural revelation. Had man not fallen, heaven would have continued to lie about him through all his history, as it lay about his .infancy; every man would have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech with Him. Man having fallen, the cherubim and the

      flame of a sword, turning every way, keep the path; and God breaks His way in a round-about fashion into man's darkened heart to reveal there His redemptive love. By slow steps and gradual stages Ho at once works out His saving purpose and molds the world for its recep- tion, choosing a people for Him.self and training it through long and weary ages, until at last when the fulness of time has come. He bares His arm and sends out the proclamation of His great salvation to all the earth.

      (2) Revelation among the heathen. — Certainly, from the gate of Eden onward, God's general reve- lation ceased to be, in the strict sense, supernatural. It is, of course, not meant that God deserted His world and left it to fester in its iniquity. His providence still ruled over all, leading steadily on- ward to the goal for which man had been created, and of the attainment of which in God's own good time and way the very continuance of men's exist- ence, under God's providential government, was a pledge. And His Spirit still everywhere wrought upon the hearts of men, stirring up all their powers (though created in the image of God, marred and impaired by sin) to their best activities, and to such splendid effect in every department of human achievement as to command the admiration of all ages, and in the highest region of all, that of con- duct, to call out from an apostle the encomium that though they had no law they did by nature (observe the word "nature") the things of the law. All this, however, remains within the limits of Nature, that is to say, within the sphere of operation of Divinely directed and assisted second causes. It illustrates merely the heights to which the powers of man may attain under the guidance of provi- dence and the influences of what we have learned to call God's "common grace." Nowhere, through- out the whole ethnic domain, are the conceptions of God and His ways put within the reach of man, through God's revelation of Himself in the works of creation and providence, transcended; nowhere is the slightest knowledge betrayed of anything con- cerning God and His purposes, which could be known only by its being supernaturally told to men. Of the entire body of "saving truth," for example, which is the burden of what we call "special reve- lation," the whole heathen world remained in total ignorance. And even its hold on the general truths of religion, not being vitalized by supernatural enforcements, grew weak, and its knowledge of the very nature of God decayed, until it ran out to the dreadful issue which Paul sketches for us in that inspired philosophy of religion which he incorpo- rates in the latter part of the first chapter of the Ep. to the Rom.

      Behind even the ethnic development, there lay, of course, the supernatural intercourse of man with God which had obtained before the entrance of sin into the world, and the supernatural revelations at the gate of Eden fGen 3 8), and at the second origin of the human race, the Flood (Gen 8 21.22; 9 1-17). How long the tradition of this primitive revelation lingered in nooks and corners of the heathen world, conditioning and vitalizing the natural revelation of God always accessible, we have no means of estimating. Neither is it easy to measure the effect of God's special revelation of Himself to His people upon men outside the bounds of, indeed, but coming into contact with, this chosen people, or sharing with them a common natural inheritance. Lot and Ishmael and Esau can scarcely have been wholly ignorant of the word of God which came to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; nor could the Egyptians from whose hands God wrested His people with a mighty arm fail to learn something of Jeh, any more than the mixed multitudes who witnessed the ministry of Christ could fail to infer something from His gracious walk and mighty works. It is natural to infer that no nation which was intimately associated with Israel's life could remain entirely unaffected by Israel's revelation. But whatever impressions were thus conveyed reached ap- parently individuals: only : the heathen which surrounded Israel, even those most closely aflBliated with Israel, remained heathen; they had no revelation. In the sporadic instances when God visited an alien with a super- natural communication — such as the dreams sent to Abimelech (Gen 20) and to Pharaoh (Gen 40, 41) and




      to Nebuchadnezzar (DnI 2 18') and to the soldier in the camp of Midian (Jgs 7 13) — it was in the interests, not of the heathen world, but of the chosen people that they were sent ; and these instances derive their significance wholly from this fact. There remain, no doubt, the myste- rious figure of Melchizedek, perhaps also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of Balaam, who also, however, appear in the sacred narrative only in connection with the history of God's dealings with His people and in their interest. Their unexplained appearance cannot In any event avail to modify the general fact that the life of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The heathen were suffered to walk In their own ways (Acts 14 16).

      //. The Process of Revelation. — Meanwhile, how- ever, God had not forgotten them, but was prepar- ing salvation for them also through the super- natural revelation of His grace that He was making to His people. According to the Bib. represen- tation, in the midst of and working confluently with the revelation which He has always been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God was making also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Himself on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natural revelation, in which all men by virtue of their very nature as men share, this special, supernatural revelation was granted at first only to individuals, then pro- gressively to a family, a tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fulness of time was come, it was made the possession of the whole world. It may be difficult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose thus to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, to be more ex- pUcit, through the process of a historical develop- ment. Such is, however, the ordinary mode of the Divine working: it is so that God made the worlds, it is so that He creates the human race itself, the recipient of this revelation, it is so that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the individual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowledge of God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, the Scriptures are explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying in their own growth, the record of the steady advance of this gracious revelation through definite stages from its first faint beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus Christ.

      So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom of God itself, or rather to that great series of Divine operations which are 1. Place of directed to the building up of the Revelation kingdom of God in the world, that it is among the sometimes confounded with them or Redemptive thought of as simply their reflection Acts of God in the contemplating mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation, meaning this special, redemptive reve- lation, has been communicated in deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elaborately argued that the sole manner in which God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by perform- ing those mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not, however, the Bib. representation. Revelation is, of course, often made through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of His great redemptive acts by which He saves the world constitutes the preeminent revelation of the grace of God — so far as these redemptive acts are open to observation and are perceived in their significance. But revelation, after all, is the correlate of under- standing and has as its proximate end just the production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own sake, but for the sake of sal- vation. The series of the redemptive acts of God, accordingly, can properly be designated "revelation" only when and so far as they are contemplated as adapted and designed to produce knowledge of God and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series of unexplained acts can be thought, however.

      adapted to produce knowledge, esp. if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought to have as its main design the production of knowledge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the production of knowledge of the Divine grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is attained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is doubtless for this reason that the series of re- demptive acts of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it. Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the redeeming acts of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of His redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end. Thus the Scriptures represent it, not con- founding revelation with the series of the redemp- tive acts of God, but placing it among the redemp- tive acts of God and giving it a function as^ a sub- stantive element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore not made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be understood. It occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompanies or follows them to interpret their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemp- tive act of God and by no means the least impor- tant in the series of His redemptive acts.

      This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very nature, and from the nature of the salvation which was being wrought out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the re- flection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over the brute is found, among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God — for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has been brought into an ever more and more adequate knowledge of God, and been led ever more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of grace.

      This is not the place to trace, even in outhne, from the material point of view, the development of God's redemptive revelation from 2. Stages its first beginnings, in the promise of Material given to Abraham — or rather in what Develop- has been called the Protevangelium ment at the gate of Eden — to its comple-

      tion in the advent and work of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily ad- vancing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the pages of Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the consummation backward, the appearance of the shadow cast athwart preceding ages by the great figure of Christ. Even from the formal point of view, however, there has been pointed out a progressive advance in the method of revelation, consonant with its advance in con- tent, or rather with the advancing stages of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve




      which is the whole object of revelation. Three distinct steps in revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. They are distinguished precisely by the increasing independence of revelation of the deeds constituting the series of the redemptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation is a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too absolutely; and in the • present instance the chronological sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing, three generally successive stages of revelation may be recognized, producing periods at least character- istically of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the Patriarchal age is characteristically "the period of Outward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theoph- anies" :_ during it "God spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men,

      angels, etc In the Prophetic age, on the

      contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward prophetic inspiration" : God spoke to men characteristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. "Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God" (A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; cf pp. 12-14, 145 ff). This internal method of revelation reaches its culmination in the NT period, which is preeminently the age of the Spirit. What is esp. characteristic of this age is revelation through the medium of the written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs, but through these organs in such a fashion that the most inti- mate processes of their souls become the instruments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus at all events there are brought clearly before us three well-marked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respectively, not with perfect dis- crimination, it is true, but not misleadingly, (1) ex- ternal manifestation, (2) internal suggestion, and (3) concursive operation.

      ///. Modes of Revelation. — Theophany may be taken as the typical form of "external manifesta- tion"; but by its side may be ranged 1. Modes of all of those mighty works by which Revelation God makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every supernatural intervention in the affairs of men, by means of which a better under- standing is communicated of what God is or what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under "internal suggestion" may be subsumed all the characteristic phenomena of what is most properly spoken of as "prophecy" : visions and dreams, which, according to a fundamental passage (Nu 12 6), con- stitute the typical forms of prophecy, and with them the whole "prophetic word," which shares its essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes not by the will of man but from God. By "concursive operation" maybe meant that form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity— not even the control of the will — is superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhuman. There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly characteris- tic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every

      age. And they occur side by side, broadly speak- ing, on the same level. No discrimination is drawn between them in point of worthiness as modes of revelation, and much less in point of purity in the revelations communicated through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to (Nu 12 8) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses and even of the superior dig- nity of Moses above other organs of revelation : God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to others. But though Moses was thus distinguished above all others in the deal- ings of God with him, no distinction is drawn be- tween the revelations given through him and those given through other organs of revelation in point either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrast- ing one mode of revelation with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of Divine communications. But there is no sugges- tion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others; and we should not fail to remember that the essential char- acteristics of revelations through dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which (whether we should call them visions or not) the images or ideas which fill, or pass in procession through, the con- sciousness are determined by some other power than the recipient's own will. It may seem natural to suppose that revelations rise in rank in propor- tion to the fulness of the engagement of the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Divine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God. This is what gives unity to the whole proc- ess of revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in divers manners and distributed though it may be through the ages in accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have suited His developing purpose — this and its unitary end, which is ever the building up of the kingdom of God. In whatever diversity of forms, by means of what- ever variety of modes, in whatever distinguishable stages it is given^ it is ever the revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently devel- oping redemptive revelation of God.

      On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a difference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevitably obtain between revela- 2 Eaual tions given through such divergent modes.

      „' ^ The completely supernatural character of

      bupernatu- revelations given in theophanies is obvious. ralness of He who will not allow that God spealis to the Several "^'^n, to make known His gracious pur- -, Ir poses toward him, has no other recourse

      MOaes here than to pronounce the stories legend-

      ary. The objectivity of the mode of com- munication which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natu- ral life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In ttiese communications wo are given accordingly just a series of " naked messages of God." But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not. indeed, leave behind us theophanies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of revelation e-xcept only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face (Dt 34 10), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeclies (Nu 12 8j ; but ttiroughout the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in objective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the characteristic of tlie Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His servants"in a vision," "in a dream" (Nu 12 6). And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfilment of His promise (Dt




      18 18), put His words in the moutlis of His prophets and gave t hem His commandments to speali. yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of men as instru- ments of revelation that the words of God given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but tlieir minds and hearts as well — the play of their religious feehngs, or the processes of their logical reason- ing, or the tenacity of their memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history — the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still farther Into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and the super- natural in such revelations, and, in many current man- ners of thinking and speaking of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has been hmited and curtailed in the interests of the natural instrumentaUties em- ployed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the more necessary that we should observe the unvary- ing emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the abso- lute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes ahke. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely super- natural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has been given through the in- strumentality of men. They afBrm, indeed, with the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word de- livered through men is the pure word of God, diluted with no hiunan admixttu'e whatever.

      We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is exalted above all other

      organs of revelation (Nu 12 6 ff), in 3. The point of dignity and favor, no sug-

      Prophet gestion whatever is made of any in-

      God's feriority, in either the directness or

      Mouthpiece the purity of their supernaturalness,

      attaching to other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (Dt 34 10). But each of the whole series of prophets raised up by Jeh that the people might always know His will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what Jeh commanded them (Dt 18 15.18.20). In this great promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there is also included a declaration of precisely how Jeh would communicate His messages not so much to them as through them. "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee," we read (Dt 18 18), "and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by which Jeh put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. "Then Jeh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth," e.xplains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophecies, "and Jeh said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (Jer 19; of 5 14; Isa 51 16; 59 21; Nu 22 35; 23 5. 12.16). Accordingly, the words "with which" they spoke were not their own but the Lord's: "And he said unto me," records Ezekiel, "Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them" (Ezk 3 4). It is a process of nothing other than "dictation" which is thus described (2 S 14 3.19), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Ex 4 10-17; 7 1-7. Here, in the most express words, Jeh declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is "a mouth of God," who speaks not his own but God's words. Accordingly, the Heb name for "prophet" {ndbhV), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the Scriptures just "spokesman," though not "spokes-

      man" in general, but spokesman by way of emi- nence, that is, God's spokesman; and the character- istic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is: "The word of Jeh came to me," or the brief "saith Jeh" (mn^ DSD, n''um Yahweh). In no case does a prophet put his words forward as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophe- sies or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts his mouth (Ezk 3 26 f) and creates for him the fruit of the lips (Isa 57 19; cf 6 7; 60 4). In contrast with the false prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own heart ("heart" in Bib. language includes the whole inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of Jeh.

      The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with this general declaration.

      It describes the characteristic manner 4. Prophecy in which Jeh communicates His mes- in Vision- sages to His prophets as through Form the medium of visions and dreams.

      Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revelation to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indications in the record that the uni- versal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so called.

      The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form. Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is delivered by the prophets is pro- claimed as the "word of Jeh." 'That it should be an- nounced by the formula, "Thus saith the Lord," is, therefore, only what we expect; and we are prepared for such a description of its process as: "The Lord Jeh . . . . wakeneth mine ear to hear," He "hath opened mine ear" (Isa 50 4.5). But this is not the way of spealdng of their messages which is most usual in the prophets. Rather is the whole body of prophecy cur- sorily presented as a thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: "The vision of Isaiah .... whicti he saw" (cf Isa 29 10.11; Ob ver 1); and then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the remarkable words, "The word that Isaiah .... saw"(2 1): "the biu*den [m "oracle"] .... which Isaiah .... did see" (13 1). Similarly there stand at the head of other prophe- cies: "the words of Amos .... which he saw" (Am 1 1); "the word of Jeh that came to Micah .... which he saw" (Mic 1 1); "the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see" (Hab 1 Im); and elsewhere such language occurs as this: "the word that Jeh hath showed me" (Jer 38 21); "the prophets have seen .... oracles" (Lam 2 14); "the word of Jeh came .... and I looked, and, behold" (Ezk 1 3.4); "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ezk 13 3); "I . . . . will

      look forth to see what he will speak with me

      Jeh .... said. Write the vision" (Hab 2 If). It is an inadequate e.xplanation of such language to suppose it merely a rehc of a time when vision was more pre- dominantly the form of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the technical sense ever was more pre- dominantly the form of revelation than in the days of the great writing prophets; and such language as we have quoted too obviotisly represents the living point of view of the prophets to admit of the supposition that it was merely conventional on their hps. The prophets, in a word, represent the Divine communications which they received as given to them in some sense in visions.

      It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the Divine communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external appear- ances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly distinguished (Nu 12 6-8). It is also an exaggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state mtist be conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amentia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their revela- tions that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these extreme




      views is tlie good one of doing full justice to the objec- tivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets. If these revelations took place entirelv externally to the prophet, who merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they wore implanted in the prophets by a process BO violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets' own minds. It is undoubtedly the funda- mental contention of the prophets that the revelations given through them are not their own but wholly God's. The significant language we have just quoted from Ezk 13 3: "Woe unto the foohsh prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing," is a typical utter- ance of their sense of the complete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they "prophesy out of their own heart" (Ezk 13 2-17). or, to draw the antithesis sharply, that "they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jeh" (Jer 23 10.26; 14 14). But these extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally important fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious fact that the inteUigence of the prophets is alert throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revelation made through them (see Inspiration; Prophecy).

      That -which gives to prophecy as a mode of reve- lation its place in the category of visions, strictly Bo called, and dreams is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject's will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally given dreams and virions, extra- neous to the totality of the subject's own psychoses. A power not himself takes possession of his con- sciousness and determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Jeh Himself or, to be more specific, the Spirit of Jeh (1 S 10 6.10; Neh 9 30; Zee 7 12; Joel 2 28.29). The prophets were therefore 'men of the Spirit' (Hos 9 7). What constituted them prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them (Isa 42 1) or poured out on them (Joel 2 28.29), and they were consequently filled with the Spirit (Mic 3 8), or, in another but equivalent locution, that "the hand" of the Lord, or "the power of the hand" of the Lord, was upon them (2 K 3 15; Ezk 1 3; 3 14.22; 33 22; 37 1; 40 1), that is to say, they were under the Divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the "mover," but the "moved" in the formation of his message. The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic consciousness in his well-known declaration: 'No prophecy of scripture comes of private interpre- tation; for prophecy was never brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God' (2 Pet 1 20.21).

      What this language of Peter emphasizes — and what is emphasized in the whole account which the prophets give of their own conscious- 5. "Passiv- ness — is, to speak plainly, the passivity ity" of the of the prophets with respect to the Prophets revelation given through them. This is the significance of the phrase : 'it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.' To be "borne" (0^/'e"', pherein) is not the same as to be led {^yetv, dgein), much less to be guided or directed {oS-q-ye'iv, hodegein): he that is "borne" contributes nothing to the movement in- duced, but is the object to be moved. The term "passivity" is, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelhgence of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by means of their active intelli- gence that their message was received: their in- teUigence was the instrument of revelation. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was

      active in the production of their message: that it was creatively as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself is a kind of activity. What the prophets are sohcitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense co- authors with God of their messages. Their mes- sages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but "His mouth." But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages, con- tributing nothing to them but presenting fit instru- ments for the communication of them — instruments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them.

      There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely receptive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God as dealing mechani- cally with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them. Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all revelations must be "psychologically mediated," must be given "after the mode of moral mediation," and must be made first of all their recijiients' "own spiritual possession" ? And is not, in point of fact, the personality of each prophet clearly traceable in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us to recognize him as in a true sense its real author ? The plausibility of such question- ings should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the mode of the communication of the prophetic mes- sages which is suggested by them is directly contra- dicted by the prophets' own representations of their relations to the revealing Spirit. In the prophets' own view they were just instruments through whom God gave revelations which came from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of Jeh. Neither should the plausibility of such questionings blind us to their speciousness. They exploit subordinate consid- erations, which are not without their vahdity in their own place and under their own Umiting conditions, as if they were the determining or even the sole consid- erations in the case, and in neglect of the really deter- mining considerations. God is Himself the author of the instruments He employs for the communication of His messages to men and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired for the exact communication of His message. There is just ground for tlie expectation that He wiU use all the instruments He employs accord- ing to their natures; intelligent beings therefore as in- telhgent beings, moral agents as moral agents. But there is no just ground for asserting tliat God is inca- pable of employing the intelligent beings He has Himself created and formed to His will, to proclaim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions which they have themselves had no part in creating. And there is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs of His revelation without its thereby ceasing to be, be- cause expressed in a fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any revelation to men. He would do it in tlie lan- guage of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the language of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation; and that naturally means, not the language of his nation or circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all that gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will, as " the accommodation of the revealing God to the several prophetic individuahties." But we should avoid think- ing of it externaUy and therefore mechanically, as if the revealing Spirit artiflcially phrased the message which He gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion that the message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. Precisely what the prophets afflrm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the workings of their own spirits. Nor is there any illusion in the phenomenon we are contemplating; and it is a much more intimate, and, we may add, a much more inter- esting phenomenon than an external "accommodation" of speech to individual habitudes. It includes, on the one hand, the "accommodation" of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in which the revela- tion to be given through him is to be clothed ; and on the other involves little more than the consistent carrying into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instru- ments He employs in accordance with their natures.

      No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the power of God, and dumb




      beasts speak, and mysterious voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in languages whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the serv- ices of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and according to the particular nature of the tongue which He employs. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, limited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be an- nounced in any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities imprinted on the messages of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct commu- nications from God.

      A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have called "concursive opera- tion." This mode of revelation differs 6. Revela- from prophecy, properly so called, tion by precisely by the employment in it,

      Inspira- as is not done in prophecy, of the tion total personality of the organ of revela-

      tion, as a factor. It has been com- mon to speak of the mode of the Spirit's action in this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintendence, a direction, a control, the mean- ing being that the effect aimed at — the discovery and enunciation of Divine truth — is attained through the action of the human powers — historical re- search, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious aspiratioti — acting not by themselves, however, but under the prevailing assistance, superintend- ence, direction, control of the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as involving merely a deter- mining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a super- cessive action of the revealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this discrimi- nation too far by the inclusion of the whole Ijody of Scripture in such passages as 2 Pet 1 20 f in the category of prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a inere "leading" but to the "bearing" of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, control, in- adequately express the nature of the Spirit's action in revelation by "concursive operation." TheSpirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with and by them, ele- vating them, directing them, controlling them, ener- gizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, there- fore, which is attained by their means is His prod- uct through them. It is this fact which gives to

      the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called passively, a reve- lation. Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result above what could by any possi- bility be achieved by mere human powers and con- stitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are traceable throughout its whole extent, but at bottom it is a Divine gift, and the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be applied to it: "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth" (1 Cor 2 13); "The things which I write unto you .... are the com- mandment of the Lord" (1 Cor 14 37). See In- spiration.

      It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible 7. Complete may without violence be subsumed un- Revelation der one or another of these three modes of God — external manifestation, internal sug-

      in Christ gestion, and concursive operation. All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ. As in His person, in which dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemp- tion. He does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God's purpose of redemption, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Thetheophaniesare but faint shadows in comparison with His manifesta- tion of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Jeh; from Him as His Son, Jeh has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glorified. Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up ip Him — so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word — had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the NT is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its meaning made the possession of men, revelation was com- pleted and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the law.

      IV. Biblical Terminology. — There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and processes of revelation, from the terms 1. The currently employed in Scripture to

      Ordinary express the idea. These terms are Forms ordinarily the common words for dis-

      closing, making known, making mani- fest, applied with more or less heightened signifi- cance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the Eng. Biljle (AV) the vb. "reveal" occurs about 51 t, of which 22 are in the OT and 29 in the NT. In the OT the word is always the rendering of a




      Heb term ri-'^ , gdlah, or its Aram, equivalent nbjl , gHah, the root meaning of which appears to be "naliedness." When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects to perception. In the NT the word "reveal" is always (with the single exception of Lk 2 35) the rendering of a Gr term AiroKoXinvTu, apokaluplo (but in 2 Thess 17; 1 Pet 4 13 the corresponding noun awoKdXvfis, apokd- lupsis), which has a very similar basal significance with its Heb parallel. As this Heb word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun "revelation" does not occur in the Eng. OT, the idea being expressed, however, by other Heb terms variously rendered. It occurs in the Eng. NT, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and always as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the vb. rendered "reveal" {apokalupsis) . On the face of the Eng. Bible, the terms "reveal," "revelation" bear there- fore uniformly the general sense of "disclose," "dis- closure." The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the terms "reveal," "revelation" in EV. Indeed, the Heb and Gr terms exclusively so rendered occur more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the Eng. Bib. And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way or another the general conception.

      In the NT the vb. 4>ai>ep6oi, phanerdo, with the gen- eral sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most common of these. It differs from apokaluplo as the more general and external term from the more special and inward. Other terms also are occasionally used: i-n-Kpavaa, epiphdneia, "mani- festation" (2 Thess 2 8; 1 Tim 6 14; 2 Tim 1 10; 4 1; Tit 2 13; cf iTncfaha, epiphaino, Tit 2 11; 3 4); SeiKvioi, deiknuo (Rev 11; 17 1; 22 1.6.8; cf Acts 9 16; 1 Tim 4 15); i^-rftioixai, exegeomai (Jn 1 18), of which, however, only one perhaps — Xp-niMTl^w, chremallzo (Mt 2 12.22; Lk 2 20; Acts 10 22; He 8 5; 11 7; 12 25); xprnanuixb^ chremalismds (Rom 11 4) — calls for particular no- tice as in a special way, according to its usage, ex- pressing the idea of a Divine communication.

      In the OT, the common Heb vb. for "seeing" (HXI , rd'dh) is used in its appropriate stems, with God as the subject, for "appearing," "showing": "the Lord appeared unto . . . ."; "the word which the Lord showed me." And from this vb. not only is an active substantive formed which supplied the more ancient designation of the official organ of revelation: HXT , ro'e/i, "seer"; but also objective substantives, nS'l'D , mar'dh, and HN"]^ , mar'eh, which were used to designate the thing seen in a revelation — the "vision." By the side of terms there were others in use, derived from a root which supplies to the Aram, its common word for "seeing," but in Heb has a somewhat more pregnant meaning, ntn , hdzdh. Its active derivative, HTn , hozeh, was a designation of a prophet which remained in occasional use, alternating with the more cus- tomary S"'?5 , ndbhi', long after Hi?"! , ro'eh, had be- come practically obsolete; and its passive deriva- tives hazon, hizzayon, hazulh, mah&zeh provided the ordinary terms for the substance of the reve- lation or "vision." The distinction between the two sets of terms, derived respectively from ra'ah and hazdh, while not to be unduly pressed, seems to lie in the direction that the former suggests external manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The ro'eh is he to whom Divine manifestations, the hozeh he to whom Divine communication's, have been vouchsafed; the mar'eh is an appearance, the hdzon and its companions a vision. It may be of interest to observe that mar' ah is the term employed

      in Nu 12 6, while it is hdzon which commonly occurs in the headings of the written prophecies to indicate their revelatory character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the former passage it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the reve- lation that is empha.sized. Perhaps a like distinc- tion may be traced between the hazon of Dnl 8 15 and the mar'eh of the next verse. The ordinary vb. for "knowing," S?!^ , yddha', expressing in its causative stems the idea of making known, inform- ing, is also very naturally employed, with God as its subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with the natural of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of implication, of reveal- ing effectively, of not merely uncovering to obser- vation, but making to know. Accordingly, it is paralleled not merely with n55 , gdldh (Ps 98 2: 'The Lord hath made known his salvation; his righteousness hath he displayed in the sight of the nation'), but also with such terms as T33 , Idmadh (Ps 26 4: 'Make known to me thy ways, O Lord: leach me thy paths'). This vb. yddha' forms no substantive in the sense of "revelation" (cf nyT ^ da'alh, Nu 24 16; Ps 19 3).

      The most common vehicles of the idea of "reve- lation" in the OT are, however, two expressions which are yet to be mentioned. These 2. "Word are the phrase, "word of Jeh," and of Jeho- the term commonly but inadequately vah" and rendered in the EV by "law." The "Torah" former {d'bhar Yahweh, varied to d'hhar 'Slohim or d'bhar ha-' Elohlm; cf n''um Yahweh, massd' Yahweh) occurs scores of times and is at once the simplest and the most colorless desig- nation of a Divine communication. By the latter (torah), the proper meaning of which is "instruction," a strong implication of authoritativeness is conveyed ; and, in this sense, it becomes what may be called the technical designation of a specifically Divine communication. The two are not infrequently brought together, as in Isa 1 10: "Hear the word of Jeh, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law [m "teaching") of our God, ye people of Gomorrah"; or Isa 2 3 m; Mic 4 2: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law [m "instruction"], and the word of Jeh from Jerus." Both terms are used for any Divine communication of whatever extent; and both came to be employed to express the entire body of Divine revelation, conceived as a unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the emphasis of the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other more on the authoritativeness of this body of Divine revelation; and both passed into the NT with these implications. "The word of God," or simply "the word," comes thus to mean in the NT just the gospel, "the word of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all that which God has to say to man, and causes to be said" looking to his sal- vation. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically speak of as God's redemptive revelation. "The law," on the other hand, means in this NT use, just the whole body of the authoritative instruction which God has given men. It expresses, in other words, what we commonly speak of as God's super- natural revelation. The two things, of course, are the same: God's authoritative revelation is His gracious revelation; God's redemptive revelation is His supernatural revelation. The two terms merely look at the one aggregate of revelation from two aspects, and each emphasizes its own aspect of this one aggregated revelation.

      Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the NT in a written form, and it was im- possible to speak freely of it without consciousness of and at least occasional reference to its written form. Accordingly we hear of a Word of God that

      Revelation Revelation of John



      is written (Jn 15 25; 1 Cor 15 54), and the Divine Word is naturally contrasted with mere tradition, as if its written form were of its very 3. "The idea (Mk 7 10); indeed, the written

      Scriptures" body of revelation — with an empha- sis on its written form — is designated expressly 'the prophetic word' (2 Pet 1 19). More distinctly still, "the Law" comes to be thought of as a written, not exactly, code, but body of Divine- ly authoritative instructions. The phrase, "It is written in your law" (Jn 10 34; 15 25; Rom 3 19; 1 Cor 14 21), acquires the precise sense of, "It is set forth in your authoritative Scriptures, all the content of which is 'law,' that is, Divine in- struction." Thus "the Word of God," "the Law," came to mean just the written body of revelation, what we call, and what the NT writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, "the Scriptures." These "Scriptures" are thus identi- fied with the revelation of God, conceived as a well- defined corpus, and two conceptions rise before us which have had a determining part to play in the history of Christianity — the conception of an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the concep- tion of this Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition to the gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and gave rise to a richly varied mode of speech concerning the Scrip- tures, emphasizing their authority in legal language, which goes back to and rests on the Bib. usage of "Law." The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in its struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the other side the Enthusiasts' supercession of them in the interests of the "inner Word." When TertuUian, on the one hand, speaks of the Scrip- tures as an "Instrument," a legal document, his terminology has an express warrant in the Scrip- tures' own usage of lordh, "law," to designate their entire content. And when John Gerhard argues that "between the Word of God and Sacred Scrip- ture, taken in a material sense, there is no real differ- ence," he is only declaring plainly what is definitely implied in the NT use of "the Word of God" with the written revelation in mind. What is important to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves repre- sent the Scriptures as not merely containing here and there therecordof revelations — ' 'words of God , ' ' toroth — given by God, but as themselves, in all their extent, a revelation, an authoritative body of gracious instructions from God; or, since they alone, of all the revelations which God may have given, are ex- tant — rather as the Revelation, the only "Word of God" acces,sible to men, in all their parts "law," that is, authoritative instruction from God.

      Literature. — Herman Witsius, " De Prophetis et Prophetia" in Miscell. Sacr.. I, Leiden, 1736, 1-318; G, F. Oehler, Theology of the OT, ET, Edinljurgti, 1874, I, part I (and the appropriate sections in other Bib.

      Theologies); H. Bavincli, Gereformeerde Doijmatiek',

      I, Kampen, 1906, 290-406 (and the appropriate sec- tions in other dogmatic treatises) ; H. Voigt, Fun- tlamentaldogmatik, Gotha, 1874, 173 ff; A. Kuyper, Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, ET, New Yorli, 1898, div. Ill, ch ii; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offen- barung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzschc, De revelaiionis notione biblica, Leipzig. 1828; E. W. Hengstenljerg, The Christolofjy of the OT, ET', Edinburgh, 1868, IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Der Offenbarungs- begriff des AT, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903; AV. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, New Yorlc, 1905; James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, 1893, as per Index, "Revela- tion," and Revelation and Inspiration, London and New Yorli, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modem Doubt and Christian Belief, ET, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead. Supernatural Revelation, 1889; J. Quirm- bach. Die Lehre des h. Paulus von der natilrlichen Gottes- erkennlnis, etc, Freiburg, 1906.

      Benjamin B. W.^efield


      I. Title and General Character of Book

      1. Title

      2. Uniqueness and Reality of Visions II. Canonicity and Authorship

      1. Patristic Testimony

      2. Testimony of Book Itself

      3. Objections to Johannine Authorship — Relation to Fourth Gospel

      III. Date and Unity of the Book

      1. Traditional Date under Domitian

      2. The Nero-Theory

      3. Composite Hypotheses — Babylonian Tlieory

      IV. Plan and Analysis of the Book

      1. General Scope

      2. Detailed Analysis

      V. Principles of Interpretation

      1. General Scheme of Interpretation

      2. The Newer Theories

      3. The Book a True Prophecy VI. Theology of the Book


      The last book of the NT. It professes to be the record of prophetic visions given by Jesus Christ to John, while the latter was a prisoner, "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (1 9), in Patmos (q.v.), a small rocky island in the Aegean, about 15 miles W. of Ephesus. Its precursor in the OT is the Book of Dnl, with the syrribolic visions and mystical numbers of which it stands in close affinity. The peculiar form of the book, its relation to other "apocalyptic" writings, and to the Fourth Gospel, likewise attributed to John, the interpreta- tion of its symbols, with controverted questions of its date, of worship, unity, relations to contem- porary history, etc, have made it one of the most difficult books in the NT to explain satisfactorily.

      /. Title and General Character of Book. — "Reve- lation" answers to dTOKdXvJ/is, apokdlupsis, in ver 1. The oldest form of the title would seem

      1. Title to be simply, "Apocalypse of John,"

      the appended words "the Divine" (SeoX(S7os, theologos, i.e. "theologian") not being older than the 4th cent, (cf the title given to Gregory of Nazianzus, "Gregory the theologian"). The book belongs to the class of works commonly named "apocalyptic," as containing visions and revelations of the future, frequently in symbolical form (e.g. the Book of En, the Apocalypse of Bar, the Apoca- lypse of Ezr; see Apocalyptic Literature), but it is doubtful if the word here bears this technical sense. The tendency at present is to group the NT Apocalypse with these others, and attribute to it the same kind of origin as theirs, viz. in the un- bridled play of religious phantasy, clothing itself in unreal visional form.

      But there is a wide distinction. These other

      works are pseudonymous — fictitious; on the face

      of them products of imagination;

      2. Unique- betraying that this is their origin in ness and their crude, confused, unedifying char- Reality of acter. The Apocalypse bears on it Visions the name of its author — an apostle

      of Jesus Christ (see below) ; claims to rest on real visions; rings with the accent of sin- cerity; is orderly, serious, sublime, purposeful, in its conceptions; deals with the most solemn and momentous of themes. On the modern Nero- theory, to which most recent expositors give ad- herence, it is a farrago of baseless phantasies, no one of which came true. On its own claim it is a prod- uct of true prophecy (13; 22 18 f), and has or will have sure fulfilment. Parallels here and there are sought between it and the Book of En or the Apocalypse of Ezr. As a rule the resemblances arise from the fact that these works draw from the same store of the ideas and imagery of the OT. It is there the key is chiefly to be sought to the sym- bolism of John. The Apocalypse is steeped in the thoughts, the images, even the language of the OT (cf the illustrations in Lightfoot, Gal, 361, where it



      Revelation Revelation of John

      is remarked: "The whole book is saturated with illustrations from the OT. It speaks not the lan- guage of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and Daniel"). These remarks will receive elucidation in what follows.

      //. Canonicity and Authority. — The two ques- tions of canonicity and authorship are closely con- nected. Eusebius states that opinion

      1. Patristic in his day was divided on the book, and Testimony he himself wavers between placing it

      among the disputed books or ranking it with the acknowledged {homologmmena) . "Among these," he says, "if such a view seem correct, we must place the Apocalj'pse of John" (HE, III, 25). That it was rightly so placed appears from a survey of the evidence. The first to refer to the book ex- pressly is Justin Martyr (c 140 AD), who speaks of it as the work of "a certain man, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ" {Dial, 81). Irenaeus (c 180 AD) repeatedly and decisively declares that the Apocalypse was written by John, a disciple of the Lord (Adv. Haer., iv.20, 11; 30, 4; v.26, 1; 35, 2, etc), and comments on the number 666 (v.30, 1). In his case there can be no doubt that the apostle John is meant. Andreas of Cappa- docia (5th cent.) in a Comm. on the Apocalypse states that Papias (c 130 AD) bore witness to its credibility, and cites a comment by him on Rev 12 7-9. The book is quoted in the Ep. on the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (177 AD); had a commentary written on it by Melito of Sardis (c 170 AD), one of the churches of the Apocalypse (Euseb., HE, IV, 26) ; was used by Theophilus of Antioch (c 168 AD) and by Apollonius (c 210 AD; HE, V, 25)— in these cases being cited as the Apocalypse of John. It is included as John's in the Canon of Muratori (c 200 AD). The Johannine authorship (apostolic) is abundantly attested by TertuUian (c 200 AD; Ad«. Mar., iii. 14, 24, etc); by Hippo- lytus (c 240 AD), who wrote a work upon it; by Clement of Alexandria (o 200 AD); by Origen (c 230 AD), and other writers. Doubt about the authorship of the book is first heard of in the ob- scure sect of the Alogi (end of 2d cent.), who, with Cains, a Rom presbyter (c 205 AD), attributed it to Cerinthus. More serious was the criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (c 250 AD), who, on inter- nal grounds, held that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse could not have come from the same pen (Euseb., HE, VII, 25). He granted, however, that it was the work of a holy and inspired man — an- other John. The result was that, while "in the Western church," as Bousset grants, "the Apoca- lypse was accepted unanimously from the first" (EB, I, 193), a certain doubt attached to it for a time in sections of the Gr and Syrian churches. It is not found in the Pesh, and a citation from it in Ephraim the Syrian (f 373) seems not to be genu- ine. Cyril of Jerus (c 386 AD) omits it from his list, and it is unmentioned by the Antiochian writers (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret). The Canon attributed to the Council of Laodicea (c 360 AD) does not name it, but it is doubtful whether this document is not of later date (cf West- cott; also Bousset, Die Offenb. J oh., 28). On the other hand, the book is acknowledged by Methodius, Pamphilus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril Alex., Epiphanius, etc.

      The testimony to the canonicity, and also to the

      Johannine authorship, of the Apocalypse is thus

      exceptionally strong. In full accord-

      2. Testi- ance with it is the claim of the book mony of itself. It proclaims itself to be the Book Itself work of John (1 1.4.9; 22 8), who

      does not, indeed, name himself an apostle, yet, in his inspired character, position of authority in the Asian churches, and selection as

      the medium of these revelations, can hardly be thought of as other than the well-known John of the Go.spels and of consentient church tradition. The alternative view, first suggested as a possibility by Eusebius, now largely favored by modern writers, is that the John intended is the "presbyter John" of a well-known passage cited by Eusebius from Papias (HE, III, 39). Without entering into the intricate questions connected with this "presbyter John" — whether he was really a distinct person from the apostle (Zahn and others dispute it), or whether, if he was, he resided at Ephesus (see John, Gospel of) — it is enough here to say that the reason al- ready given, viz: the importance and place of authority of the author of the Apocalypse in the Asian churches, and the emphatic testimony above cited connecting him with the apostle, forbid the attri- bution of the book to a writer wholly unknown to church tradition, save for this casual reference to him in Papias. Had the assumed presbyter really been the author, he could not have dropped so com- pletely out of the knowledge of the church, and had his place taken all but immediately by the apostle. One cause of the hesitancy regarding the Apoca- lypse in early circles was dislike of its millenarian- ism; but the chief reason, set forth 3. Objec- with much critical skill by Dionysius tions to of Alexandria (Euseb., HE, VII, 25),

      Johannine was the undoubted contrast in char- Authorship acter and style between this work and — Relation the Fourth Gospel, likewise claiming to Fourth to be from the pen of John. Two Gospel works so diverse in character — the Gos-

      pel calm, spiritual, mystical, abound- ing in characteristic expressions as "life," "light," "love," etc, written in idiomatic Gr; the Apocalypse abrupt, mysterious, material in its imagery, in- exact and barbarous in its idioms, sometimes em- ploying solecisms — could not, it was argued, pro- ceed from the same author. Not much, beyond amplification of detail, has been added to the force of the arguments of Dionysius. There were three possibilities — either first, admitting the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, to assail the genu- ineness of the Gospel — this was the method of the school of Baur; or, second, accepting the Gospel, to seek a different author for the Apocalypse — John the presbyter, or another: thus not a few reverent scholars (Bleek, Neander, etc); or, third, with most moderns, to deny the Johannine author- ship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, with a leaning to the "presbyter" as the author of the latter (Har- nack, Bousset, Moffatt, etc). Singularly^ there has been of late in the advanced school itself a movement in the direction of recognizing that this difficulty of style is less formidable than it looks — that, in fact, beneath the surface difference, there is a strong body of resemblances pointing to a close relationship of Gospel and Apocalypse. This had long been argued by the older writers (Godet, Luthardt, Afford, Salmon, etc), but it is now more freely acknowledged. As instances among many may be noted the use of the term "Logos" (19 13), the image of the "Lamb," figures like "water of life," words and phrases as "true," "he that over- cometh," "keep the commandments," etc. A striking coincidence is the form of quotation of Zee 12 10 in ,Jn 19 37 and Rev 1 7. If the Gr in parts shows a certain abruptness and roughness, it is plainly evidenced bleast — and the divers interpretations since put upon its prophecies are the best evidence of the difficulties attaching to them. Schemes of interpretation have generally been grouped into praeterist (the prophecies being regarded as already fulfilled), futurist (the fulfilment being thrown wholly into the future), and the historical (the fulfilment being looked for in the continuous history of the church from John's day till the end). (1) The older prae- terist view may be taken as represented by Moses Stuart, who finds the fulfilment of chs 6-11 in the destruction of Jerus (Comm., 520 ff), and of chs IS- IS in the reign of Nero (690 ff). Even he, however, has to interpret the chapter on the last things of the future. (2) The futurist view connects the whole with the times of the second advent and the millennium. The beast is an individual who shall then appear as Anticlirist. This rejects the plain intimations of the book that the events predicted lay, in their beginnings at least, immediately in the future of the writer. (3) The historical view connects the various symbols with definite occurrences — as the invasions which overthrew the Rom Empire (the first 4 trumpets), the Saracens (first woe-trum- pet), the Turks (second woe-trumpet), the papacy (the beast, ch 13; the scarlet woman, eh 17), etc. A day-year principle is applied to the periods (1,260 days — 1,260 years). As representatives of this view may be mentioned Mode, Vitringa, Sir Isaac Newton, Elliott in Horae Apocalypticae, A. Barnes. These older schemes are largely put out of date by the newer theories, already alluded to, in which the Apocalypse is explained out of 2. The contemporary conditions, the legend of

      Newer the returning Nero, Jewish apoca-

      Theories lypse, and Bab mythology. These are praeterist theories also, but differ from the older in that in them all real prophecy is denied. A mainstay of such theories is the declara- tion of the book that the events announced are close at hand (1 1.3; 22 20). When, however, it is remembered that, on any view, this nearness in- cludes a period of 1,000 years before the judgment and descent of the new Jerus, it will be felt that it will not do to give these expressions too restricted a temporal significance. The horizon is wider. The coming of Christ is ever near — ever approach- ing — yet it is not to be tied down to "times and seasons"; it is more of the nature of a process and has anticipatory exemplifications in many crises and providential events forecasting the end (see above). The "coming," e.g. to the church at Ephesus (2 5), or to the church at Pergamos (2 16) — contingent events — can hardly exhaust the full meaning of the Parousia. The Nero-theory de- mands a date at latest under Galba, but that date we have seen to be generally abandoned. Those who place it under Vespasian (omitting three short reigns) sacrifice the advantage of dating the book before the destruction of Jerus, and have to fall back on a supposititious Jewish fragment in ch 11,

      which those who incorporated it must have known had never been fulfilled. The attempt to give a "contemporary historical" interpretation to the symbols of the successive churches, as Gunkel has acutely shown, completely breaks down in practice, while Gunkel's own attempt at a Bab explanation will be judged by most to be overstrained. "Drag- on" in the OT and elsewhere may be associated with widespread oriental ideas, but the definite symbol- ism of the Apocalypse in ch 12 has no provable con- nection with Bab myths. There is the widest dis- agreement in the theories of "composite" origin (from Jewish apocalypse) . ^ What seems simple and demonstrable to one has no plausibility to others. A form of "Nero Caesar," indeed, yields the mystic 666, but so do 1 ,000 other names — almost any name, with proper manipulation (cf Salmon, lect xiv). Lastly, the retuming-Nero legend yields no satis- factory explanation of the language in 13 3.12.14; 17 11. The theory is that these words allude to the belief that Nero would return from the dead and become Antichrist (see above) . Tacitus attests that there were vague rumors that Nero had not really died {Hist, ii.8), and later a pretender arose in Parthia taking advantage of this feeling (Suet. Nero. 57). The idea of Nero returning from the dead is categorically stated in Sib Or 5 363-70 (c 120 AD); cf Sib Or 4 119-22 (c 80 AD). Augustine mentions the idea (City of God, xx.l9, 3), but without con- nection with the Apocalypse. By Domitian's time, however, it wag perfectly certain that Nero had not returned, and there was no longer, on this in- terpretation, any appositeness in speaking of a "head" the "deathstroke" of which was healed (13 3), which became the "eighth head" of 17 11 — if, indeed, the apostle could be conceived capable of being influenced by such vagaries. The events predicted lay, evidently, still in the future. It may be added that neither Irenaeus, nor any early inter- preter, seems to have heard of the connection of 666 with "Nero." Irenaeus himself suggests the solu- tion Lateinos (cf Salmon, ut supra).

      It is not proposed here to attempt the lines of a positive interpretation. If it is once recognized that the Apocalypse is a book of true 3. The prophecy, that its symbols stand for

      Book a something real, and that its perspective

      True is not to be limited to a brief period

      Prophecy like 31 years, the way is opened, not, indeed, for a reading into it of a series of precise historical occurrences, but still for doing justice to the truth which lies at the basis of the historical interpretation, viz. that there are here pre- figured the great crises in the age-long conflict of Christ and His church with pagan and anti- Christian adversaries. Events and tendencies may be grouped, or under different forms may relate to the same subject (e.g. the 144,000 sealed on earth — a spiritual Israel — in 7 1-8, and the triumphant multitude in heaven, vs 9-17) ; successions of events may be foreshortened; different pictures may overlap; but, shining through the symbols, great truths and facts which have historical realization appear. There is no need for supposing that, in a drama of this range, the "heads" of the beast of chs 13 and 17 (behind whom is the Dragon-enemy, Satan, of ch 12) stand, in contrariety to the analogy of Dnl, for seven individual emperors, and that "the image of the beast," which has life given to it and "speaks" (13 14.15), is the statue of the emperor; or that such tremendous events as the fall of the Rom Empire, or the rise of the papacy — with which, however, must be combined all ecclesiastical anti-Christianism — or the false prophecy of later intellectual anti-Christianism have no place in the symbolism of the book. Sane, reverent thought will suggest many lines of correspondence with the



      course of God's providence, which may serve to illuminate its dark places. More than this need not be said here.

      VI. Theology of the Book. — On this it is hardly necessary to dwell, for expositors are now well agreed that in its great doctrines of God, Christ, man, sin, redemption, the teaching of the Apoca- lypse does not vary essentially from the great types in the Epp. The as.sonances with John's mode of thinking have already been alluded to. It is granted by all writers that the Christology is as high as anywhere in the NT. "It ought unhesi- tatingly to be acknowledged," says Reuss, "that Christ is placed in the Apocalypse on a par with God" (op. cit., I, 397-98; cf Rev 1 4.17; 2 S; 6 12-14; 22 13, etc). Not less striking are the correspondences with the teaching of Paul and of Peter on redemption through the blood of Christ (1 5; 5 9; 7 14; 14 4, etc). The perverted con- ception of the school of Baur that we have in the book an anti-Pauline manifesto (thus also Pflei- derer; cf Hibbert Lectures, 178), is now practically dead (see the criticism of it by Reuss, op. cit., I, 308-12). The point in which its eschatology differs from that of the rest of the NT is in its introduction of the millennium before the final resurrection and judgment. This enlarges, but does not necessarily contradict, the earlier stage of thought.

      Literature. — Moses Stuart, Comm. on Apocalypse; A\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\- ford, Gr Test., IV, "The Revelation"; S. Davidson, Inlro to the NT (3d ed), 176 flf: G. Salmon, Intro to the NT {2a ed), lects xiii, xiv: Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, with lit. there mentioned: Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, ch xxviii; RliUigan, Discu.^sions on the Apocalypse; H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos; W. Bousset, Die Offen- harung Johannis, and art. "Apocalypse" in EB, 1; C Anderson Scott, "Revelation" in Century Bible; J. Moffatt, Intro to Lit. of the NT (with notices of lit.) ; also "Revelation" in Expositor's Bible; Trench, Epp. to the Seven Churches; \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V. M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches; H. B. Swete. The Apocalypse of St. John.

      James Orr REVELLINGS, rev'el-ingz (k»(i.os, komos): The word is found both in AV and in RV in Wisd 14 23 (RV "revels," orgiastic heathen worship is in point); 2 Mace 6 4; Gal 5 21; 1 Pet 4 3. In Gal 5 21 it ia classed with fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, etc, as one of the works of the flesh. In 1 Pet 4 3 it is spoken of the Gentiles and is classed with drunkenness and carousings and such like. In Rom 13 13 RVhas "reveUing" instead of AV "rioting," and in 2 Pet 2 13, "revel" replaces "riot." Similarly in Am 6 7, "revelry" replaces "banquet." The obvious meaning of the word is excessive and boisterous intemperance and lustful indulgence. G. H. Gerberding

      REVENGE, re-venj', REVENGER, rS-venj'er: The same Heb and Gr words are used to express the idea of "to avenge" and "to revenge" (Dj53, nakam, or derivative ; iKSiKiu, €MtA:eo, or derivative). In Eng. these words are synonymous in that they are both used to express the infliction of punishment upon the wrongdoer, but "to take revenge" rnay also imply a spiteful, wrong or malignant spirit. In the latter case RV preserves "revenge" (cf Jer 20 10; Ezk 25 1.5; 25 17 is an anthropomorphism), but, wherever it is synonymous with "avenge," this word is used (cf Nu 31 2.3; Ps 79 10; Nah 1 2; Jth 13 20; Rom 13 4; 2 Cor 7 11; 10 6 RV; AV has "revenge" in all these cases). In Dt 32 42, AV "revenge" is a wrong tr. Read with RV "from the head of the leaders of the enemy" or RVm "the hairy head of the enemy." Cf Avenge, Avenger; Blood; Goel. A. L. Bheslich

      REVENUE, rev'S-nii: (1) DflSS, 'app'ihom, "revenue or income" (Ezr 4 13AVJ; (2) HXinn, t'bhu'ah, "increase," "revenue" (Prov 8 19; 15 6;

      Isa 23 3; Jer 12 13); wp6croSos, prdsodos, "mcome" (2 Mace 3 3; 4 8 [RV "fund"]; 9 16).

      REVERENCE, rev'er-ens: In the OT, "rever- ence" occurs as the tr of two Heb words, yare' and shdhah. The root idea of the former is "fear." It is used to express the attitude toward God Himself, as in Ps 89 7 AV; or toward His sanctuary, as in Lev 19 30; 26 2. So the group of ideas there would be "fear," "awe," "reverence." The root idea of the second is "falling down," as prostration of the body. It is used to express the bearing toward another who is considered superior, as in 2 S 9 6 AV; 1 K 1 31 AV; Est 3 2.5. The group of ideas here, therefore, is "honor," "obeisance," "reverence."

      In the NT "reverence" occurs as the tr of three Gr words, aidos, phobiomai, and enlrepomai. In the first, the idea is "modesty" (He 12 28; cf 1 Tim 2 9). In the second, "fear" (Eph 5 33 AV), though here it is used to set forth the attitude of proper subjection on the part of a wife toward her husband (cf 1 Pet 3 2.5). In the third, the idea is that of the "self-valuation of inferiority," and so sets forth an attitude toward another of doing him honor (Mt 21 37; Mk 12 6; Lk 20 13; He 12 9).

      In the Apoo entrepomai occurs in Wisd 2 10; Sir 4 22. In addition, proskuneo, "make obei- sance," occurs in Jth 10 23; 14 7; thaumdzo, "wonder," Sir 7 29, and aischunomai, "be ashamed," Bar 4 15.

      Reverend occurs in the OT in Ps 111 9, of the name of God (yare'), and in the Apoc in 2 Mace 15 12, "a man reverend [aidtmon, "modest"] in bear- ing," and in the NT RV has "reverent in demeanor" (hieroprepts) in Tit 2 3 and "reverend" in Phil 4 8m (semnds). E. J. Forrester

      REVILE, rS-vir. See Crimes; Punishments.

      REVIVE, rS-viv', REVIVING, rS-vIv'ing: "To revive" is the trof iT^n , hayah, "to live," "cause to live," used of restoration to life (Gen 45 27; Jgs 15 19, etc); of rebuilding (Neh 4 2); of restora- tion to well-being (Ps 85 6 [RV "quicken"]; 138 7; Isa 57 15; Hos 6 2; 14 7); of Jeh's gracious work for His people (Hab 3 2, "revive thy work in the midst of the years," etc); "reviving" is the tr of HTip , mihyah, "preservation," or "means of life" (E'zr 9 8.9). "Revive" occurs in the NT as the tr of dva^dw, anazdo, "to live again" (Rom 7 9, and 14 9, AV "Christ both died, and rose, and revived," RV [omitting "and rose"] "Christ died and lived again," zdo).

      In 1 Mace 13 7 RV we have "And the spirit of the people revived," dm^onrvp^oi, anazopureo, "to stir or kindle up as a fire," the same word as in 2 Tim 1 6, RV "stir up the gift of God, which is in thee," m "Gr 'stir into flame.' "

      In view of the frequent modern use of "revive" and "revival," it is wortliy of notice that it is to Timothy himself the exhortation is addressed. We too often merely pray for "revivals," forgetting that it is for us to "stir into flame" the gift of the Spirit which we have already received of God. It is ours from Him, but we let it lie dormant, as a slumbering ember merely.

      W. L. Walker

      REWARD, re-word': In modern Eng. (except when influenced by the Bib. forms) a "reward" is something given in recognition of a good act. In EV, however, "reward" is used quite generally for anything given, and the term covers the recompense of evil (Ps 91 8), wages (1 Tim 5 18 AV), bribes (Mic 7 3), and gifts (Jer 40 5 AV). RV has specialized the meaning in a number of cases (Ps 94 2; Ezk 16 34; Jer 40 5, etc), but not sys- tematically.

      Rezeph Rhodes



      REZEPH, re'zef (32") , regeph; B, 'Pd4>ets, Rhd-

      pheis, 'Pa€s, Rhdphes, A, r^v 'P(i<|>eO, tin Rhdpheth

      [2 K 19 12], BQ'»8'P(i4)€9,XQo"P4€s,

      1. Forms of A, 'Pd6is [Isa 37 12); Vulg Roseph the Name [2 K 19 12], Reseph [Isa 37 12]): One

      of the places referred to by Sen- nacherib's Rabshakeh when delivering that king's message to Hezekiah demanding the surrender of Jerus. The names which precede are Gozan and Haran; and "the children of Eden that were in Telassar" follows.

      It is now represented by Ru§afa, E. of Tipsah and N.E. of Hamath, and is regarded as the

      'PTj(Td(pa, {Rhesdpha) of Ptolemy (v.l5).

      2. Now It was for some time under Assyr do- Called minion, and appears in a geographical Rusafa list (2 R 53, 37a) preceded by Arrapha

      (Arrapachitis) and Halahhu (Halah), and followed by Tamnunu, under the form of Ra- 9appa (elsewhere Rasapi).

      From the Eponyrn Canons, Ninip-kibsi-u?ur was, it appears, prefect in 839 BC, Uras-eres from 804

      to 775 BC, Sin-sallimanni in 747, and

      3. Its Bel-emuranni in 737 BC. Judging Assyrian from their names, all these were Governors Assyrians, but a seemingly native gov- ernor, Abda'u (or Abda'i), possibly

      later than the foregoing, is mentioned in a list of officials (K. 9921). Yahutu was sanil (deputy- governor?) of Rezeph in 673 BC. Its mention in the Assyr geographical lists implies that Rezeph was an important trade-center in OT times.

      T. G. Pinches REZIA, rg-zi'a. See Rizia.

      REZIN, re'zin (T"?"] , r'gin; 'Paao-o-civ, Rhaas- s6n) : The last of the kings of Syria who reigned in Damascus (2 K 15 37; 16 5-10; Isa 7 1; 8 4-7). Along with Pekah, the son of Remaliah, who reigned 20 years over Israel in Samaria, he joined in the Syro-Ephraimitic war against Ahaz, the king of Judah. Together they laid siege to Jerus, but were unsuccessful in the effort to take it (2 K 16 5; Isa 7 1). It was to calm the fears, and to restore the fainting spirits of the men of Judah, that Isaiah was commissioned by the Lord to assure them that the schemes of "these two tails of smoking fire- brands" (Isa 7 4) were destined to miscarry. It was then, too, that the sign was given of the virgin who should conceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Immanuel. Rezin had to content himself on this campaign to the S. with the capture of Elath from the men of Judah and its restoration to the men of Edom, from whom it had been taken and made a seaport by Solomon (2 K 18 6, where it is agreed that "Syria" and "Syrians" should be read "Edom" and "Edomites," which in the Heb script are easy to be mistaken for one another, and are in fact often mistaken). Rezin, however, had a more formidable enemy to encounter on his return to Damascus. Ahaz, like kings of Judah before and after him, placed his reliance more on the arm of flesh than on the true King of his people, and appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, of Assyria, for help. Ahaz deliberately sacrificed the inde- pendence of his country in the terms of his offer of submission to the Assyrian: "I am thy servant and thy son" (2 K 16 7). Tiglath-pileser had already carried his arms to the W. and ravaged the northern border of Israel; and now he crossed the Euphrates and hastened to Damascus, slaying Rezin and carrying hh people captive to Kir (2 K 16 9). In the copious Annals of Tiglath-pileser, Rezin figures with the designation, but the tablet recording his death, found and read by Sir Henry Rawlinson, has been irrecoverably lost,

      and only the fact of its existence and loss remains (Schrader, COT, I, 252, 257). With the death of Rezin the kingdom of Damascus and Syria came to an end.

      Rezin, Sons of: Mentioned among the Nethinim (Ezr 2 48), who returned to Jerus with Zerubbabel from captivity (of Neh 7 50).

      Literature. — Schrader, COT, as above; Driver, Authority, 99 ff.

      T. NicoL REZON, re'zon (pTT, r'zm; 'Pa^wv, Rhdzon): Son of Eliadah, and a subject of Hadadezer, king of Zobah (1 K 11 23). The name appears to be given as TT'TH , hezyon; 'Afefc, Hazein (1 K 15 18; see Hezion), where he is the father of Tab- rimmon, whose son Ben-hadad I is known through his league with Asa, king of Judah. When David conquered Zobah, Rezon renounced his allegiance to Hadadezer and became powerful as an independent chief, capturing Damascus and setting up as king. Along with Hadad, the noted Edomite patriot, he became a thorn in the side of Solomon, the one mak- ing himself obnoxious in the S., the other in the N., of the kingdom of Israel, both being animated with a bitter hatred of the common foe. It is said of Rezon that he "reigned over Syria" (1 K 11 25), and if the surmise adopted by many scholars is correct that he is the same as Hezion (1 K 15 18), then he was really the founder of the dynasty of Syrian kings so weU known in the history of this period of Israel; and the line would run: Rezon, Tabrimmon, Ben-hadad I, and Ben-hadad II.

      Literature. — Burney on 1 K 11 23 and 15 18 in

      Notes on Heb Text of Books of Kings; Winckler, Alttest. Untersuchungen, 60 fl.

      T. NicoL RHEGITTM, re'ji-um: This city ('P^tioc, Rktgion [Acts 28 13], the modem Reggio di Calabria) was a town situated on the east side of the Sicilian Straits, about 6 miles S. of a point opposite Messana (Messina). Originally a colony of Chalcidian Greeks, the place enjoyed great prosperity in the 5th cent. BC, but was captured and destroyed by Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, in 387 BC, when all the surviving inhabitants were sold into slavery (Diodorus xiv.106-8. 111, 112). The city never entirely recovered from this blow, although it was partially restored by the younger Dionysius. On the occasion of the invasion of Italy by Pjorhus, the people of Rhegium had recourse to an alliance with Rome (280 BC) and received 4,000 Campanian troops within their walls, who turned out to be very unruly guests. For, in imitation of a similar band of mercenaries across the strait in Messana, they massacred the male inhabitants and reduced the women to slavery (Polybius i.7; Orosius iv.3). They were not punished by the Romans until 270 BC, when the town was restored to those of its former inhabitants who still survived. The people of Rhegium were faithful to their alliance with Rome during the Second Punic War (Livy xxiii.30; xxiv.l; xxvi.l2; xxix.6). At the time of the Social War they were incorporated with the Rom state, Rhegium becoming a municipality (Cicero Verr. V.60; Pro Archia, 3).

      The ship in which Paul sailed from Melita to Puteoli encountered unfavorable winds after leaving Syracuse, and reached Rhegium by means of tack- ing. It waited at Rhegium a day for a south wind which bore it to Puteoli (Acts 28 13), about 180 miles distant, where it probably arrived in about 26 hours. George H. Allen

      RHESA, re'sa ('Prio-d, Rhesd) : A son of Zerub- babel in the genealogy of Jesus according to St. Luke (Lk 3 27).



      Rezeph Rhodes

      • RHINOCEROS, rJ-nos'er-os: This word is found in AVm to Isa 34 7 ("rhinocerots") for DiTaSI, r'emlm, AV "unicorns," RV "wild-oxen," The word is quite inappropriate to the passage, which refers to the land of Edom. The one-horned rhi- noceros, Rhinoceros unicornis, is confined to India. Other rhinoceroses are found in India and in equa- torial Africa, but it is hardly to be presumed that these animals were meant by the Heb writers. See Unicorn.

      _ RHODA, ro'da ('P68ti, Rhdde, "rose"); A maid in the house of Mary the mother of John Mark. She came to answer when Peter knocked at Mary's door after his miraculous release from prison. On recognizing his voice, she so forgot herself with joy that she neglected to open the door, but ran in to tell the others the glad news. They would not believe her, thinking she was mad; and when she persisted in her statement they said it must be his angel. The Jewish belief was that each man had a guardian angel assigned to him. Peter continued knocking, and was ultimately admitted (Acts 12 12 ff).

      S. F. Hunter _ RHODES, rodz ('PoSos, Rhddos) : An island (and city) in the Aegean Sea, W. of Caria, rough and rocky in parts, but well watered and productive, though at present not extensively cultivated. Almost one-third of the island is now covered with trees in spite of earlier deforestation. The highest mountains attain an altitude of nearly 4,000 ft. The older names were Ophiusa, Asteria, Trinacria, Corymbia. The capital in antiquity was Rhodes, at the northeastern extremity, a strongly fortified city provided with a double harbor. Near the entrance of the harbor stood one of the seven won- ders of the ancient world — a colossal laronze statue dedicated to Helios. This colossus, made by Chares about 290 BC, at a cost of 300 talents ($300,000), towered to the height of 104 ft.

      In the popular mind — both before and after Shake- speare represented Caesar as bestriding the world like a colossus — this gigantic figure is conceived as an image of a human being of monstrous size with legs spread wide apart, at the entrance of the inner harbor, so huge that the largest ship with sails spread could move in under it; but the account on which this conception is based seems to have no foundation.

      The statue was destroyed in 223 BO by an earthquake. It was restored by the Romans. In 672 AD the Sara- cens sold the ruins to a Jew. The quantity of metal was so great that it would fill the cars of a modern freight train (900 camel loadsj .

      The most ancient cities of Rhodes were lalysus, Ochyroma, and Lindus. The oldest inhabitants were immigrants from Crete. Later came the Carians. But no real advance in civilization was made before the immigration of the Dorians under Tlepolemus, one of the Heraclidae, and (after the Trojan war) Aethaemanes. Lindus, lalysus and Camirus formed with Cos, Cnidus and Halicarnassus the so-called Dorian Hexapolis (Six Cities), the center of which was the temple of the Triopian Apollo on the coast of Caria. Rhodes now founded many colonies — in Spain (Rhode), in Italy (Par- thenope, Salapia, Sirus, Sybaris), in Sicily (Gela), in Asia Minor (Soli), in Cilicia (Gagae), and in Lycia (Corydalla). The island attained no po- litical greatness until the three chief cities formed a confederation and founded the new capital (Rhodes) in 408 BC. In the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, Rhodes sided with the Athe- nians, but, after 19 years of loyalty to Athens, went over to the Spartans (412 BC). In 394, when Conon appeared with his fleet before the city, the island fell into the hands of the Athenians again. A garrison was stationed at Rhodes by Alexander the Great. After his death this garrison was driven out by the Rhodians. It is at this time that the

      really_ great period of the island's history begins. The inhabitants bravely defended their capital against Demetrius Poliorcetes in 304 BC— the same Demetrius who two years before had won a naval victory and had coins stamped with a "Vic- tory" that is the counterpart of the "Winged Vic-

      Coin of Rhodes.

      tory" which commands the unbounded admiration of the modern world — and extended their dominion over a strip of the Carian coast, as well as over several of the neighboring islands, and for the first time in the history of the world established an inter- national maritime and commercial law. The arts and sciences now began to flourish in the fair island in the southeastern Aegean. Aeschines, the famous orator of Athens, fled to Rhodes after his defeat by Demosthenes, and founded a school of oratory, which was attended by many Romans. Rhodes became the faithful ally of Rome after the defeat of Antiochus in 189 BC. As a reward for her loyalty she received Caria. In 168, however, only a small portion of this territory remained under Rhodian sway (Peraea, or the Chersonesus). In 42 BC the island was devastated by Cassius. Later it was made a part of the Rom province of Asia (44 AD). Strabo says that he knows no city so splendid in harbor, walls and streets. When the Rom power declined, Rhodes fell into the hands of Caliph Moawijah, but later was taken by the Greeks, from whom at a later date the Genoese wrested the island. In 1249 John Cantacuzenus attempted to recover Rhodes, but in vain. Finally, however, success crowned the efforts of the Greeks under Theodores Protosebastos. In 1310 the Knights of St. John, who had been driven from Pal, made Rhodes their home. After the subjugation of the island by Sultan Soliman in 1522 the Knights of St. John removed to Malta, and Rhodes has remained uninterruptedly a possession of the Sub- lime Porte down to the recent war between Turkey and the Balkan allies, forming, with the other islands, the province of the "Islands of the White Sea" (Archipelago). It has a Christian governor whose seat, though mostly at Rhodes, is sometimes at Chios. The population of the island has greatly diminished by emigration. In 1890 the total num- ber of inhabitants was 30,000 (20,000 Greeks, 7,000 Mohammedans, 1,.500 Jews). The chief products of Rhodes are wheat, oil, wine, figs and tropical fruits. A very important industry is the exporta- tion of sponges. The purity of the air and the mildness of the climate make Rhodes a most de- lightful place to live in during the fall, winter and early spring. The city, built in the shape of an amphitheater, has a magnificent view toward the sea. It contains several churches made out of old mosques. The once famous harbor is now almost filled with sand. The inhabitants number nearly 12,000 (all Turks and Jews). Rhodes is mentioned in the NT only as a point where Paul touched on his voyage southward from the Hellespont to Caesarea (Acts 21 1); but in 1 Mace 15 23 we are informed that it was one of the states to which the Romans sent letters in behalf of the Jews.

      Rhodocus Righteousness



      Literature. — Berg, Die Insel Rhodes (Braunschweig, 1860-62): Schneiderwirth, Geschichte der Insel Rhodes (Heiligenstadt. 1868) : Guerin. L'tle de Rhodes, 2d ed. Paris, 1880; Bihotti and Cottrel, L'lle de Rhodes (Paris, 1881); Torr, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Cambridge, 1885) and Rhodes in Modern Times (1887).

      J. E. Harry RHODOCUS, rod'B-kus ("PoSokos, Rhddokos): A Jewish traitor who disclosed the plans of Judas to Antioohus (Eupator) (2 Mace 13 21) 162 BC. Of his fate nothing more is known.

      RIB (ybar, gela\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ nybs, gaVah; Aram, yb^ , ^'): The Heb words designate the "side," "flank," thence the "ribs." They are found thus tr"* only in connection with the creation of Eve: "He [Jeh] took one of his [Adam's] ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which Jeh God had taken from the man, made he [m "builded he into"] a woman" (Gen 2 21.22). The Aram, word is only found in Dnl 7 5.

      Twice the RV uses the word "rib" in a figurative sense of two beams or rafters built into the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense, on which the golden rings were fastened, which served to carry ark and altar by means of staves (Ex 30 4; 37 27).

      A curious mistr has crept into AV, which here follows Jewish commentators or etymologists, in four passages in 2 S (2 23; 3 27; 4 6; 20 10), where the "fifth rib" is mentioned as the place of the body under which spears or swords are thrust, so as to cause lethal wounds. The Heb word homesh, which indeed means "fifth," is here a noun, derived from a root meaning "to be staunch," "stalwart," "stout," "fleshy," "obese" (of llJian , hamush, "armed," "equipped soldier"; Arab, ij ■ ■ ' I ■< I _ el khamls [el hamis], "the army," which,

      however, Arab, lexicographers explain as meaning "fivefold," viz. vanguard, right and left wing, center and rear guard). The word is to be tr** "abdomen," "belly." RV renders correctly "into the body." H. L. E. Luering

      RIBAI, rl'ba-I, ri'bl C2^-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ , rlbhay; LXX 'Ptipd, Rheihd, with variants): A Benjamite, the father of Ittai (q.v.), one of David's "mighty men" (2 S 23 29 11 1 Ch 11 31).

      RIBBAND, rib'and, rib'an (b"'nE , pathil [Nu 16 38 AV]). See Colob, (2) ; Cord, (4).

      RIBLAH, rib'la (nban , Hhhlah; "P€p\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\a9d, Rhe- hlathd, with variants) ;

      (1) Riblah in the land of Hamath first appears in history in 608 BC. Here Pharaoh-necoh, after defeating Josiah at Megiddo and destroying Kady- tis or Kadesh on the Orontes, fixed his headquarters, and while in camp he deposed Jehoahaz and cast him into chains, fixed the tribute of Judah, and appointed Jehoiakim king (2 K 23 31-35). In 588 BC Nebuchadnezzar, at war with Egypt and the Syrian states, also established his headquarters at Riblah, and from it he directed the sub.jugation of Jerus. When it fell, Zedekiah was carried pris- oner to Riblah, and there, after his sons and his nobles had been slain in his presence, his eyes were put out, and he was taken as a prisoner to Babylon (2 K 25 6.20; Jer 39 5-7; 52 8-11). Riblah then disappears from history, but the site exists today in the village of Ribleh, 35 miles N.E. of Baal- bek, and the situation is the finest that could have been chosen by the Egyp or Bab kings for their headquarters in Syria. An army camped there had abundance of water in the control of the copious springs that go to form the Orontes. The Egyptians coming from the S. had behind them the command of the rich corn and forage lands of Coele-Syria,

      while the Bab army from the N. was equally fortu- nate in the rich plains extending to Hamath and the Euphrates. Lebanon, close by, with its forests, its hunting grounds and its snows, ministered to the needs and luxuries of the leaders. Riblah com- manded the great trade and war route between Egypt and Mesopotamia, and, besides, it was at the dividing-point of many minor routes. It was in a position to attack with facility Phoenicia, Damas- cus or Pal, or to defend itself against attack from those places, while a few miles to the S. the moun- tains on each side close in forming a pass where a mighty host might easily be resisted by a few. In every way Riblah was the strategical point between North and South Syria. Riblah should probably be read for Diblah in Ezk 6 14, while in Nu 34 11 it does not really appear. See (2).

      (2) A place named as on the ideal eastern bound- ary of Israel in Nu 34 11, but omitted in Ezk 47 15-18. The MT reads "Hariblah"; but the LXX probably preserves the true vocalization, accord- ing to which we should tr "to Harbel." It is said to be to the east of 'Ain, and that, as the designa- tion of a district, can only mean Merj 'Ayun, so that we should seek it in the neighborhood of Hermon, one of whose spurs Furrer found to be named Jebel 'Arbel. W. M. Christie

      RICHES, rich'ez, rich'iz: Used to_ render the following Heb and Gr words: (1) ^Osher, which should, perhaps, be considered the most general word, as it is the most often used (Gen 31 16; Eccl 4 8; Jer 9 23). It looks at riches simply as riches, without regard to any particular feature. Alongside this would go the Gr ttXoCtos, ploiitos (Mt 13 22; Eph 2 7). (2) Hosen (Prov 27 24; Jer 20 5), n'khwjim and r'khush (Gen 36 7; Dnl 11 13.24 AV) look at riches as things accumu- lated, collected, amassed. (3) Hon looks upon riches as earnings, the fruit of toil (Ps 119 14; Prov 8 18; Ezk 27 27). (4) ffomo/i regards riches in the aspect of being much, this coming from the original idea of noise, through the idea of a multitude as making the noise, the idea of many, or much, being in multitude (Ps 37 16 AV). (5) Hayil regards riches as power (Ps 62 10; Isa 8 4; 10 14). (6) Yilhrah means "run- ning over," and so presents riches as abundance (Jer 48 36 AV). Along with this may be placed s/iu"', which has the idea of breadth, and so of abundance (Job 36 19 AV). (7) Kinyan regards riches as a creation, something made (Ps 104 24; cf m) ; (8) x/''7Ma {ehrima) looks at riches as useful (Mk 10 23 f 1). Like the NT, the Apoo uses only ploutos and chrema.

      Material riches are regarded by the Scriptures as neither good nor bad in themselves, but only according as they are properly or improperly used. They are transitory (Prov 27 24) ; they are not to be trusted in (Mk 10 23; Lk 18 24; 1 Tim 6 17); they are not to be gloried in (Jer 9 23); the heart is not to be set on them (Ps 62 10) ; but thev are made bj' God (Ps 104 24), and come from God (1 Ch 29 12); and they are the crown of the wise (Prov 14 24). Material riches are used to body forth for us the most precious and glorious realities of the spiritual realm. See, e.g., Rom 9 23; 11 33; Eph 2 7; Phil 4 19; Col 1 27. Ct Mam- mon; Treasure; Wealth. E. J. Forrester

      RID, rid, RIDDANCE, rid'ans: "Rid" originally meant "rescue" (AV Gen 37 22; Ex 6 6; Ps 82 4; 144 7.11), whence the meaning "remove" or "clean out" (Lev 26 6 AV, with "riddance" in Lev 23 22; Zcph 1 18). The word occurs in ARV and in ERV in Ex 6 6.



      Rhodocus Righteousness

      RIDDLE, rid"l {T^-pTl , hulhah; atvivjia, alnig- ma). See Games.

      RIE, ri (AV, Ex 9 32; Isa 28 25). See Spelt.

      RIGHT, rit (lip";, yashar, 'OSllJ'JS , mishpat; SUaios, dikaios, (i9i

      "Right-hand" or "side" represents Heb ydmln and kindred forms (Gen 48 13.14.17; Ex 15 6, etc); the Gr, in this sense, is dexios (Mt 6 3; 20 21, etc).

      RV, among other changes, has "right" for AV "judgment" in Job 27 2; 34 5, and for "right" in AV substitutes "straight" in Ezr 8 21, "skilful" in Eccl 4 4, m "successful," etc. In Jn 1 12 RV reads, "the right to become children of God" for AV "the power" {exousia); in Mt 20 7.15 "right" is omitted, with the larger part of the verse. In 2 Tim 2 15 "rightly dividing" (orthotomeo) is changed to "handling aright," with m "holding a straight course in the word of truth. Or, rightly dividing the word of truth." W. L. Walker

      RIGHTEOUSNESS, ri'chus-nes (p'^lt , gaddlk, adj., "righteous," or occasionally "just"; p"]3?, Qedhek, noun, occasionally = "," occa- sionally ="justice"; SCKatos, dikaios, adj., SiKaioo-vvT), dikaiosune, noun, from SCkt), dike, whose first mean- ing seems to have been "custom"; the general use suggested conformity to a standard: righteousness, "the state of him who is such as he ought to be" [Thayer]):

      1. Double Aspect of Righteou.snes.s : Changing and Permanent

      2. Social Customs and Righteousness

      3. Changing Conception of Character of God: Obliga- tions of IPower

      4. Righteousness as Inner

      5. Righteousness as Social ... ^

      6. Righteousness as Expanding m Content with Growth in Ideals of Human Worth


      In Christian thought the idea of righteousness contains both a permanent and a changing element.

      The fixed element is the will to do 1. Double right; the changing factor is the Aspect of conception of what may be right at Righteous- different times and under different cir- ness cumstances. Throughout the entire

      course of Christian revelation we dis- cern the emphasis on the first factor. To be sure, in the days of later Pharisaism righteousness came to be so much a matter of externals that the inner intent was often lost sight of altogether (Mt 23 23) ; but, on the whole and in the main. Christian thought in all ages has recognized as the central element in righteousness the intention to be and do right. This common spirit binds together the first wor- shippers of God and the latest. Present-day con-

      ceptions of what is right differ by vast distances from the conceptions of the earlier Hebrews, but the intentions of the first worshippers are as discernible as are those of the doers of righteousness in the present day.

      There seems but little reason to doubt that the content of the idea of righteousness was determined in the first instance by the customs 2. Social of social groups. There are some, of Customs course, who would have us believe that and Right- what we experience as inner moral eousness sanction is nothing but the fear of con- sequences which come through dis- obeying the will of the social group, or the feeling of pleasure which results as we know we have acted in accordance with the social demands. At least some thinkers would have us beheve that this is all there was in moral feeling in the beginning. If a social group was to survive it must lay upon its indi- vidual members the heaviest exactions. Back of the performance of rehgious rites was the fear of the group that the god of the group would be dis- pleased if certain honors were not rendered to him. Merely to escape the penalties of an angry deity the group demanded ceremonial religious observ- ances. From the basis of fear thus wrought into the individuals of the group have come aU our loftier movements toward righteousness.

      It is not necessary to deny the measure of truth there may be in this account. To point out its inadequacy, however, a better statement would be that from the beginning the social group utihzed the native moral feeling of the individual for the defence of the group. The moral feeling, by which we mean a sense of the difference between right and wrong, would seem to be a part of the native fur- nishing of the mind. It is very likely that in the be- ginning this moral feeling was directed toward the performance of the rites which the group looked upon as important (see Alms) .

      As we read the earlier parts of the OT we are struck by the fact that much of the early Heb moral- ity was of this group kind. The righteous man was the man who performed the rites which had been handed down from the beginning (Dt 6 25). The meaning of some of these rites is lost in obscurity, but from a very early period the characteristic of Heb righteousness is that it moves in the direction of what we should call today the enlargement of humanity. There seemed to be at work, not merely the forces which make for the preservation of the group, not merely the desire to please the God of the Hebrews for the sake of the material favors which He might render the Hebrews, but the factors which make for the betterment of humanity as such. As we examine the laws of the Hebrews, even at so late a time as the completion of the formal Codes, we are indeed struck by traces of primitive survivals (Nu 5 11-31). There are some injunctions whose purpose we cannot weU understand. But, on the other hand, the vast mass of the legislation had to do with really human considerations. There are rules concerning sanitation (Lev 13), both as it touches the life of the group and of the individual; laws whose mastery begets emphasis, not merely upon external consequences, but upon the inner result in the life of the individual (Ps 51 3); and prohibitions which would indicate that morality, at least in its plainer decencies, had come to be valued on its own account. If we were to seek for some clue to the development of the moral life of the Hebrews we might well find it in this emphasis upon the growing demands of human hfe as such. A suggestive writer has pointed out that the appar- ently meaningless commandment, "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex 23 19), has back of it a real human purpose, that there are some

      Righteousness Rimmon



      things which in themselves are revolting apart from any external consequences (see also Lev 18).

      An index of the growth of the moral Life of the people is to be found in the changing conception of the character of God. We need not 3. Changing enter into the question as to just where Conception on the moral plane the idea of the God of Char- of the Hebrews started, but from the acter of very beginning we see clearly that the

      God Hebrews beheved in their God as one

      passionately devoted to the right (Gen 18 25). It may well be that at the start the God of the Hebrews was largely a God of War, but it is to be noticed that His enmity was against the peoples who had Httle regard for the larger human considerations. It has often been pointed out that one proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures is to be found in their moral superiority to the Scriptures of the peoples around about the Hebrews. If the Heb writers used material which was common property of Chaldaeans, Babylonians, and other peoples, they nevertheless used these materials with a moral difference. They breathed into them a moral life which forever separates them from the Scriptures of other peoples. The marvel also of Heb history is that in the midst of revoltingly im- moral surroundings the Hebrews grew to such ideals of human worth. The source of these ideals is to be found in their thought of God. Of course, in moral progress there is a reciprocal effect; the thought of God affects the thought of human hfe and the thought of human hfe affects the thought of God; but the Hebrews no sooner came to a fresh moral insight than they made their moral discovery a part of the character of God. From the begin- ning, we repeat, the God of the Hebrews was a God directed in His moral wrath against all manner of abominations, aberrations and abnormalities. The purpose of God, according to the Hebrews, was to make a people "separated" in the sense that they were to be free from anything which would detract from a fuU moral hfe (Lev 20 22).

      We can trace the more important steps in the growth of the Heb ideal. First, there was an in- creasingly clear discernment that certain things are to be ruled out at once as immoral. The primitive decencies upon which individual and social life de- pended were discerned at an early period (cf pas- sages in Lev cited above). Along with this it must be admitted there was a slower approach to some ideals which we today consider important, the ideals of the marriage relations for example (Dt 24 1.2). Then there was a growing sense of what constitutes moral obhgation in the discharge of responsibilities upon the part of men toward their fellows (Isa 5 8.2.3). There was increasing reah- zation also of what God, as a moral Being, is obh- gated to do. The hope of salvation of nations and individuals rests at once upon the righteousness of God.

      By the time of Isaiah the righteousness of God has come to include the obligations of power (Isa 63 1). God will save His people, not merely be- cause He has promised to save them, but because He must save them (42 6). The must is moral. If the people of Israel show themselves unworthy, God must punish them; but if a remnant, even a small remnant, show themselves faithful, God must show His favor toward them. Moral worth is not conceived of as something that is to be paid for by external rewards, but if God is moral He must not treat the righteous and the unrighteous ahke. This conception of what God must do as an obligated Being influences profoundly the Heb interpretation of the entire course of history (10 20.21).

      l^pon this ideal of moral obligation there grows later the thought of the virtue of vicarious suffering

      (ch 53). The sufferings of the good man and of God for those who do not in themselves deserve such sufferings (for them) are a mark of a stiU higher righteousness (see Hosea, Book of). The move- ment of the Scriptures is all the way from the thought of a God who gives battle for the right to the thought of a God who receives in Himself the heaviest shocks of that battle that others may have opportunity for moral hfe.

      These various hnes of moral development come, of course, to their crown in the NT in the life and death of Christ as set before us in the Gospels and interpreted by the apostles. Jesus stated certain moral axioms so clearly that the world never will escape their power. He said some things once and for all, and He did some things once and for all; that is to say, in His life and death He set on high the righteousness of God as at once moral obhgation and self-sacrificing love (Jn 3 16) and with such effectiveness that the world has not escaped and cannot escape this righteous influence (Jn 12 32). Moreover, the course of apostohc and subsequent history has shown that Christ put a winning and compeUing power into the idea of righteousness that it would otherwise have lacked (Rom 8 31. .32).

      The ideas at work throughout the course of Heb and Christian history are, of course, at work today. Christianity deepens the sense of obli- 4. Right- gation to do right. It makes the moral eousness spirit essential. Then it utihzes every as Inner force working for the increase of human happiness to set on high the meaning of righteousness. Jesus spoke of Himself as "hfe," and declared that He came that men might have life and have it more abundantly (Jn 10 10). The keeping of the commandments plays, of course, a large part in the unfolding of the life of the righteous Christian, but the keeping of the commandments is not to be conceived of in artificial or mechanical fashion (Lk 10 25-37). With the passage of the centuries some commandments once conceived of as essential drop into the secondary place, and other commandments take the controlling position. In Christian development increasing place is given for certain swift insights of the moral spirit. We be- lieve that some things are righteous because they at once appeal to us as righteous. Again, some other things seem righteous because their conse- quences are beneficial, both for society and for the individual. Whatever makes for the largest life is in the direction of righteousness. In interpreting life, however, we must remember the essentially Christian conception that man does not hve through outer consequences alone. In all thought of con- sequences the chief place has to be given to inner consequences. By the surrender of outward hap- piness and outward success a man may attain inner success. The spirit of the cross is still the path to the highest righteousness.

      The distinctive note in emphasis upon righteous- ness in our own day is the stress laid upon social service. This does not mean that 6. Right- Christianity is to lose sight of the eousness worth of the individual in himself. as Social We have come pretty clearly to see that the individual^ is the only moral end in himself. Righteousness is to have as its aim the upbuilding of individual lives. The commandments of the righteous life are not for the sake of society as a thing in itself. Society is nothing apart from the individuals that compose it; but we are coming to see that individuals have larger relationships than we had once imagined and greater responsi- bilities than we had dreamed of. The influence of the individual touches others at more points than we had formerly realized. We have at times con-



      Righteousness Rmiinon

      demned the system of things as being responsible for much human misciy which we now see can be traced to the agency of individuals. The employer, the day-laborer, the professional man, the pubUc servant, all these have large responsibilities for the life of those around. The unrighteous individual has a power of contaminating other individuals, and his deadliness we have just begun to understand. All this is receiving new emphasis in our present-day preaching of righteousness. While our social rela- tions are not ends in themselves, they are mighty means for reaching individuals in large numbers. The Christian conception of redeemed humanity is not that of society as an organism existing on its own account, but that of individuals knit very closely together in their social relationships and touching one another for good in these relationships (1 Cor 1 2; Rev 7 9.10). If we were to try to point out the line in which the Christian doctrine of righteousness is to move more and more through the years, we should have to emphasize this element of obligation to society. This does not mean that a new gospel is to supersede the old or even place itself alongside the old. It does mean that the righteousness of God and the teaching of Christ and the cross, which are as ever the center of Chris- tianity, are to find fresh force in the thought of the righteousness of the Christian as binding itself, not merely by commandments to do the will of God in society, but by the inner spirit to Kve the hfe of God out into society.

      In all our thought of righteousness it must be borne in mind that there is nothing in Christian revelation which will teU us what 6. Expand- righteousness calls for in every particu- ing in lar circumstance. The differences be-

      Content tween earlier and later practical stand-

      ards of conduct and the differences between differing standards in different circum- stances have led to much confusion in the realm of Christian thinking. We can keep our bearing, however, by remembering the double element in righteousness which we mentioned in the beginning; on the one hand, the wiU to do right, and, on the other, the difficulty of determining in a particular circumstance just what the right is. The larger Christian conceptions always have an element of fluidity, or, rather, an element of expansiveness. For example, it is clearly a Christian obhgation to treat all men with a spirit of good will or with a spirit of Christian love. But what does love call for in a particular case? We can only answer the question by saying that love seeks for whatever is best, both for him who receives and for him who gives. This may lead to one course of conduct in one situation and to quite a different course in another. We must, however, keep before us always the aim of the largest hfe for all persons whom we can reach. Christian righteousness today is even more insistent upon material things, such as sani- tary arrangements, than was the Code of Moses. The obligation to use the latest knowledge for the hygienic welfare is just as binding now as then, but "the latest knowledge" is a changing term. ^ Mate- rial progress, education, spiritual instruction, are all influences which really make for full life.

      Not only is present-day righteousness social and growing; it is also concerned, to a large degree, with the thought of the world which now is. Righteous- ness has too often been conceived of merely as the means of preparing for the life of some future King- dom of Heaven. Present-day emphasis has not ceased to think of the hfe beyond this, but the life beyond this can best be met and faced by those who have been in the full sense righteous in the life that now is. There is here no break in true Christian continuity. The seers who have understood Chris-

      tianity best always have insisted that to the fullest degree the present world must be redeemed by the life-giving forces of Christianity. We still insist that all idea of earthly righteousness takes its start from heavenly righteousness, or, rather, that the righteousness of man is to be based upon his con- ception of the righteousness of God. Present-day thinking concerns itself largely with the idea of the Immanence of God. God is in this present world. This does not mean that there may not be other worlds, or are not other worlds, and that God is not also in those worlds; but the immediate reve- lation of God to us is in our present world. Our present world then must be the sphere in which the righteousness of God and of man is to be set forth. God is conscience, and God is love. The present sphere is to be used for the manifestation of His holy love. The chief channel through which that holy love is to manifest itself is the conscience and love of the Christian believer. But even these terms are not to be used in the abstract. There is an abstract conscientiousness which leads to barren living: the life gets out of touch with things that are real. There is an experience of love which ex- hausts itself in well-wishing. Both conscience and love are to be kept close to the earth by emphasis upon the actual reaUties of the world in which we live.

      Literature. — G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation; A. E. Garvie, Handbook of Christian Apolo- getics; Borden P. Bowne, Principles of Ethics; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics; A. B. Bruce, The Kinadom of God; W. N. Clarke. The Ideal of Jesus; H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus.


      RIMMON, rim'on:

      (1) The rock Rimmon CJI^T •''^? > je^a' rimmon; ij iriTpa. ', he pelra Rhemmdn): The place of refuge of the 600 surviving Benjamites of Gibeah {Jeba') who "turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon, and abode in the rock of Rimmon four months" (Jgs 20 4.5.47; 21 1.3). Robinson's identification (RB, I, 440) has been very generally accepted. He found a conical and very prominent hill some 6 miles N.N.E. of Jeba^ upon which stands a village called Bummon. This site was known to Eusebius and Jerome {OS 146 6; 287 98), who describe it as 15 Rom miles from Jerus. Another view, which would locate the place of refuge of the Benjamites in the Mugharet el jai, a large cavern on the south of the Wddy Suweinit, near Jeba', is strongly advocated by R.awnsley and Birch (see PEF, III, 1.37-48). The latter connects this again with 1 S 14 2, where Saul, accompanied by his 600, "abode in the uttermost part of Gibeah" under the pomegranate tree (Rimmon).

      (2) CiTS"!, rimmon; 'Epemxiiv, Eremmon, or 'Pf/"- IJ.ii6, RhemmolK): A city in the Negeb, near the border of Edom, ascribed to Judah (Josh 15 32) and to Simeon (19 7; 1 Ch 4 32, AV "Remmon"). In Zee 14 10 it is mentioned as the extreme S. of Judah — "from Geba to Rimmon, S. of Jerus." In the earlier references Rimmon occurs in close asso- ciation with 'Ain (a spring), and in Neh 11 29, what is apparently the same place, 'Aira Rimmon, is called En-rimmon (q.v.).

      (3) CiiBT, rimmon [Josh 19 13], nsia"! , rim- monah, in some Heb MSS HD'Q^ , dimn&h [see DiM- nah] [Josh 21 35], and i:'lBn , 'nminono [1 Ch 6 77]) : In AV we have "Remmon-methoar" in Josh 19 13, but RV translates the latter as "which stretcheth." This was a city on the border of Zebulun (Josh 19 13) allotted to the Levites (Josh 21 35, "Dimnah"; 1 Ch 6 77). The site is now the little village of Rummaneh on a low ridge S. of the western end of the marshy plain el Battauf in Galilee; there are many rock-cut tombs and cisterns. It is about 4 miles


      Robbers of Temples



      N. of el Mesh-hed, usually considered to be the site of Gath-hepher. See PEF, I, 363, Sh VI.

      E. W. G. Mastbrman RIMMON ("IBT , rimmon, "pomegranate"; see

      RiMMON-PEREZ) :

      (1) A SjTian god. Naaman the Syrian leper after being cured is troubled over the fact that he will still have to bow down in the house of the Syrian god, Rimmon, when his master goes into the house to worship leaning on his hand (2 K 5 18). Elisha answers him ambiguously: "Go in peace." Judging from Naaman's position and this incident, R. must have been one of the leading gods of the Syrians worshipped in Damascus. He has been identified with Rammanu, the Assyr god of wind, rain and storm. The name appears in the Syrian personal names Hadadrimmon and Tab- EiMMON (q.v.) and its meaning is dubious (ramdmu, "to thunder" [?])

      (2) A Benjamite of Beeroth, whose sons Baanah and Rechab assassinated Ish-bosheth (2 S 4 2.5.9).

      Nathan Isaacs RIMMON-PEREZ, r.-pe'rez (flS f^l, rim- mon -pereg; AV Rimmon-parez) : A desert camp of the Israelites (Nu 33 19 f), unidentified. Gesenius translates rimmon as "pomegranate," the place deriving its name from the abundance of pome- granates. But Conder derives it from rdmam, "to be high," and translates it "cloven height." See Wanderings of Israel.

      RIMMON, ROCK OF. See Rimmon, (1).

      RIMMONAH, rim-mo'na, RIMMONO, rim- mo'no. See Rimmon, (3).

      RING (AS Hring, "ring"): The word renders (ARV) two Heb words (in AV and ERV three) and two Gr words. T\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V'3.'g , tabba'ath, the principal Heb word, is from 75^ , labha', "sink," either because the ring is something "cast" or molded, or, more prob-

      Egyptiau Signet Rings and Impressions Made from Them.

      ably, since the principal use of the ring was as a seal, because it "sank" into the wax or clay that received the impression. In Ex, tabba'ath, "ring," is a detail of furniture or equipment, as the rings of the ark through which the staves were thrust (Ex 25 12, etc), rings for curtains, in the high priest's ephod (Ex 28 28; 39 21), etc. Its other use was per- haps the original, to describe the article of personal adornment worn on the finger, apparently in the OT always a signet-ring, and as such an indispen- sable article of mascuUne attire. Such a ring Pha- raoh gave Joseph as a symbol of authority (Gen 41 42); and Ahasuerus gave Haman (Est 3 10); with it the royal missive was sealed (Est 3 12; 8 8 bis. 10). It was also a feminine ornament in Isaiah's list of the fashionable feminine paraphernalia, "the rings and the nose-jewels" (quite likely rings also) (Isa 3 21). Either as ornaments or for their in-

      trinsic value, or both, rings were used as gifts for sacred purposes from both men and women: "brooches, and ear-rings, and signet-rings" (m "nose- rings") (Ex 35 22); "bracelets, rings [ARV "signet- rings"], ear-rings" (Nu 31 50 AV). nriin, kotham, "signet," mentioned in Gen 38 18.25; Ex 28 11. 21.36; Ex 39 6.14.30; Jer 22 24; Hag 2 23, etc, was probably usually a seal ring, but in Gen 38 and elsewhere the seal may have been swung on wire, and suspended by a cord from the neck. It was not only an identification, but served as a stamp for signature. bib5 , galll, "circle" (cf "Galilee," "Circle" of the Gentiles), rendered "ring" in Est 1 6; Cant 5 14, may rather mean "cylinder" or "rod" of metal. Earring (q.v.) in AV is from totally different words : D.J5 , nezem, whose etymology is unknown, 5''?^, 'dghll, "round," or TlJnb , lahash, "amulet"; so rV. The "rings" of the wheels in Ezk 1 18 (AV) are 33 , gabh, "curved," and mean "rims" (ARV), "felloes." Egyptians esp. wore a great profusion of rings, principally of silver or gold, engraved with scarabaei, or other devices. In the NT the ring, Sa/criiXios, daktulios, "finger- ring," is a token of means, position, standing: "put a ring on his hand" (Lk 15 22). Perhaps also it included the right to give orders in his father's name. To be x/'i«'"<'5a«:Ti5\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ios, chrusodakliUios, "golden- ringed," perhaps with more than one, indicated wealth and social rank: "a man with a gold ring" (Jas 2 2). See also Earring; Signet; Seal.

      Philip Wendell Crannell RINGLEADER, ring'led-er: In Acts 24 5 the tr of TT/jwToo-rdTT/s, protosldtes, "one who stands first." Not an opprobrious word in the Gr.

      RINGSTREAKED, ring'strekt (AV and ERV ringstraked) : Gen 30 35.39.40; 31 8 (6Js).10.12 for ~py , 'akodh. In the context of 30 35, etc, '■akodh certainly denotes defective coloring of some sort, but the exact meaning of the word is uncertain. The tr "ringstreaked" ("marked with circular bands") comes from connecting the word with the V kd, "to bind" (Gen 22 9), but this connection is dubious.

      RINNAH, rin'a (n|"l, rimiah, "praise to God"; LXX B, 'Avd, And, A, 'Pavviov, Rhannon): A Judahite, according to MT a son of Shimon (1 Ch 4 20). But LXX makes him a son of Hanan (B, Phand, A, Andn) by reading "ben" in the next name (Ben-hanan) as "son of."

      RIOT, ri'ut: Properly, "unrestrained behavior" of any sort, but in modern Eng. usually connoting mob action, although such phrases as a "riotous banquet" are still in common use. AV uses the word in the first sense, and it is retained by RV in Lk 15 13; Tit 16; 1 Pet 4 4 for aTw, asotos, dauiTla, asotia, "having no hope of safety," "prof- ligate." In Prov 23 20; 28 7 RV has preferred "gluttonous," "glutton," in Rom 13 13, "revelling " and in 2 Pet 2 13, "revel."

      Burton Scott Easton

      RIPHATH, ri'fath (ns^l , riphath): A son of Gomer, the eldest son of Japhet (Gen 10 3; 1 Ch 1 6, where MT and RV read Diphath [q.v.]). Jos (Ant, I, vi, 1) identifies the Ripheans with the Paphlagonians, through whose country on the Black Sea ran the river "Rhebas" (Pliny, NH, vi.4).

      RISING, riz'ing (Pl^^Tp , s''eth, "a tumor," "swell- ing" [Lev 13 2.10, etc]). See Leprosy.

      RISSAH, ris'a (HDI, ri^.mh, "dew"): A camp of the Israelites in the wilderness wanderings betweea


      Libnah and Kehelathah (Nu 33 21 f). See Wan- derings OF Israel.

      RITHMAH, rith'ma (Hpni, rilhmah, "broom"): A desert camp of the Israelites (Nu 33 18.19). The name refers to the white desert broom. See Wanderings of Israel.

      RIVER, riv'er:

      (1) The usual word is Ifl?, nahar (Aram. ^HS , n'har [Ezr 4 10, etc]), used' of the rivers of Eden (Gen 2 10-14), often of the Euphrates (Gen 15 18, etc), of Abana and Pharpar (2 K 5 12), the river of Gozan (2 K 17 6), the river Chebar (Ezk 11), the rivers (canals?) of Babylon (Ps 137 l),therivers

      of Ethiopia (Isa 18 1; Zeph 3 10). Cf -^,nahr, the common Arab, word for "river." ''

      (2) "lis"; , xf'or, according to BDB from Egyp 'iolr, 'io'r, "watercourse," often of the Nile (Ex 1 22, etc). In Isa 19 6, for '\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Tg ^i&l, y'ore moQdr, AV "brooks of defence," RV has "streams of Egypt." In Isa 19 7^8, for y'dr, AV "brooks," and Zee 10 11, AV "river," RV has "Nile." In Job 28 10, AV "He cutteth out rivers among the rocks," RV has "channels," RVm "passages."

      (3) There are nearly 100 references to sH? , nahal. In about half of these AV has "brook" and in about half "river." RV has more often "brook" or "valley." But RV has river in "whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers" (Lev 11 9); "the river Jabbok" (Dt 2 37; Josh 12 2); the stream issuing from the temple (Ezk 47 5-12). RV has "brook of Egypt," i.e. el-'AAsh (Nu 34 5; Josh 15 47; 1 K 8 65; 2 K 24 7; 2 Ch 7 8; Am 6 14, "of the Arabah"); "brook [AV "river"] of Kanah" (Josh 16 8); "valley (AV "river"] of the Amon" (Dt 2 24). EV has "valley": of Gerar (Gen 26 17), of Zered (Nu 21 12), but "brook Zered" (Dt 2 13), of Eschol (Nu 32 9), of Sorek (Jgs 16 4), of Shit- tim (Joel 3 18). EV has "brook": Besor (1 S 30 10), Kidron (2 S 15 23), Gaash ^ (2 S 23 30), Cherith (1 K 17 3); also the fem. Jlbn?, nahdlah, "brook [AV "river"! of Egypt" (Ezk' 47 19; 48 28). The torrent-valley (wd'dy) is often meant.

      (4) ^bs pelegh, with fem. nSbs , p'lagoah, AV "river," is in RV tri "stream." except EV "river of God" (Ps 65 9); "streams of water" (Ps 1 3; Prov 5 16; Isa 32 2; Lam 3 48); " streams of honey " (Job 20 17); " streams of oil " (Job 29 6).

      (5) p^'EX, 'aphlk, AV "river," except EV "water broolis" (Ps 42 1), is in RV "watercourses" (Ezlc 6 3; 31 12; 32 6; 34 13; 35 8; 36 4.6), " water-broolis " (Cant 5 12; Joel 1 20).

      (6) byV , yubhal, EV "river" (Jer 17 8). bSX , •ubhal, and'bDlS, 'ubhdl, EV "river" (Dnl 8 2.3.6)'. '

      (7) iroTand;,' potamds: of the Jordan (Mlc 1 S); Euphrates (Rev 9 14); "rivers of hving water" (Jn 7 38); "river of water of life" (Rev 22 1). So always in Gr for "river" in RV Apoc (1 Esd 4 23, etc). SeeBKOOK; Stream; Valley.

      Alfred Ely Day RIVER OF EGYPT. See Brook of Egypt.

      RIVER, THE (GREAT). See Euphrates.

      RIVERS OF EDEN. See Eden (1).

      RIZIA, riz'i-a (i5^2f "1 , risya') : An Asherite (1 Ch 7 39).

      RIZPAH, riz'pa (nS¥"l , rigyah, "hot stone"; Jos, 'Pai(r(t)d, Rhaisphd): In 2 S 3 7 the subject of a coarse slander. 2 S 21 contains the pathetic story of Rizpah's faithful watch over the bodies of her dead sons Mephibosheth and Armoni (vs 10.11).

      Did this story suggest Tennyson's "Rizpah" ? A three years' famine had made David anxious, and in seeking a reason for the affliction he concluded that it lay in Saul's unavenged conduct to the Gibeonites (ver 2). To appease Jeh he gave up to the Gibeonites the two sons of Saul, Mephibosheth and Armoni, as well as Saul's 5 grandsons (whether by Michal or Merab; see Merab). These seven were hanged at Gibeah. Rizpah watched 5 months over their exposed bodies, but meanwhile the famine did not abate. Word was brought to David of Rizpah's act (vs 10.11), and it is possible that her action suggested to David his next step in expiation. At any rate, he remembered the uncared-for bones of Jonathan and Saul lying in ignominy at Jabesh- gilead, whither they had been carried by stealth after the Philis had kept them hung in the streets of Beth-shan for some time. The bones were re- covered and apparently mingled with the bones Rizpah had guarded, and they were together buried in the family grave at Zelah. We are told that then "God was entreated for the land" (ver 14).

      Henry Wallace ROAD, rod (INROAD) AV (1 S 27 10; cf 23 27). See Raid.

      ROAD (WAY). See Roman Empire and Chris- tianity, II, 6; Way.

      ROAST, rost. See Food.

      ROBBER, rob'er, ROBBERY, rob'er-i: "Robber" represents no particular Heb word in the OT, but in the Apoc and the NT is always a tr of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\r]

      Burton Scott Easton


      Robe Romamti-Ezer



      In 2 Mace 4 42 AV the epithet "church-robber' ' (RV "author of the sacrilege") is apphed toLYSiMA- CHUS (q.v.).

      ROBE, rob. See Dress, 1, (3).

      ROBOAM, r5-bo'am ("Popoa|i, Rhobodm). AV; Gr form of "Rehoboam" (thus RV) (Mt 1 7); successor of Solomon.

      ROCK, rok ([1] ybo, sela': [2] "112 , fi7r; [3]

      liJiTOSn , hnUdndsh, "flint"; of Arab. (Uj^jJULi*. ,

      khalanhUs, "flint"; [4] D'^ES , kephlm

      1. Names [Job 30 6; Jer 4 29]; cf KTi<)>as,

      Kephds, "Cephas" = IltTpos, Petros, "Peter" [Jn 1 42 AV and RVm]; [5] ireTpa, petra): Qur and sefa' are the words most often found, and there is no well-defined distinction between them. They are frequently coupled together in the paral- lelism which is characteristic of the Heb writers: e.g.

      "Be thou to me a strong rock [qut], A house of defence to save me.

      For thou art my rock [sela'] and my fortress" (Ps 31 2.3). "He clave rocks [qut] in the "wilderness. And gave them drink abundantly as out of the depths. He brought streams also out of the rock [sela']. And caused waters to rim down like rivers (Ps 78 15.16).

      It is plain here that the two words are used for the sake of variety, without any clear difference of meaning. Even halldmish (tr"* "flint") is used in the same way with Qur in Ps 114 8:

      " Who turned the rock [iur] into a pool of water. The flint [halldTmsh] into a fountain of waters."

      (1) Some of the most striking and beautiful imagery of the Bible is based upon the rocks. They

      are a symbol of God: "Jeh is my rock,

      2. Figura- and my fortress" (2 S 22 2; Ps 18 2; live 71 3); "God, the rock of my salvation"

      (2 S 22 47;cf Ps 62 2.7;89 26); "my God the rock of my refuge" (Ps 94 22); "the rock of thy strength" (Isa 17 10); "Lead me to the rock that is higher than I" (Ps 61 2); repeatedly in the song of Moses (Dt 32 3.4.18..30.31; cf 2 S 22 32). Paul applies the rock smitten in the wilderness (Ex 17 6; Nu 20 11) to Christ as the source of living water for spiritual refreshment (1 Cor 10 4).

      (2) The rocks are a refuge, both figuratively and literally (Jer 48 28; Cant 2 14); "The rocks are a refuge for the conies" (Ps 104 18). Many a traveler in Pal has felt the refreshment of "the shade of a great rock in a weary lund" (Isa 32 2). A very different idea is expressed in Isa 8 14, "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence" (cf Rom 9 33; 1 Pet 2 8).

      (3) The rock is a symbol of hardness (Jer 6 3; cf Isa 50 7). Therefore the breaking of the rock exemplifiea the power of God (Jer 23 29; cf 1 K 19 11). The rock is also a symbol of that which endures, "Oh that they .... were graven in the rock for ever!" (Job 19 23.24). A rock was an ap- propriate place for offering a sacrifice (Jgs 6 20; 13 19). The central feature of the Mosque of ' Umar in Jerus is Kubbai-u^-Sakhrat, the "dome of the rock." The rock or ^akhrat under the dome is thought to be the site of Solomon's altar of burnt offering, and further is thought to be the site of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite which David purchased to build an altar to Jeh.

      (1) The principal rock of Pal and Syria is lime- stone of which there are many varieties, differing in color, texture, hardness and degrees of impurity, some of the limestone having considerable admix-

      tures of clay or sand. Some of the harder kinds are very dense and break with a conchoidal fracture

      similar to the fracture of flint. In 3. Kinds rocks which have for ages been ex- of Rock posed to atmospheric agencies, erosion

      has produced striking and highly pic- turesque forms. Nodules and layers of flint are of frequent occurrence in the limestone.

      (2) Limestone is the only rock of Western Pal, with the exception of some local outpourings of basaltic rock and with the further exception of a light-brown, porous, partly calcareous sandstone, which is found at intervals along the coast. This last is a superficial deposit of Quaternary or recent age, and is of aeolian origin. That is, it consists of dune sands which have solidified under the in- fluence of atmospheric agencies. This is very ex- ceptional, nearly all stratified rocks having origi- nated as beds of sand or mud in the bottom of the sea.

      (3) In Sinai, Edom, Moab, Lebanon and Anti- Lebanon is found the Nubian sandstone, a silicious sandstone which, at least in the N., is of middle or lower Cretaceous age. In the S., the lower strata of this formation seem to be paleozoic. Most of it is not sufficiently coherent to make good building stone, though some of its strata are very firm and are even used for millstones. In some places it is so incoherent or friable that it is easily dug with the pick, the grains falling apart and forming sand that can be used in mortar. In color the Nubian sand- stone is on the whole dark reddish brown, but locally it shows great variation, from white through yellow and red to black. In places it also has tints of blue. The celebrated rock tombs and temples of Petra are carved in this stone.

      (4) Extensive areas of the northern part of East- em Pal are covered with igneous rock. In the Jaulan S.E. of Mt. Hermon, this has been for ages exposed to the atmosphere and has formed super- ficially a rich dark soil. Further S.E. is the Leja' (Arab, "refuge"), a wild tract covered with a deposit of lava which is geologically recent, and which, while probably earlier than man, is still but little affected by the atmosphere. It is with difficulty traversed and frequently furnishes an asylum to outlaws. See Crag; Flint; Geology; Lime.

      Alfred Ely Day ROCK OF AGES. See Ages, Rock of; Isaiah, VII.

      ROCK-BADGER, r.-baj'er: This term is found in RVm for "coney," IS'ttJ, shdphdn (Lev 11 5; cf Dt 14 7; Ps 104 IS; Prov 30 26). It is a tr of klip das, the name given by the Boers to the Cape hyrax or coney. See Coney.

      _ ^ROD (bp'O , makkel, f112^ , matteh, tsntp , shebhet; pdpSos, rhdbdos): Little distinction can be drawn between the Heb words used for "rod" and "staff." Makkel is the word used in Gen 30 37 ff for the twigs of poplar put by Jacob before his sheep, and in Jer 1 11 of the "rod of an almond-tree." Mat- teh is used of a rod in the hand, as the "rods" of Moses and of Aaron (Ex 4 2 ff; 7 9 IT, etc). Shebhet is used, but sometimes also matteh, of the rod used for correction (Ex 21 20; 2 S 7 14; Prov 10 13; 13 24; Isa 10 5, etc). In Ps 23 4 ("Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me"), how- ever, shebhet is the shepherd's rod, figurative of Divine guidance and care. In Ezk 21 10.13, the word stands for the royal scepter. In the NT "rod" is used of a rod of correction (1 Cor 4 21), Aaron's rod (He 9 4), a ruler's rod "of iron" (severity, as in Rev 2 27; 12 5; 19 15), a meas- uring rod (Rev 11 1). See also Armor, Arms.

      James Orr



      tLohe Romamti-Ezer

      RODANIM, rod'a-nim: The reading of MT in

      1 Ch 1 7 for the Dodanim (q.v.) of Gen 10 4, corresponding to the 'P65ioi, Rhodioi of LXX in both passages. The Rodanim are generally identi- fied as inhabitants of the island of Rhodes (q.v.), well known to the ancient Phoenicians (Homer's Iliad) .

      ROE, ro, ROEBUCK, ro'buk: AV has "roe" and "roebuck" for ^na, fhhl, TV'^'l , Q'hhlyah. RV usually substitutes "gazelle" in the text (Dt 12 15, etc) or m (Prov 6 5, etc), but retains "roe" in 2 S

      2 18; 1 Ch 12 8; Cant 3 5; 7 3. So RV has "ga- zelle" for AV "roe" in Sir 27 20 (dorkds). RV has

      Gazelle {Antilope dorcas).

      "roe-buck" for l^^an?, yahniur (Dt 14 5; 1 K 4 23), where AV has "fallow deer." In the opinion of the writer, bJ^5 , 'ayyal, EV "hart," should be tr'' "roe-buck," yakmur "fallow deer," and ffe/iJ "ga- zelle." See Deer; Gazelle. Alfred Ely Day

      ROGELIM, ro'gS-lim, r5-ge'lim (D^55'~l , rdgh'ltm; 'Pa)7e\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\e£(i, RhogeUelm) : The place whence came Barzillai the Gileadite to succor David in his flight from Absalom (2 S 17 27; 19 31). It probably lay near the path followed by David, but it is not identified.

      ROHGAH, ro'ga (K'thlbh njnlT, roMghah, Ri^re n3m , rohgah) : A name in the genealogy of Asher (1 Ch 7 34).

      ROIMUS, ro'i-mus ('Poeinos, Rhdeimos, A, 'Po- (ji^Xtos, Rhomelios) : One of the leaders with Zerubbabel in the return (1 Esd 5 8) = "Rehum" in Ezr 2 2, of which it is the Gr form = "Nehum" in Neh 7 7.

      ROLL, rol (SCROLL) : The usual form of book in Bib. times. It had been in use in Egypt for per- haps 2,000 years at the time when, according to the Pent, the earliest Bib. books were written in this form. The Bab tablet seems to have been the pre- vailing form in Pal up to about 1350 BC, but by 1100 BC, at least, the roll had been in established use for some time as far N. as Byblos. Two Heb words, gillayon, m'ghillah, one Aram., .fphar, and one Gr word, biblion, are so tr"" in AV. S'phar (Ezr 6 1, RV "archives," m "books"), with the corresponding Heb form .^epher, is the generic word for any whole work large or small, but as a book form (Isa 34 4) it may mean "roll," and, according to Blau (pp. 37, 45, etc), it never does mean anything else. Both the other words seem to be connected with galal, "roll," which is the technical term for open-

      ing or closing a book The 7n'gh,illath sepher (.Jer 36 2) means the unwritten roll, or the roll considered in its material form as contrasted with the work. M'ghillah, which is found in Ezr 6 2 (EV "roll"), Jer (often), Ezk (often) and Zec', is a somewhat late word, and came to mean a 'small roll (but w ith a com- plete work) as dis- tinguished from a book, corresponding thus to the modem distinction of pam- phlet and book or document and book The word gillayon \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^ tr* in RV as "tablet," and is universally re- garded as meaning (Isa 8 1) somesmooth surface, correspond- ing to the same word in Isa 3 23 which is rendered "hand- m irror." But "cylinder-seaF'would possibly fit the sense in both cases; this being hung round the neck as an ornament in one case and in- scribed with a per- Egyptian BoU and Case. sonal name in the other.

      Biblion is regarded by the Bible translators as equivalent to mfghillah in the sense of small roll. It is in fact 4 t in the LXX of Jer 36 used as the tr for m'ghillah, but very much oftener it is the tr for ^epher, for which in fact it is the correct techni- cal equivalent (Birt, Buchrolle, 21). Indeed the "small book" (Thayer, Lex., 101) is hardly con- sistent with the ideas of the heavens as a scroll, of the Lamb's Book of Life, or of the vast quantity of books of Jn 21 25, although in Lk 4 17 it may perhaps correspond closely with m'ghillah in the sense of a complete roll and work, which is at the same time a whole part of a larger work. Its use in Rev 6 14 is reminiscent of Isa 34 4 ("scroll"), and is conclusive for the roll form. It is indeed always technically a roll and never codex or tablet.

      It is not likely tliat Isaiaii and St. John (here and in his Gospel, 31 25) refer directly to the Bab idea that the heavens are a series of written tablets or to the rabbinic saying that "if all the oceans were ink, all reeds pens, the heavens and earth sheets to write upon, and all men writers, still it would not suffice for writing out the teach- ings of my Masters" (Blau, op. cit., 34). Nevertheless, the "whole Cosmos" does suggest "the heavens and earth" as sheets to write on, and under all there does perhaps lurk a conception of tlie broad expanse of heaven as a roll for writing upon.

      Literature. — Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst, Leip- zig, 1907; Jew Enc, XI, 12e-34, "Scroll of the Law"; Blau, Studien z. allhebr. Buehwesen. Strassburg, 1902, 37- 66, etc, and the literature under the art. "Writing," esp. G ardtliausen , 134-54.

      E. C. Richardson

      ROLLER, rol'er: AV and ERV in Ezk 30 21 for binn, hillill, "bandage" (so ARV). "Roller" was formerly a technical term in surgery for a wide bandage.

      ROLLING, rol'ing, THING: Isa 17 13, AV "like a rolling thing before the whirlwind," a non- committal tr of b5"?3, galgal, "revolving thing," "wheel" (Eccl 12 6)'. RV "like the whirling dust before the storm" is probably right. But see Chaff; Dust; Stubble.

      ROMAMTI-EZER, rO-mam-ti-e'zer, rS-mam-ti- e'zer ("IT^ inp/Q'"! , romamli 'ezer, "highest help"): Son of Heman,' appointed chief of the 24th division

      Roman, Romans Roman Empire



      of singers in David's time (1 Ch 26 4.31). See


      ROMAN, ro'man, ROMANS, ro'manz. See Rome, III, 2; Citizenship.

      ROMAN ARMY. See Army, Roman.


      I. Outline of the Romax Empire

      1. Roman Empire a Result of Social Conflict

      2. Coining of Monarciiy

      (1) ExLiaustion of Parties

      (2) Inability of Either Aristocracy or De- mocracy to Hold Equilibrium

      (3) Precedents

      (4) Withdrawal from Public Life: Individu- alism

      (5) Industrial C6) Military

      (7) Imperial Interests

      (8) Influence of Orient

      II. Preparation of the Roman Empire for Chris- tianity

      1. Pax Romana

      2. Cosmopolitanism

      3. Eclecticism

      4. Protection for Greek Culture

      5. Linguistically

      6. Materially

      7. Tolerance

      8. Pattern for a Universal Church

      9. Roman Jurisprudence 10. Negative Preparation

      III. Attitude of the Roman Empire to Religions

      1. Roman ReUgion

      2. Non-Roman Religions — religiones licitae and religiones illicitae

      (1) Judaism a religio licita

      (2) Why Christianity Was Alone Proscribed

      (3) Two Empires: Causes of Conflict

      (a) Confusion of Spiritual and Temporal

      {b) Unique Claims of Christianity

      ic) Christianity the Newest Religion in

      the Empire {d) Intolerance and E.xclusiveness of the Christian Religion and Christian So- ciety (e) Obstinalio

      (/) Aggressiveness against Pagan Faith (g) Christianos ad leones: Public Calami- ties {h) Odium generis humani

      (4) The Roman Empire Not the Only Disturb- ing Factor

      IV. Relations between the Roman Empire .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\nd Christianity

      1. Beginning of Christianity till Death of Nero, 68 AD

      2. Flavian Period, 68-96 AD

      3. The Antonine Period. 96-192 AD

      4. Changing Dynasties, 192-284 AD

      5. Diocletian till First General Edict of Tolera- tion, 284-311 AD

      6. First Edict of Toleration till Extinction of Western Empire, 311-478 AD

      V. Victory of Christianity

      1. Negative Causes

      2. Positive Causes Literature

      /. Outline of Roman Empire. — The founding of the Rom empire was the grandest political achieve- ment ever accomplished. The con- 1. Roman quests of Alexander the Great, Charle- Empire a magne and Napoleon seem small com- Result pared with the durable structure

      reared by Julius and his successor, Augustus. In one sense Julius Caesar — the most wonderful man that Rome or any other country produced — was the founder of the empire, and Augustus the founder of the principate. But the Rom empire was the culmination of a long process of political, constitutional, and social growth which gives a lasting interest to Rom history. The Rom empire was the only possible solution of a 700 years' struggle, and Rom history is the story of the conflict of class with, patrician against ple- beian, populus against plebs, the antagonism of oli- garchy and democracy, plutocracy against neglected masses. It is the account of the triumphant march

      of democracy and popular government against an exclusive governing caste. Against heavy odds the plebeians asserted their rights till they secured at least a measure of social, political and legal equality with their superiors (see Rome, I, 2-4). But in the long conflict both parties degenerated until neither militant democracy nor despotic oligarchy could hold the balance with justice. Democracy had won in the uphill fight, but lost itself and was obliged to accept a common master with aristoc- racy. It was of no small importance for Christian- ity that the Rom empire — practically synonymous with the orbis ierrarum — had been converging both from internal and external causes toward a one- man government, the political counterpart of a universal religion with one God and Saviour.

      (1) Julius Caesar. — For a couple of generations politi- cal leaders had foreseen the coming of supreme power and had tried to grasp it. But it was Julius Caesar who best succeeded in exploiting democracy for his own aggran- dizement. He proved the potent factor of the first triumvirate (60 EC); his consulship (59) was truly kingly. In 49 BC he crossed the Rubicon and declared war upon his country, but in the same year was ap- pointed Dictator and thus made his enemies the enemies of his country. He vanquished the Pompeians — sena- torial and republican — at Pharsaha in 48 BC, Thapsus in 46 BC, and Munda in 45 BO. Between 46 and the Ides of March 44 no emperor before Diocletian was more imperial. He was recognized officially as "demigod": temples were dedicated to his " clemency . " He en- couraged the people to abdicate to him their privileges of self-government and right of election, became chief {-princeps) of the senate and high priest {pontifex maxi- mus), so that he could manipulate even the will of the gods to his own purposes. His plans were equally great and beneficent. He saw the necessity of blending the heterogeneous populations into one people and extend- ing Rom citizenship. His outlook was larger and more favorable to the coming of Christianity than that of his successor. Augustus. The latter learned from the fate of Caesar that he had advanced too rapidly along the imperial path. It taught Augustus caution.

      (2) Augustus. — Octavian (Augustus) proved the po- tent factor of the second triumvirate. The field of Actium on September 2, 31 BC, decided the fate of the old Rom repubhc. The commonwealth sank in ex- haustion after the protracted civil and internecine strife. It was a case of the survival of the fittest. It was a great crisis in human history, and a great man was at hand for the occasion. Octavian realized that su- preme power was the only possible solution. On his return to Rome he began to do over again what Caesar had done — gather into his own hands the reins of gov- ernment. He succeeded with more caution and shrewd- ness, and became the founder of the Rom empire, which formally began on January 16, 27 BC, and was signalized by the bestowal of the title Augustus (q.v.). Under repubhcan forms he ruled as emperor, controlling legis- lation, administration and the armies. His policy was on the whole adhered to by the Julio-Claudian line, the last of which was Nero (d. 68 AD).

      (3) Flavian Dynasty. — In 68 AD a new "secret of empire" was discovered, viz. that the principate was not hereditary in one line and that emperors could be

      nominated by the armies. After the bloody civil wars of 68, "the year of the four emperors, Vespasian founded the lid Dynasty, and djmastic succession was

      for the present again adopted. With the Flavians begins a new epoch in Rom history of pronounced importance for Christianity. The exclusive Rom ideas are on the wane. Vespasian was of plebeian and Sabine rank and thus non-Rom, the first of many non-Rom emperors. His ideas were provincial rather than Rom, and favor- able to the amalgamation of classes, and the leveling process now steadily setting in. Though he accepted the Augustan "diarchy," he began to curtail tlie powers of the senate. His son Titus died young (79-81). Domi- tian's reign marks a new epoch in imperialism: his autocratic spirit stands half-way between the Augustan principate and the absolute monarchy of Diocletian. Domitian, the last of the "twelve Caesars" (Suetonius), was assassinated September 18. 96 AD. The soldiers amid civil war had elected the last dynasty. This time the senate asserted itself and nominated a brief series of emperors — on the whole the best that wore the purple.

      (4) Adoptive or Antonine emperors. — The Antonine is another distinct era marked by humane government, recognition of the rights of the provinces and an enlarge- ment of the ideas of universahsm. Under Trajan the empire was extended: a series of frontier blockades was estabUshed — a confession that Rome could advance no farther. Under Hadrian a policy of retreat began; henceforth Rome is never again on the aggressive but always on the defensive against restless barbarians. Unmistakable signs of weakness and decay set in under



      Roman, Romans Roman Empire

      Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Tliis, tiie best and liappiest period of Rom imperiai government, was tlie be- ginning of thie end. In ttiis era we detect a growing cen- tralization of autliority; the senate practicaiiy becomes a tool of tiie emperor. A distinct civil service was estab- lished which culminated in bureaucracy under Hadrian.

      (5) Changing dynasties, 19S-28/f AD. — On the death Of Commodus. whose reign 180-93 AD stands by itself , the empire was put up for sale by the soldiery and knocked down to the highest bidder. The military basis of the empire was emphasized — which was indeed essential in this period of barbaric aggressiveness to postpone the fall of the empire until its providential mission was ac- complished. A rapid succession of rulers follows, almost each new ruler bringing a new dynasty. Those dis- integrating forces set in which developed so rapidly from the reign of Diocletian. The pax Romana had passed: civil commotion accentuated the dangers from invading barbarians. Plague and famine di^populated rich prov- inces. Rome itself drops into the background and the provincial spirit assorts itself proportionally. The year 212 AD is memorable for the edict of Caracalla converting aU the free population into Rom citizens.

      (6) From Diocletian till partition. — In the ne.xt period absolute monarchy of pure oriental type was established by Diocletian, one of the ablest of Rom rulers. He inaugurated the principle of division and subdivision of imperial power. The inevitable separation of East and West, with the growing prominence of the East, becomes apparent. Rome and Italy are reduced to the rank of provinces, and new courts are opened by the two Augusti and two Caesars. Diocletian's division of power led to civil strife, until Constantine once more united the whole empire under his sway. The center of gravity now shifted from West to East by the foundation of Con- stantinople. The empire was again parceled out to the sons of Constantine, one of whom, Constantius, suc- ceeded in again reuniting it (,350 AD). In 364 it was again divided, Valentiniau receiving the West and Valens the East.

      (7) Final partition. — On the death of Theodosius I (395), West and East fell to his sons Honorius and Arca- dius, never again to be united. The western half rapidly degenerated before barbaric hordes and weakling rulers. The western provinces and Africa were overrun by con- quering barbarians who set up independent kingdoms on Rom soil. Burgundians and Visigoths settled in Gaul; the latter established a kingdom in Spain. The Vandals under Genseric settled first in Southern Spain, then crossed to Africa and reduced it. Goths burst over Rom frontiers, settled in Illyria and invaded Italy. Alaric and his Goths spared Rome in 408 for a ransom; in 409 he appeared again and set up Attains as king of the Romans, and finally in 410 he captured and sacked the city. It was again' sacked by the Vandals under Gen- seric in 462, and, lastly, fell before Odoacer and his Germans in 476; he announced to the world that the empire of the West had ceased. The empire of the East continued at Constantinople the greatest political power through a chequered history down to the capture of the city in 1214 and its final capture by the Turks in 14,53, when its spiritual and intellectual treasures were opened to western lands and proved of untold blessing in prepar- ing the way for the Reformation of the 18th cent. The East conquered the West intellectually and spiritually. In the East was bom the religion of humanity.

      (1) Exhaustion of parties. — The Rom world had for two generations been steadily drifting toward monarchy.

      and at least one generation before the om- 2 Comine P'™ ^^^ ^^* "P clear minds saw the inevi- n( l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/rr.T> table necessity of one-man government or

      01 lYlon- supreme power, and each political leader

      archy made it his ambition to grasp it. The

      civil wars ceased for a century with tlie death of Antony. But the struggles of Tiberius Gracchus and Scipio Aemihanus, Caius Gracchus and Opimius, Drusus and PhiUppus, Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, and lastly Octavian and Antony had exhausted the state, and this exhaustion of political parties opened the way for monarchy. In fact it was a necessity for the welfare of the commonwealth that one should be elevated who could fairly hold the balance between oligarchy and the commons and duly recognize the claims of all parties. Even Cato Uticensis — the incarnation of republican ideas — admitted it would be better to choose a master than wait for a tyrant. The bloody wars could find no solution except the survival of the fittest. Moreover, the free political institutions of Rome had become use- less and could no longer work under the armed oppression of factions. If any form of government, only supreme power would prove effectual amid an enfeebled, un- popular senate, corrupt and idle commons, and ambi- tious individuals.

      (2) Inability of either aristocracy or democracy to hold equilibrium. — Events had proved that a narrow exclu- sive aristocracy was incapable of good government because of its utterly selfish policy and disregard for the rights of all lower orders. It had learned to burke liberty by political murders. Neither was the hetero- geneous population of later Rome disciplined to obey or to initiate just government when it had seized power. This anarchy within the body politic opened an easy way to usurpation by individuals. No republic and no form

      of free popular government could live under such con- ditions. Caesar said of the republic that it was " a name without any substance," and Curio declared it to be a "vain chimera," The law courts shared in the general corruption. The judiria became the bone of contention between the senate and the Icnights as the best instru- ment for party interests, and enabled the holders (a) to receive large bribes, (6) to protect their own order when guilty of the most flagrant injustice, and (c) to oppress other orders. Justice for all, and esp. for conquered peoples, was impossible. Elective assemblies refused to perform their proper functions because of extravagant bribery or the presence of candidates in arms. In fact, the people were willing to forego the prerogative of election and accept candidates at the nomination of a despotic authority. The whole people had become in- capable of self-government and were willing — almost glad — to be relieved of the necessity.

      (3) Precedents. — Besides, precedents for one-man government, or the concentration of supreme power in one hand, were not wanting, and had been rapidly mul- tiplying in Rom history as it drew nearer to the end of the republic. Numerous protracted commands and special commissions had accustomed the state to the novelty of obedience without participation in admin- istration. The 7 consulships of Marius, the 4 of Cinna, the 3 extraordinary commi.ssions of Pompey and his sole consulship, the dictatorship of Sulla without time limit, the two 5-year-period military commands of Caesar, his repeated dictatorships the last of which was to ex- tend for 10 years — all these were pointing directly toward Caesarism.

      (4) Withdrawal from public life: individualism. — On another side tlie way was opened to supreme power by the increasing tendency for some of the noblest and best minds to withdraw from public life to the seclusion of the heart life and thus leave the field open for dema- gogic ambition. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, philosophy abandoned the civic, political or city- state point of view and became moral and individual. Stoicism adopted the lofty spirituai teachings of Plato and combined thom with the idea of the brotherhood of humanity. It also preached that man must work out his salvation, not in public political life, but in the secret agonies of his own soul. This religion took hold of the noblest Rom souls who were conscious of the weariness of life and felt the desire for spiritual fellowship and com- fort. The pendulum in human systems of thought gen- erally swings to the opposite extreme, and these serious souls abandoned public life for private speculation and meditation. Those who did remain at the helm of affairs — like the younger Cato — were often too much idealists, living in the past or in an ideal Platonic repub- lic, and proved very unequal to the practical dema- gogues who lived much in the present with a keen eye to the future. Also a considerable number of the mod- erate party, who in better days would have furnished leaders to the state, disgusted with the universal cor- ruption, saddened by the liopeless state of social strife and disquieted by uncertainty as to the issue of victory for either contending party, held aloof and must have wished for and welcomed a paramount authority to give stability to social life. Monarchy was in the air, as proved by the sentiments of tlie two pseudo-Sallustian letters, the author of which calls upon Caesar to restore government and reorganize the state, for if Rome perish the whole world must perish with her.

      (.5) Industrial. — To another considerable class mon- archy must have been welcome — the industrial and middle class who were striving for competence and were engaged in trade and commerce. Civil wars and the strife of parties must have greatly hindered their activity. They cast thoir lot neither with the optimates nor with the idle commonalty. They desired only a stable con- dition of government under which they could uninter- ruptedl.v carry on their trades.

      (6) Military. — Military conditions favored supreme power. Not only had the lengthened commands famil- iarized the general with his legions and given him time to seduce tlie soldiery to his own cause, but the soldiery too had been petted and spoiled like the spoon-fed populace. The old repubhcan safeguards against am- bition had been removed. The ranks of the armies had also been swollen with large numbers of provincials and non-Romans who had no special sentiment about repub- lican forms. We have seen the military power growing more and more prominent. The only way of averting a military despotism supported and prompted by tlie soldiers was to set up a monarchy, holding all the military, legislative and administrative functions of the state in due proportion. This was superior to a merely nominal repubUc always cringing under fear of military leaders.

      (7) Imperial interests. — Lastly, the aggression and conquests of the republic had brought about a state of afl'airs demanding an empire. The East and the West had been subdued; many provinces and heterogeneous populations were living under the Rom eagle. These provinces could not permanently be plundered and oppressed as under the repul^lican senate. Tlie jus ciiiile of Rome must learn also the jus naturale and jus gen- tium. An exclusive selfish senatorial clique was inca- pable of doing justice to the conquered peoples. One supreme ruler over all classes raised above personal



      ambition could best meet their grievances. Tlie senate had ruled with a rod of iron: the provinces could not possibly bo worse under any form of government. Be- sides, monarchy was more congenial to the provincials than a republic wliich they could not comprehend.

      (8) Influence of Orient. — The Orientals had long been used to living under imperial and absolute forms of government and would welcome such a form among their new conquerors. Besides, residence in the Orient had affected Rom military leaders with the thirst after absolute power. And no other form was possible when the old city-state system broke down, and as yet federal government had not been dreamed of. Another con- sideration: the vast and dissimilar masses of population living within the Rom dominions could more easily be held together under a king or emperor than by a series of ever-changing administrations, just as the Austro- Hungarian and the British empires are probably held together better under the present monarchies than would be possible under a republican system. This survey may make clear the permanent interest in Rom history for all students of human history. The Rom empire was estabUshed indeed in the fulness of the times for its citizens and for Christianity.

      //. Preparation of the Roman Empire for Chris- tianity. — About the middle of the reign of Augustus a Jewish child was bom who was destined to rule an empire more extensive and lasting than that of the Caesars. It is a striking fact that almost synchronous with the planting of the Rom empire Christianity appeared in the world. Although on a superficial glance the Rom empii'e may seem the greatest enemy of early Christianit}', and at times a bitter persecutor, yet it was in many ways the grandest preparation and in some ways the best ally of Christianity. It ushered in politically the fulness of the times. The Caesars — whatever they may have been or done — prepared the way of the Lord. A brief account must here be given of some of the services which the Rom empire rendered to humanity and esp. to the kingdom of God.

      The first universal blessing conferred by the

      empire was the famous pax Romana ("Rom peace").

      The world had not been at peace since

      1. Pax the days of Alexander the Great. The Romana quarrels of the Diadochi, and the ag- and Unifi- gression of the Rom republic had kept cation of the nations in a state of constant tur- the World moil. A universal peace was first

      established with the beginning of the reign of Augustus and the closing of the temple of Janus. In all the countries round the Mediter- ranean and from distant Britain to the Euphrates the world was at rest. Rome had made an end of her own civil wars and had put a stop to wars among the nations. Though her wars were often iniquitous and unjustifiable, and she conquered like a barbarian, she ruled her conquests like a humane statesman. The quarrels of the Diadochi which caused so much turmoil in the East were ended, the territory of the Lagids, Attalids, Seleucids and Antigonids having passed under the sway of Rome. The empire united Greeks, Romans and Jews all under one government. Rome thus blended the nations and prepared them for Christianity. Now for the first time we may speak of the world as uni- versal humanity, the orhis terrarum, ij oiKoviiiv-r), he oikoumene (Lk 2 1), the getius humanum. These terms represented humanity as living under a uni- form .system of government. All were members of one earthly state; the Rom empire was their com- munis omnium patria.

      This state of alTairs contributed largely to the

      spread of cosmopolitanism which had set in with

      the Macedonian conqueror. Under the

      2. Cosmo- Rom empire all national barriers were politanism removed; the great cities — Rome, Alex- andria, Antioch, etc — became meeting- places of all races and languages. The Romans were everywhere carrying their laws and civilization; Greeks settled in thousands at all important centers as professors, merchants, physicians, or acrobats;

      Orientals were to be found in large numbers with their gods and mysteries in Rome, "the epitome of the world." In the Rom armies soldiers from all quarters of the empire became companions. And many thousands of slaves of fine education and high culture contributed much to cosmopolitanism. Being in many cases far superior in culture to their masters, they became their teachers. And in every city of importance. East or West, large bodies of the Jewish Diaspora were settled.

      This cosmopolitanism gave great impetus to a corresponding eclecticism of thought. Nothing could have been more favorable to 3. Eclec- Christianity than this intermixture of ticism all races and mutual exchange of

      thought. Each people discovered how much it had in common with its neighbors. From the days of the Diadochi, Stoicism had been preaching the gospel of a civic and ethical brother- hood of humanity. In the fusion of different philo- sophic systems the emphasis had shifted from the city-state or political or national to the moral and human point of view. All men were thus reduced to equality before the One; only virtue and vice were the differentiating factors. Men were akin with the Divine — at least the wise and good — so that one poet could say, "We are His offspring."

      Stoicism did a noble service in preparation for Chris- tianity by preaching universalism along the path of indi- vidualism. It also furnished comfort and strength to countless thousands of weary hiunan lives and min- istered spiritual support and calm resignation at many a heathen deathbed. It may be declared to be the first system of reUgious thought — for it was a rehgion more than a philosophy — which made a serious study of the diseases of the human soul. We know of com-se its weakness and imperfections, that it was an aristocratic creed appealing only to the elect of mortals, that it had little message for the fallen and lower classes, that it "was cold and stem, that it lacked — as Seneca felt — the in- spiration of an ideal Ufe. But with aU its failiu"es it proved a worthy pedagogue to a rehgion which brought a larger message than that of Greece. It afforded the spiritual and moral counterpart to the larger human so- ciety of which the Rom empire was the poUtical and visible symbol. Hitherto a good citizen had been a good man. Now a good man is a good citizen, and that not of a narrow city-state, but of the world. Stoicism also proved the interpreter and mouthpiece to the Rom empire of the higher moral and spiritual quaUties of Gr civiUzation: it diffused the best convictions of Greece about God and man. selecting those elements that were imiversal and of lasting hiunau value (see Stoics).

      The mind of the Rom empire was further pre- pared for Christianity by the Jewish Diaspora. Greeks learned from Jews and Jews from Greeks and the Romans from both. The unification effected by Rom Law and administration greatly aided the Diaspora. Jewish settlements became still more numerous and powerful both in the East and West. Those Jews bringing from the homeland the spiritual monotheism of their race combined it with Gr philosophy which had been setting steadily for monotheism. With the Jews the exclusively national element was subordinated to the more human and universal, the ceremonial to the reli- gious. They even adopted the world-language of that day — Greek — and had their sacred Scriptures tr"' into this language in which they carried on an active proselytism. The Rom spirit was at first essentially narrow and exclusive. But even the Romans soon fell beneath the spell of this cos- mopolitanism and eclecticism. As their conquests increased, their mind was correspondingly widened. They adopted the policy of Alexander — sparing the gods of the conquered and admitting them into the responsibility of guarding Rome; they assimilated them with their own Pantheon or identified them with Rom gods. In this way naturally the religious ideas of conquered races more highly civilized than the conquerors laid hold on Rom minds (see Dis- persion).



      Another inestimable service rendered to human- ity and Christianity was the protection which the Rom power afforded the Gr civilization.

      4. Protec- We must remember that the Romans tion for were at first only conquering barba- Greek rians who had little respect for culture, Culture but idealized power. Already they

      had wiped out two ancient and supe- rior civilizations — that of Carthage without leaving a trace, and that of Etruria, traces of which have been discovered in modern times. It is hard to conceive what a scourge Rome would have proved to the world had she not fallen under the influence of the superior culture and philosophy of Greece. Had the Rom Mars not been educated by Pallas Athene the Romans would have proved Vandals and Tartars in blotting out civilization and arrest- ing human progress. The Greeks, on the other hand, could conquer more by their preeminence in everything that pertains to the intellectual lite of man than they could hold by the sword. A prac- tical and political power was needed to protect Gr speculation. But the Romans after causing much devastation were gradually educated and civilized and have contributed to the uplifting and enlight- enment of subsequent civilizations by both preserv- ing and opening to the world the spiritual qualities of Greece. The kinship of man with the Divine, learned from Socrates and Plato, went forth on its wide evangel. This Gr civilization, philosophy and theology trained many of the great theologians and leaders of the Christian church, so that Clement of Alexandria said that Gr philosophy and Jewish law had proved schoolmasters to bring the world to Christ. Paul, who prevented Christianity from remaining a Jewish sect and proclaimed its uni- versalism, learned much from Gr — esp. from Stoic — thought. It is also significant that the early Chris- tian missionaries apparently went only where the Gr language was known, which was the case in all centers of Rom administration.

      The state of the Rom empire linguistically was

      in the highest degree favorable to the spread of

      Christianity. The Gr republics by

      5. Linguis- their enterprise, superior genius and tically commercial abilities extended their

      dialects over the Aegean Islands, the coasts of Asia Minor, Sicily and Magna Graecia. The preeminence of Attic culture and literature favored by the short-lived Athenian empire raised this dialect to a standard among the Gr peoples. But the other dialects long persisted. Out of this babel of Gr dialects there finally arose a normal koine or "common language." By the conquests of Alexander and the Hellenistic sympathies of the Diadochi this common Gr language became the lingua franca of antiquity. Gr was known in North- ern India, at the Parthian court, and on the distant shores of the Euxine (Black Sea). The native land of the gospel was surrounded on all sides by Gr civilization. Gr culture and language penetrated into the midst of the obstinate home-keeping Pales- tinian Jews. Though Gr was not the mother- tongue of Our Lord, He understood Gr and appar- ently could speak it when occasion required — Aram, being the language of His heart and of His public teachings. The history of the Maocabean struggle affords ample evidence of the extent to which Gr culture, and with it the Gr language, were familiar to the Jews. There were in later days Hellenistic bodies of devout Jews in Jerus itself. Gr was recog- nized by the Jews as the universal language: the inscription on the wall of the outer temple court forbidding Gentiles under pain of death to enter was in Gr. The koine became the language even of religion — where a foreign tongue is least likely to be used— of the large Jewish Diaspora. They

      perceived the advantages of Gr as the language of commerce — the Jews' occupation — of culture and of proselytizing. They threw open their sacred Scriptures in the LXX and other VSS to the Gr- Rom world, adapting the tr in many respects to the requirements of Gr readers. "The Bible whose God was Yahiueh was the Bible of one people: the Bible whose God was loipios [kurios, "Lord"] was the Bible of humanity." When the Romans came upon the scene, they found this language so widely known and so deeply rooted they could not hope to sup- plant it. Indeed they did not try — except in Sicily and Magna Graecia — to suppress Gr, but rather gladly accepted it as the one common means of intercourse among the peoples of their eastern dominions (see Langitage op the NT) .

      Though Latin was of course the official language of the conquerors, the decrees of governors gener- ally appeared with a Gr tr, so that they might be "understanded of the people," and Gr overcame Lat, as English drove out the French of the Norman invaders. Lat poets and historians more than once complained that Graecia capla ferum viclorem cepit ("conquered Greece vanquished its stern con- queror"). With the spread of Lat there were two world-languages side by side for the whole Rom empire, but Gr was prevailingly the language of the eastern half of the Rom empire which was the first soil for Christian churches and the first half of the empire to be Christianized. Later when Chris- tianity was able to extend her activity to the West, she found Lat ready as the common means of inter- course. That Rome respected Gr is greatly to her credit and much to the advantage of Christianity. For Christianity, when it began to aim at univer- saltsm, dropped its native Aramaic. The gospel in order to become a world-evangel was tr"^ into Gr. The early Christian missionaries did not learn the languages or patois of the Rom empire, but con- fined themselves to centers of Gr culture. Paul wrote in Gr to the church in Rome itself, of which Gr was the language. And while Christianity was spreading through the Gr East under the unifica- tion of Rom administration, the Romans were Romanizing and leveling the West for Lat Chris- tianity (see Latin). In the West it may be noted that the first foothold of the Christian religion was in Gr — witness the church in Gaul.

      In material ways too Rome opened the way for Christianity by building the great highways for the

      gospel. The great system of roads 6. Mate- that knit the then civilized world rially together served not only the legions

      and the imperial escorts, but were of equal service to the early missionaries, and when churches began to spring up over the empire, these roads greatly facilitated that church organization and brotherhood which strengthened the church to overcome the empire. With the dawn of the pax Romana all these roads became alive once more with a galaxy of caravans and traders. Commerce revived and was carried on under circumstances more favorable than any that obtained till the past century. Men exchanged not only material things, but also spiritual things. Many of these early traders and artisans were Christians, and while they bought and sold the things that perish, they did not lose an opportunity of spreading the gospel. For an empire which embraced the Mediterranean shores, the sea was an important means of inter- communication; and the Mediterranean routes were safer for commerce and travel at that period than during any previous one. Pompey the Great had driven the pirates off the sea, and with the fall of Sextus Pompey no hostile maritime forces re- mained. The ships which phed in countless num- bers from point to point of this great inland sea



      offered splendid advantages and opportunity for early Christian missionary enthusiasm.

      The large measure of freedom permitted by Rom

      authorities to the religions of all nations greatly

      favored the growth of infant Chris-

      7. Toler- tianity. The Rom empire was never ance in principle a persecutor with a per- manent court of inquisition. Strange

      cults from the East and Egypt flourished in the capital, and except when they became a danger to public morality or to the peace of society they were allowed to spread unchecked under the eyes of the police. See below on non-Rom religions.

      Further, the Rom empire afforded Christianity a material and outward symbol for its spiritual am- bition. It enlarged the vision of the

      8. Pattern church. Only a citizen (Paul) of such for a Uni- a world-empire could dream of a reli- versal gion for all humanity. If the Rom Church sword could so conquer and unify the

      orhis terrarum,, the militant church should be provoked to attempt nothing less in the religious sphere. It also furnished many a sug- gestion to the early organizers of the new com- munity, until the Christian church became the spiritual counterpart of the Rom empire. The Christians appropriated many a weapon from the arsenal of the enemy and learned from them ag- gressiveness, the value of thorough organization and of military methods.

      Rom law in its origins was cliaracterized by tlie nar- rowest exclusiveness, and the first formal Rom code was on Gr patterns, yet the Romans here as in

      9. Roman ^o many other respects improved upon x • what they had borrowed and became mas- jurispru- ^pj,g qj jm-ispnidence in the antique world. dence As their empire and conceptions expanded,

      they remodeled their laws to embrace all their subjects. One of tlie greatest boons conferred by Rome upon the antique world was a uniform system of good laws — the source of much of our European juris- prudence. The Rom law played an equally important role with the Jewish in molding and disciplining for Christianity. It taught men to obey and to respect authority, and proved an eiTective leveling and civilizing power in the empire. The universal law of Rome was the pedagogue for the universal law of the gospel. See Roman Law.

      The Romans could offer their subjects good laws,

      uniform government and military protection, but

      not a satisfactory religion. A univer-

      10. Nega- sal empire called for a universal re- tive F^ep- ligion, which Christianity alone could aration offer. Finally, not only by what Rome

      had accomplished but by what she proved incapable of accomplishing, the way of the Lord was made ready and a people prepared for His coming. It was a terrible crisis in the civilization and religion of antiquity. The old national reli- gions and systems of belief had proved unable to soothe the increasing imperious moral and spiritual demands of man's nature. A moral bankruptcy was immanent. The old Rom religion of abstract virtues had gone down in formalism; it was too cold for human hearts. Man could no longer find the field of his moral activity in the religion of the state; he was no longer merely an atom in society performing religious rites, not for his own soul, but for the good of the commonwealth. Personality had been slowly emerging, and the new schools of philosophy called man away from the state to seek peace with God in the .solitude of his own soul first of all. But even the best of these schools found the crying need of a positive, not a negative religion, the need for a perfect ideal life as a dynamic over ordinary human lives. Thus was felt an imperious demand for a new revelation, for a vision or knowledge of God. In earlier days men had be- lieved that God had revealed Himself to primitive wise men or heroes of their race, and that subsequent

      generations must accept with faith what these earlier seers, who stood nearer God, as Cicero said, had been pleased to teach of the Divine. But soon this stock of knowledge became exhausted. Plato, after soaring to the highest point of poetic and phil- osophic thought about the Divine, admitted the need of a demon or superman to tell us the secrets of eternity. With the early Rom empire began a period of tremendous religious unrest. Men tried philosophy, magic, astrology, foreign rites, to find a sure place of rest. This accounts for the rapid and extensive diffusion of oriental mysteries which promised to the initiated communion with God here, a "better hope" in death, and satisfied the craving for immortality beyond time. These were the more serious souls who would gladly accept the conso- lations of Jesus. Others, losing all faith in any form of religion, gave themselves up to blank despair and accepted Epicureanism with its gospel of anni- hilation and its carpe diem morals. This system had a terrible fascination for those who had lost themselves; it is presented in its most attractive form in the verses of Lucretius — the Omar Khay- yam of Lat literature. Others again, unable to find God, surrendered themselves to cheerless skepticism. The sore need of the new gospel of life and immortality will be borne in upon the mind of those who read the Gr and Rom sepulchral inscrip- tions. And even Seneca, who was almost a Chris- tian in some respects, speaks of immortality as a "beautiful dream" (helium somniuvi), though tribu- lation later gave a clearer vision of the "city of God." Servius Sulpieius, writing to Cicero a letter of con- solation on the death of his much-missed Tullia, had only a sad "if" to offer about the future (Cic. Fam. iv.5). Nowhere does the unbelief and pes- simism of pre-Christian days among the higher classes strike one more forcibly than in the famous discussion recorded by Sallust {Bel. Cat. li f) as to the punishment of the CatiUnarian conspirators. Caesar, who held the Rom high-priesthood and the highest authority on the religion of the state, pro- poses life imprisonment, as death would only bring annihilation and rest to these villains — no hereafter, no reward or punishment {earn cuncta mortaliiim mala dissolvere; ultra neque ciirae neque gaudio locum esse) . Cato next speaks — the most religious man of his generation — in terms which cast no rebuke upon Caesar's Epicureanism and material- ism (ib, 52). Cicero {In Cat. iv.4) is content to leave immortality an open question. The phi- losophers of Athens mocked Paul on Mars' Hill when he spoke of a resurrection. Such was the attitude of the educated classes of the Gr-Rom world at the dawn of Christianity, though it cannot be denied that there was also a strong desire for continued existence. The other classes were either perfunctorily performing the rites of a dead national rehgion or were seeking, some, excitement or aesthetic worship or even scope for their baser passions, some, peace and promise for the future, in the eastern mysteries. The distinction between moral and physical evil was coming to the surface, and hence a consciousness of sin. Religion and ethics had not yet been united. "The throne of the human mind" was declared vacant, and Christianity was at hand as the best claimant. In fact, the Gr-Rom mind had been expanding to receive the pure teachings of Jesus.

      ///. Attitude of the Roman Empire to Religions, — The history of Rom religion reveals a continuous penetration of ItaUan, Etruscan, Gr, 1. Roman Egyp and oriental worship and rites, or State until the old Rom religion became Religion almost unrecognizable, and even the antiquarian learning of a Varro could scarcely discover the original meaning or use of








      SJ C


      ts w







      many Rom deities. The Rom elements or modes of worship progressively retreated until they and the foreign rites with which they were overlaid gave way before the might of Christianity. As Rome expanded, her religious demands increased. During the regal period Rom religion was that of a simple agricultural community. In the period between the Regifugium and the Second Punic War Rom religion became more complicated and the Rom Pantheon was largely increased by importations from Etruria, Latium and Magna Graecia. The mysterious rehgion of Etruria first impressed the Rom mind, and from this quarter probably came the Trinity of the Capitol (Jupiter, Juno, Minerva) previously introduced into Etruria from Gr sources, thus show- ing that the Romans were not the first in Italy to be influenced by the religion of Greece. New modes of worship, non-Rom in spirit, also came in from the Etruscans and foreign elements of Gr mythology. Latium also made its contribution, the worship of Diana coming from Aricia and also a Lat Jupiter. Two Lat cults penetrated even within the Rom pomoerium — that of Hercules and Castor, with deities of Gr origin. The Gr settlements in Soutli- ern Italy (Magna Graecia) were generous in their contributions and opened the way for the later invasion of Gr deities. The Sibylline Books were early imported from Cumae as sacred scriptures for the Romans. In 493 BC during a famine a temple was built to the Gr trinity Demeter, Dionysus, and Persephone, under the I^at names of Ceres, liber, and Libera — the beginning of distrust in the primi- tive Rom nuniina and of that practice, so oft re- peated in Rom history, of introducing new and foreign gods at periods of great distress. In 433 Apollo came from the same region. Mercury and Asclepius followed in 293 BC, and in 249 BC Dis and Proserpina were brought from Tarentum. Other non-Rom modes of approach to deity were introduced. Rome had been in this period very broad-minded in her policy of meeting the growing religious needs of her community, but she had not so far gone beyond Italy. A taste had also devel- oped for dramatic and more aesthetic forms of worship. The period of the Second Punic War was a crisis in Rom religious life, and the faith of the Romans waned before growing unbelief. Both the educated classes and the populace abandoned the old Rom religion, the former sank into skepticism, the latter into superstition; the former put phi- losophy in the place of religion, the latter the more sensuous cults of the Orient. The Romans went abroad again to borrow deities — this time to Greece, Asia and Egypt. Gr deities were introduced whole- sale, and readily assimilated to or identified with Rom deities (see Rome, III, 1). In 191 BC Hebe entered as Juventas, in 179 Artemis as Diana, in 138 Ares as Mars. But the home of religion— the Orient — proved more helpful. In 204 BC Cybele was introduced from Pessinus to Rome, known also as the Great Mother {magna mater) — a fatal and final blow to old Rom religion and an impetus to the wilder and more orgiastic cults and mysterious glamor which captivated the common mind. Bacchus with his gross immorality soon followed. Sulla introduced Ma from Phrygia as the counterpart of the Rom Bellona, and Egypt gave Isis. In the wars of Pompey against the pu-ates Mithra was brought to Rome— the greatest rival of Christianity. Religion now began to pass into the hands of politicians and at the close of the repub- lic was almost entirely in their hands. Worship degenerated into formalism, and formalism cul- minated in disuse. Under the empire philosophic systems continued still more to replace religion, and oriental rites spread apace. The religious re- vival of Augustus was an effort to breathe life into

      the dry bones. His plan was only partly religious, and partly political — to establish an imperial and popular religion of which he was the head and centering round his person. He discovered the necessity of an imperial religion. In the East kings had long before been regarded as divine by their subjects. Alexander the Great, like a wise politi- cian, intended to use this as one bond of union for his wide dominions. The same habit extended among the Diadochian kings, esp. in Egypt and Syria. When Augustus had brought peace to the world, the Orient was ready to hail him as a god. Out of this was evolved the cult of the reigning emperor and of Roma personified. This worship gave religious unity to the empire, while at the same time magnifying the emperor. But the effort was in vain : the old Rom religion was dead, and the spiritual- needs of the empire continued to be met more and more by philosophy and the mysteries which prom- ised immortality. The cult of the Genius of the emperor soon lost all reality. Vespasian himself on his deathbed jested at the idea of his becoming a god. The emperor-worship declined steadily, and in the 3d and 4th cents, oriental worships were supreme. The religion of the Rom empire soon became of that cosmopolitan and eclectic type so characteristic of the new era.

      The non-Rom religions were divided into reli- giones licilae ("licensed worships") and religiones

      illicitae ("unlicensed"). The Romans 2. Reli- at different times, on account of earth-

      giones li- quakes, pestilences, famine or military citae and disasters, introduced non-Rom cults religiones as means of appeasing the numina. illicitae This generally meant that the cults in

      question could be performed with impunity by their foreign adherents. It legalized the collegia necessary for these worships from which Rom citizens were by law excluded. But, generally speaking, any people settling at Rome was permitted the liberty of its own native worship in so far as the exercise of it did not interfere with the peace of the state or corrupt the morals of society. On one occasion (186 BC), by a decree of the senate, a severe inquisition was instituted against the Baccha- nalian rites which had caused flagrant immorality among the adherents. But Rome was never a sys- tematic persecutor. These foreign rites and super- stitions, though often forbidden and their professed adherents driven from the city, always returned stronger than ever. Rom citizens soon discovered the fascination of oriental and Gr mysteries, and devoted themselves to foreign gods while maintain- ing the necessary formalism toward the religion of the state. Very often too Rom citizens would be presidents of these religious brotherhoods. It should not be forgotten that the original moral elements had fallen out of Rom religion, and that it had be- come simply a political and military religion for the welfare of the state, not for the salvation of the individual. The individual must conform to cer- tain prescribed rites in order to avert, calamity from the state. This done, the state demanded no more, and left him a large measure of freedom in seeking excitement or aesthetic pleasure in the warm and more social foreign mysteries. Thus, while the Romans retained the distinction of religiones licilae and illicitae, they seldom used severity against the latter. Many unlicensed cults were never dis- turbed. In fact, the very idea of empire rendered toleration of non-Rom religions a necessity. Prac- tically, though not theoretically, the empire aban- doned the idea of religiones illicitae, while it retained it upon the statute-book to use in case of such an emergency as the Christian rehgion involved. Not only the government was tolerant, but the differ- ent varieties of religions were tolerant and on good



      terms with each other. The same man might be initiated into the mysteries of half a dozen divinities. The same man might even be priest of two or more gods. Some had not the shghtest objection to wor- shipping Christ along with Mithra, Isis and Adonis. Men were growing conscious of the oneness of the Divine, and credited their neighbors with worship- ping the One l^nknoT\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Ti under different names and forms. Hadrian is said to have meditated the erection of temples throughout the empire to the UnknoT\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Ti God.

      (1) Judaism a "religio licita." — An interesting and, for the history of Christianity, important ex- ample of a religio licita is Judaism. No more ex- clusive and obstinate people could have been found upon whom to bestow the favor. Yet from the days of Julius Caesar the imperial policy toward the Jew and his religion was uniformly favorable, with the brief exception of the mad attempt of Gains. The government often protected them against the hatred of the populace. Up to 70 AD they were allowed freely to send their yearly contribution to the temple; they were even allowed self-governing privileges and legislative powers among themselves, and thus formed an exclusive community in the midst of Rom societj\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Even the disastrous war of 6S-70 AD and the fall of Jerus did not bring persecution upon the Jew, though most of these self-governing and self-legislating powers were with- drawn and the Jews were compelled to pay a poll- tax to the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter. Still their religion remained licensed, tolerated, protected. They were excused from duties impossible for their rehgion, such as mihtary service. This tolerance of the Jewish reUgion was of incalculable importance to infant Christianity which at first professed to be no more than a reformed and expanded Judaism.

      (2) Why Christianity alone was proscribed. — The question next arises: If such was the universally mild and tolerant policy of the empire to find room for all gods and cults, and to respect the beliefs of all the subject peoples, how comes the anomaly that Christianity alone was proscribed and persecuted? Christianity was indeed a religio illicila, not having been accepted by the government as a religio licita, like Judaism. But this is no answer. There were other unhcensed religions which grew apace in the empire. Neither was it simply because Christian- ity was aggressive and given to proselytism and dared to appear even in the imperial household: Mithraism and Isism were militant and aggressive, and yet were tolerated. Nor was it simply because of popular hatred, for the Christian was not hated above the Jew. Other reasons must explain the anomaly.

      (3) Two empires: cause of conflict. — The fact was that two empires were born about the same time so like and yet so unlike as to render a conflict and struggle to the death inevitable. The Chris- tians were unequivocal in asserting that the society for which they were waiting and laboring was a "kingdom."

      (a) Confusion of spiritual and temporal: They thought not merely in national or racial but in ecumenical terms. The Romans could not under- stand a kingdom of God upon earth, but confused Christian ambition with political. It was soon discovered that Christianity came not to save but to destroy and disintegrate the empire. Early Christian enthusiasm made the term "kingdom very provoking to pagan patriotism, for many, looking for the Parousia of their Lord, were them- selves misled into thinking of the new society as a kingdom soon to be set up upon the earth with Christ as king. Gradually, of course. Christians became enlightened upon this point, but the harm had been done. Both the Rom empire and Chi'is-

      tianity were aiming at a social organization to em- brace the genus humanum. But though these two empires were so alike in several points and the one had done so much to prepare the way for the other, yet the contrast too great to allow conciliation. Christianity would not lose the atom in the mass; it aimed at universalism along the path of indi- vidualism — giving new value to human personahty. (6) I'nique claims of Christianity: It seemed also to provoke Rom pride by its absurd claims. It preached that the world was to be destroyed by fire to make way for new heavens and a new earth, that the Eternal City (Rome) was doomed to fall, that a king would come from heaven whom Christians were to obey, that amid the coming desolations the Christians should remain tranquil.

      (c) Novelty of Christianity: Again after Chris- tianity came from underneath the aegis of Judaism, it must have taken the government somewhat by surprise as a new and unlicensed religion which had grown strong under a misnomer. It was the newest and latest religion of the empire; it came suddenly, as it were, upon the stage with no past. It was not apparent to the Rom mind that Christianity had been spreading for a generation under the tolerance granted to Judaism {sub iimbraculo licitae Judaeo- rum religionis: Tert.), the latter of which was "protected by its antiquity," as Tacitus said. The Romans were of a conservative nature and disliked innovations. The gi'eatest statesman of the Augus- tan era, Maecenas, advised the emperor to extend no tolerance to neiv religions as subversive of mon- archy (Dio Cassius lii.36). A new faith appearing suddenly with a large clientele might be dangerous to the public peace {muUitudo ingens: Tac. Ann. XV.44; iroXi) TrXijffos: Clem. Rom.; Cor 1 6).

      (d) Intolerance and exclusiveness of Christian religion and society : In one marked way Christians contravened the tolerant eclective spirit of the empire — the intoler- ance and absoluteness of their reUgion and the exclusive- ness of their society. All other religions of the empire admitted compromise and eclecticism, were willing to dwell rather on the points of contact with their neiglibors than on the contrast. But Christianity admitted no compromise, was intolerant to all other systems. It must be admitted that in this way it was ratlier unfair to other cults which offered comfort and spiritual support to thousands of the human race before the dawn of Christianity. But we shaU not blame, when we recog- nize that for its own life and mission it was necessary to show itself at first intolerant. ]Many heathen would gladly accept Christ along with Mitlira and Isis and Serapis. But Christianity demanded complete sepa- ration. The Jesus cult could tolerate no rival : it claimed to be absolute, and worshippers of Jesus must be separate from the world. The Christian churcli was absolute in its demands; would not rank witli, but above, all wor- ships. This spirit was of course at enmity with that of the day wliich enabled rival cults to co-exist with the greatest indifference. Add to this the exclusive state of Christian society. No pious heathen wlio had purified his soul by asceticism and the sacraments of antiquity could be admitted into memljership unless he renouuced things dear to him and of some spiritual value. In every detail of pubhc life tliis exclusive spirit made itself felt. Christians met at night and held secret assembhes in which they were reputed to perpetrate the most scandalous crimes. Thyestean banquets, Oedipean incest, child murder, were among the charges provoked by their exclusiveness.

      (e) Ohsiinatio: Add to tliis also the suUen obstinacy with which Cliristians met the demands of imperial power — a feature very offensive to Kom governors. Their religion would be left them imdistm-bed if they would only render formal obedience to the religion of the state. Rom clemency and respect for law were baffled before Christian obstinacy. Tlie martyr's courage ap- peared as sheer fanaticism. The pious Aurehus refers but once to Christianity, and in tlae words i^Utj Traparaf ts, p&ilt^ pardtaxis, " slieer oiistinacy," and Aristides appar- ently refers to Cliristianity as au9a6eia, authddeia, "stubbornness." See Pekseoutions, 18.

      (/) Aggressiveness against pagan faith: But the Christians were not content with an uncompromising withdrawal from the practices of heathen worship: they also actively assailed the pagan cultus. To the Christians they became doctrines of demons.



      The imperial cult and worship of the Genius of the emperor were very unholy in their sight. Hence they fell under the charges of disloyalty to the em- peror and might be proved guilty of majeslas. They held in contempt the doctrine that the greatness of Ronie was due to her reverence for the gods; the Christians were atheists from the pagan point of view. And as religion was a political concern for the welfare of the state, atheism was likely to call down the wrath of divinity to the subversion of the state.

      (.g) Christianas ad leones: Very soon when dis- asters began to fall thickly upon the Rom empire, the blame was laid upon the Christians. In early days Rome had often sought to appease the gods by


      introducing external cults; at other times oriental cults were expelled in the interests of public morality. Now in times of disaster Christians became the scape- goats. If famine, drought, pestilence, earthquake or any other public calamity threatened, the cry was raised "the Christians to the lions" (see Nero; Persecutions, 12). This view of Christianity as subversive of the empire survived the fall of Rome before Alaric. The heathen forgot — as the apologists showed — that Rome had been visited by the greatest calamities before the Christian era and that the Christians were the most self-sacrificing in periods of public distress, lending succor to pagan and Christian alike.

      (A) Odium generis humani: All prejudices against Christianity were summed up in odium generis humani, "hatred for the human race" or society, which was reciprocated by "hatred of the human race toward them." The Christians were bitterly hated, not only by the populace, but by the upper educated classes. Most of the early adherents belonged to the slave, freedman and artisan classes, "not many wise, not many noble." Few were Rom citizens. We have mentioned the crimes which popular prejudice attributed to this hated sect. They were in mockery styled Christiani by the Antioohians (a name which they at^ first re- sented), and Nazarenes by the Jews. No nicknames were too vile to attach to them — Asinarii (the sect that worshipped the ass's head), Sarmenlicii or Semaxii. Rom WTiters cannot find epithets strong enough. Tacitus reckons the Christian faith among the "atrocious and abominable things" {atrocia aui -pudenda) which flooded Rome, and further designates it superstitio exitiabilis ("bane- ful superstition," Ann. xv.44), Suetonius {Ner. 16) as novel and malefic {novae ac maleficae), and the gentle Pliny {Ep. 97) as vile and indecent (prava immodica). Well might Justus say the Christians were "hated and reviled by the whole human race." This opprobrium was accentuated by the attacks of philosophy upon Christianity. AVhen the atten-

      tion of philosophers was drawn to the new religion, it was only to scorn it. This attitude of heathen philosophy is best understood in reading Celsus and the Christian apologists.

      (4) The Rojnan empire not the only disturbing factor. — Philosophy long maintained its aloofness from the religion of a crucified Galilean: the "wise" were the last to enter the kingdom of God. When later Christianity had established itself as a perma- nent force in human thought, philosophy deigned to consider its claims. But it was too late; the new faith was already on the offensive. Philosophy discovered its own weakness and began to reform itself by aiming at being both a philosophy and a religion. This is particularly the case in nco- Platonism (in Plotinus) in which reason breaks down before revelation and mysticism. Another force disturbing the peace of the Christian church was the enemy within the fold. Large numbers of heathen had entered the ecclesia bringing with them their oriental or Gr ideas, just as Jewish Christians brought their Judaism with them. This led to grave heresies, each system of thought distorting in its own way the orthodox faith. Later another ally joined the forces against Christianity — reformed paganism led by an injured priesthood. At first the cause of Christianity was greatly aided by the fact that there was no exclusive and jealous priest- hood at the head of the Gr-Rom religion, as in the Jewish and oriental religions. There was thus no dogma and no class interested in maintaining a dogma. Religious persecution is invariably insti- tuted by the priesthood, but in the Rom world it was not till late in the day when the temples and sacrifices were falling into desuetude that we find a priesthood as a body in opposition. Thus the Rom imperial power stood not alone in antagonism to Christianity, but was abetted and often pro- voked to action by (a) popular hate, (6) philosophy, (c) pagan priesthood, (d) heresies within the church.

      IV, Relations between the Roman Empire and Christianity. — We have here to explain how the attitude of the Rom empire, at first friendly or in- different, developed into one of fierce conflict, the different stages in the policy — if we can speak of any uniform policy — of the Rom government toward Christianity, the charges or mode of pro- cedure on which Christians were condemned, and when and how the profession of Christianity {nomen ipsum) became a crime. We shall see the Rom empire progressively weakening and Chris- tianity gaining ground. For the sake of clearness we shall divide the Rom empire into six periods, the first from the commencement of the Christian era till the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

      At first the presence of the Christian faith was unknown to Rom authorities. It appeared first merely as a reformed and more spirit- 1. Begin- ual Judaism; its earliest preachers ning of and adherents alike never dreamed of

      Christianity severing from the synagogue. Chris- till Death tians were only another of the Jewish of Nero, sects to which a Jew might belong 68 AD while adhering to Mosaism and Juda-

      ism. But soon this friendly relation became strained on account of the expanding views of some of the Christian preachers, and from the introduction of gentile proselytes. The first per- secutions for the infant church came entirely from exclusive Judaism, and it was the Jews who first accused Christians before the Rom courts. Even so, the Rom government not only refused to turn persecutor, but even protected the new faith both against Jewish accusations and against the violence of the populace (Acts 21 31 f). And the Christian missionaries — esp. Paul — soon recognized in the Rom empire an ally and a power for good. Writing



      to the Romans Paul counsels them to submit in obedience to the powers that be, as "ordained of God." His favorable impression must have been greatly enhanced by his mild captivity at Rome and his acquittal by Nero on the first trial. The Rom soldiers had come to his rescue in Jerus to save his life from the fanaticism of his own coreligionists. Toward the accusations of the Jews against their rivals the Romans were either indifferent, as Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, who "cared for none of those things" (Acts 18 12 ff), or recognized the innocence of the accused, as did both Felix (Acts 24 Iff) and Porcius Festus (25 14 ff). Thus the Romans persisted in looking upon Christians as a sect of the Jews. But the Jews took another step in formulating a charge of disloyalty (begun before Pilate) against the new sect as acting "contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is an- other king, one Jesus" (Acts 17 7; cf 25 8). Chris- tianity was disowned thus early by Judaism and cast upon its own resources. The increasing num- bers of Christians would confirm to the Rom govern- ment the independence of Christianity. And the trial of a Rom citizen, Paul, at Rome would further enlighten the authorities.

      The first heathen persecution of Christianity resulted from no definite policy, no apprehension of danger to the body politic, and no definite charges, but from an accidental spark which kindled the con- flagration of Rome (July, 64 AD). Up to this time no emperor had taken much notice of Christianity. It was only in the middle of the reign of Augustus that Jesus was born. In the reign of Tiberius belong Jesus' public ministry, crucifixion and resur- rection; but his reign closed too early (37 AD) to allow any prominence to the new faith, though this emperor was credited with proposing to the senate a decree to receive Christ into the Rom pantheon — - legend of course. LTnder the brief principate of the mad Gaius (.37-41 AD) the "new way" was not yet divorced from the parent faith. Gaius caused a diversion in favor of the Christians by his perse- cution of the Jews and the command to set up his own statue in the temple. In the next reign (Claudius, 41-54 AD) the Jews were again harshly treated, and thousands were banished from Rome (Jiidaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuanles Roma expulit: Suet. Claud. 25). Some would see in this an action against the Christians by inter- preting the words as meaning riots between Jews and Christians, in consequence of which some Chris- tians were banished as Jews, but Dio Cassius (lx.6) implies that it was a police regulation to restrain the spread of Jewish worship. It was in the reign of Nero, after the fire of 64 AD, that the first hostile step was taken by the government against the Christians, earhest account of which is given by Tacitus (Ann. xv.44). Nero's reckless career had given rise to the rumor that he was the incen- diary, that he wished to see the old city burned in order to rebuild it on more magnificent plans. See Nero. Though he did everything possible to arrest the flames, even exposing his own life, took every means of alleviating the destitution of the sufferers, and ordered such religious rites as might appease the wrath of the gods, the suspicion still clung to him.

      "Accordingly in order to dissipate tlie rumor, lie put forward as guilty [subdidit reos] and inflicted the most cruel punishments on those who were hated for their abominations [flaoitia] and called Christians by the populace. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius, and the baneful superstition lexitiabilis superstitio] put down for the time being brolve out again, not only throughout Judaea, the home of this evil, but also in the City [Rome] where aU atrocious and shameful [atrocia aut pudenda] things converge and are welcomed. Those therefore who confessed [i.e. to being Ohristiansl were first arrested, and then by the information gained

      from them a large number [muUitudo ingens] were impli- cated [coiiiuncti is the iVIS reading, not conuicti], not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for hatred of manlcind [odio humani generis]. The victims perished amid mockery [text here uncertain]; some clothed in the slcins of wild beasts were torn to pieces by dogs; others impaled on crosses in order to be set on fire to

      afford light by night after daylight had died

      Whence [after these cruelties] commiseration began to be felt for them, though guilty and deserving the sever- est penalties ]quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos], for men felt their destruction was not from considerations of pubhc welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one person [Nero]."

      This passage — the earliest classical account of the crucifi.xion and the only mention of Pilate in a heathen autlior — offers some difficulties which require to be glanced at. It is held by some that Tacitus contradicts himself by writing subdidit reos at the beginning and sontes at the end, but sontes does not mean guilty of in- cendiarism, but guilty from the point of view of the populace and deserving severe punishment for other sup- posed flagitia. not for arson. It is thus quite clear that Tacitus regards the Christians as innocent, though he had not the slightest kindly feeling toward them. Qui fniebantur means most naturally, "those who confessed to being Cliristians." thougii Arnold argues that confiteri or profiteri would i)e the correct word for professing a religion. But this would contradict both the sense and the other evidences of the context; for it fatebantur could mean "confessed to arson," then the whole body of Christians should have been arrested, and, further, this woidd have diverted suspicion from Nero, which was not the case according to Tacitus. Some Christians boldly asserted their religion, others no doubt, as in Bitliynia, recanted before tribulation. By indicia eorum Ramsay (Christianity iti the Rom Empire. 233) understands "on the information elicited at their trial," i.e. from information gathered by the inquisitors in the course of the proceedings. Tills incidental information implicated a large number of others, hence Ramsay prefers the MS reading coniuncti to the correction con- u icti. This is in order to explain the difficulty seemingly raised, viz. tliat the noblest Christians who boldly con- fessed their Christianity woidd seek to implicate brethren. But it is not impossible that some of these bold spirits did condescend to give the names of their coreligionists to the Rom courts. Hence Hardy (Christianity and the Rom Government. 67) prefers the more usual rendering of indicia eorum as "on information received from them." This may have occurred either (1) through torture, or (2) for promised immunity, or (3) on account of local jealousies. The early Christian communities were not perfect; party strife often ran higli as at Corinth. And in a church like that of Rome composed of Je^vish and pagan elements and undoubtedly more cosmopolitan than Corinth, a bitter sectarian spirit is easy to under- stand. This as a probable explanation is much strength- ened and rendered almost certain by the words of Clement of Rome, who, writing to the church at Corinth (ch vi) from Rome only a generation after the persecution, and thus famihar with the internal history of the Rom ecclesia. twice asserts that a ttoAu ■n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\rj6o<; (polu pUthos =Tac. multitudo ingens) of the Rom Christians suffered 5ta CiAo5 (did zHos). "through jealousy or strife." The most natural and obvious meaning is "mutual or sec- tarian jealousy." But those who do not like this fact explain it as "by the jealousy of the Jews." Nothing is more easily refuted, for had it been the jealousy of the Jews Clement would not have hesitated one moment to say so. Those who are familiar with the Christian literature of that age know that the Christians were none too sensitive toward Jewish feelings. But the very fact that it was not the Jews made Clement rather modestly omit details the memory of which was prob- ably still bearing fruit, even in his day. Once more correpti, usually rendered "arrested," Is taken by Hardy as "put upon their trial." He argues that this is more in accord with Tacitean usage. A "huge multitude" need not cause us to distrust Tacitus. It is a relative term; it was a considerable number to be so inhumanly butchered. There is some hesitation as to whether odio humani generis is objective or subjective genitive: "hatred of the Christians toward the human race" or "hatred of the human race toward the Christians." Grammatically of course it may be either, but that it is the former there can be no doubt: it was of the nature of a charge against Cliristians (Ramsay). See Perse- cution.

      Some have impugned the veracity of Tacitus in this very important passage, asserting that he had read bacl£ the feelings and state of affairs of his own day (half a centiu'y later) into this early Neronian period. This early appearance of Cliristianity as a distinct religion and its "huge multitude" seem impossible to some. Schiller has accordingly suggested that it was the Jews who as a body at Rome were persecuted, tliat the Chris- tians being not yet distinct from .lews shared in the per- secutions and suffered, not as Christians, but as Jews. But Tacitus is too trustworthy a historian to be guilty of such a confusion; besides, as' proconsul in Asia he must have been more or less familiar with the origin of the Ctiristian party. Also Poppaea was at this time mis-



      tress ol Nero's affections and sufficiently influential witli him to stay sucli a cruel persecution against tliose to wliom she had a leaning and who claimed her as a proselyte. Again, the Jewish faith was certe licita and a recognized worslilp of the empire.

      The next question is, Why were the Christians alone selected for persecution? That they were so singled out we know, but exactly for what reason is hard to say with certainty. A number of reasons no doubt contributed. (1) Farrar {Early Days, ch iv) sees "in the proselytism of Poppaea, guided by Jewish malice, the only adequate explanation of the first Christian persecution," and Lightfoot is of the same opinion, but this by itself is inade- quate, though the Jews would be glad of an oppor- tunity of taking revenge on their aggressive oppo- nents. (2) Christians had abeady become in the eyes of the Rom authorities a distinct sect, either from the reports of the eastern provincial governors, where Christianity was making most headwa}^ or from the attention attracted by Paul's first trial. They were thus the newest religious sect, and as such would serve as victims to appease deity and the populace. (3) Even if ingens multitudo be rhetorical, the Christians were no doubt consid- erably numerous in Rome. Their aggressiveness and active proseljrtism made their numbers even more formidable. (4) They were uncompromising in their expression of their beliefs; they looked for a consummation of the earth by fire and were also eagerly expecting the Parousia of their king to reconstitute society. These tenets together with their calm faith amid the despair of others would easily cast suspicion upon them. (5) For whatever reason, they had earned the opprobrium of the populace. "The hatred for the Jews passed over to hatred for the Christians" (Mommsen). A people whom the populace so detested must have fallen under the surveillance of the city police ad- ministration. (6) A large proportion of the Chris- tian community at Rome would be non-Rom and so deserve no recognition of Rom privileges. These reasons together may or may not explain the singUng-out of the Christians. At any rate they were chosen as scapegoats to serve Nero and his minion Tigellinus. The origin of the first perse- cution was thus purely accidental — in order to remove suspicion from Nero. It was not owing to any already formulated policy, neither through apprehension of any danger to the state, nor because the Christians were gudty of any crimes, though it gave an opportunity of investigation and accumu- lation of evidence. But accidental as this perse- cution was in origin, its consequences were of far- reaching importance. There are three principal views as to the date of the pohcy of proscription of the new faith by the Rom government: (1) the old view that persecution for the name, i.e. for the mere prof ession of Christianity, began under Trajan in 112 AD — a view now almost universally aban- doned; (2) that of Ramsay {Christianily in the Bom Empire, 242 ff, and three arts, in Expos, 189.3), who holds that this development from punishment for definite crimes (flagitia) to proscription "for the name" took place between 68 and 96 AD, and (3) that of Hardy {Christianity and the Rom Govern- ment, 77), Mommsen {Expos, 1893, 1-7) and Sanday (ib, 1894, 406 ff)— and adopted by the writer of this article— that the trial of the Christians under Nero resulted in the declaration of the mere pro- fession of Christianity as a crime punishable by death. Tacitus apparently represents the perse- cution of the Christians as accidental and isolated and of brief duration (I.e.), while Suetonius {Ner. 16) mentions the punishment of Christians in a list of permanent police regulations for the maintenance of good order, into which it would be inconsistent to introduce an isolated case of procedure against

      the "baneful superstition" (Ramsay, op. cit., p. 230). But these two accounts are not contradictory, Tacitus giving the initial stage and Suetonius "a brief statement of the permanent administrative principle into which Nero's action ultimately re- solved itself" (ib, 232). Nero's police adminis- tration, then, pursued as a permanent policy what was begun merely to avert suspicion from Nero. But as yet, according to Ramsay, Christians were not condemned as Christians, but on account of certain flagitia attaching to the profession and because the Rom police authorities had learned enough about the Christians to regard them as hostile to society. A trial still must be held and condemnation pronounced "in respect not of the name but of serious offences naturally connected with the name," viz. first incendiarism, which broke down, and secondly hostility to civihzed society and charges of magic. The others agree so far with Ramsay as describing the first stages, but assert that odium humani generis was not of the nature of a definite charge, but disaffection to the social and political arrangements of the empire. At the outset a trial was needed, but soon as a consequence the trial could be dispensed with, the Christians being "recognized as a society whose principle might be summarized as odium generis humani." A trial became unnecessary; the religion itself in- volved the crimes, and as a religion it was hence- forth proscribed. The surveillance over them and their punishment was left to the police administra- tion which could step in at any time with severe measures or remain remiss, according as exigencies demanded. Christianity was henceforth a religio illicita. The Rom government was never a sys- tematic persecutor. The persecution or non-per- secution of Christianity depended henceforth on the mood of the reigning emperor, the character of his administration, the activity of provincial governors, the state of popular feeling against the new faith, and other local circumstances. There is no early evidence that the Neronian persecution extended beyond Rome, though of course the "example set by the emperor necessarily guided the action of all Rom officials." The stormy close of Nero's reign and the tumultuous days till the accession of Ves- pasian created a diversion in favor of Christianity. Orosius {Hist, vii.7) is too late an authority for a general persecution {per omnes provincias pari per- secutione excruciari imperavit; ipsum nomen ex- stirpare conaius . . . .). Besides, Paul after his acquittal seems to have prosecuted his missionary activity without any extraordinary hindrances, till he came to Rome the second time. This Neronian persecution is important for the history of Chris- tianity: Nero commenced the principle of punish- ing Christians, and thus made a precedent for future rulers. Trouble first began in the world-capital; the next stage will be found in the East ; and another in Africa and the West. But as yet persecution was only local. Nero was the first of the Rom persecutors who, like Herod Agrippa, came to a miserable end — a fact much dwelt upon by Lac- tantius and other Christian writers.

      In the Flavian period no uniform imperial policy against Christianity can be discovered. According

      to Ramsay the Flavians developed the 2. The practice set by Nero from punishment

      Flavian of Christians for definite crimes to pro-

      Period, 68- scription of the name. But, as we have 96 AD seen, the Neronian persecution settled

      the future attitude of the Rom state toward the new faith. The Flavians could not avoid following the precedent set by Nero. Chris- tianity was spreading^esp. in the East and at Rome. We have no account of any persecution under Vespasian (though Hilary erroneously speaks



      of him as a persecutor along with Nero and Decius) and Titus, but it does not follow that none such took place. As the whole matter was left to the police administration, severity would be spasmodic and called forth by local circumstances. The fall of Jerus must have had profound influence both on Judaism and on Christianity. For the former it did what the fall of Rome under Goths, Vandals, and Germans did for the old Rom religion — it weak- ened the idea of a national God bound up with a political religion. The cleft between Judaism and its rival would now become greater. Christianity was reheved from the overpowering influence of a national center, and those Jews who now recog- nized the futihty of political dreams would more readily join the Christian faith. Not only the dis- tinction but the opposition and hostility would now be more apparent to outsiders, though Vespasian imposed the poll-tax on Jewish Christians and Jews alike. No memory of harshness against Chris- tianity under Vespasian has survived. Ramsay (op. cit., 257) would interpret a mutilated passage of Suetonius {Vesp. 15) as implying Vespasian's reluc- tance to carry out justa supplicia against Christians. Titus, "the darling of the human race," is not recorded as a persecutor, but his opinion of Judaism and Christianity as stated in the council of war before Jerus in 70 AD and recorded by Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii..30, 6) is interesting as an ap- proval of the policy adopted by Nero. Severus' authority is undoubtedly Tacitus (Bernays and Mommsen). The authenticity of the speech as contradicting the account of Jos has been im- pugned; at any rate it represents the point of view of Tacitus. Titus then advocates the destruction of the temple in order that the religion of the Jews and the Christians may be more thoroughly extir- pated {quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio toUerelur), since these religions though op- posed to each other were of the same origin, the Christians having sprung from the Jews. If the root was removed the stem would readily perish (rndice suhlata, stirpem facile perituram). We know, however, of no active measures of Titus against either party, his short reign perhaps allow- ing no time for such.

      It is Domitian who stands out prominently as the persecutor of this period, as Nero of the first period. His procedure against Christians was not an isolated act, but part of a general policy under which others suffered. His reign was a return to ancient principles. He attempted to reform morals, suppress luxury and vice, banish immoral oriental rites, actors, astrologers and philosophers. It was in his attempt to revive the national religion that he came in conflict with the universal religion. His own cousin, Flavius Clemens, was condemned apparently for Christianity (atheism), and his wife, Domitilla, was banished. The profession of Chris- tianity was not sufficient for the condemnation of Rom citizens of high standing; hence the charges of atheism or majestas were put forward. Refusal to comply with the religion of the national gods could be brought under the latter. But for ordi- nary Rom citizens and for provincials the profession of Christianity merited death. No definite edict or general proscription was enacted ; only the prin- ciple instituted by Nero was allowed to be carried out. There was, as Mommsen remarks, a standing proscription of ChrLstians as of brigands, but harsh procedure against both was spasmodic and dependecl on the caprice or character of provincial governors. Domitian took one definite step against Christianity in establishing an easy test by which to detect those who were Christians and so facilitate inquiries. This test was the demand to worship the Genius of the emperor. This too was only part of Domitian's

      general policy of asserting his own dominus et deus title and emphasizing the imperial cult as a bond of political union. The Apocalypse reflects the suffer- ings of the church in this reign.

      (1) Nerva and Trajan. — On the death of Domi- tian peace was restored to the Christian church

      which lasted throughout the brief reign 3. The of Nerva (96-98) and the first 13 years

      Antonine of Traj an. It is a curious fact that some Period, of the best of the Rom emperors

      96-192 AD (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius and

      Diocletian) were harsh to the Chris- tians, while some of the worst (as Commodus, Caracalla, Heliogabalus) left them in peace (see Pehsecution, 17). Christianity had been rapidly spreading in the interval of tranquillity. Pliny became governor of Bithynia in 111 AD and found, esp. in the eastern part of his province, the temples almost deserted. Some Christians were brought before him and on established precedents were ordered to be executed for their religion. But Pliny soon discovered that many of both sexes and all ages, provincials and Rom citizens, were involved. The Rom citizens he sent to Rome for trial; but being of a humane disposition he shrank from carrying out the wholesale execution required by a consistent policy.

      He wrote to Trajan teUing him what he had ah-eady done, rather covertly suggesting tolerant measures. Shouid no distinction be made between old and young ? Should pardon not be extended to those who recanted and worshipped the emperor's image and cursed Christ ? Should mere profession (nomen ipsum) be a capital offence if no crimes could be proven, or should the crimes rather be punished that were associated with the faith (an flagitia cohaerentia nomini) ? He then explains his procedure: he gave those who were accused an abundant opportunity of recanting; those who persisted in this faith were executed. He considered their "stubborn- ness and inflexible obstinacy" ipertinaciam certe et inflexihilem obsti nation em) as in itself deserving punish- ment. But the administration having once interfered found plenty to do. An anonymous hst of many names was handed in, most of whom, however, denied being Christians. Informers then put forward others who likewise denied belonging to the faith. PUny was convinced their meetings were harmless, and on exami- nation of two deaconesses tmder torture discovered nothing but a perverse extravagant superstition (sup. pravam immodicam). Trajan rephed that no universal and definite rule could be laid down, apparently confirm- ing the correctness of Pliny's action and perhaps dis- appointing Pliny in not yielding to his humane sugges- tions. Nevertheless, the emperor made three important concessions: (1) the Christians were not to tie sought out by the pohce authorities, hut if they were accused and con\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'icted they must be punished; (2) anonymous information against them was not to be accepted; (3) even those suspected of flag ilia in the past were to be pardoned on proving they were not Christians or on renouncing Christianity. Some regard this rescript of Trajan as the first official and legal authorization to proscribe Christianity; but we have already seen that Christianity as such was proscribed as a result of the Neronian investigations. Besides, there is not the shght- est trace of any new principle of severity, either in the letters of PUny or in the rescript of Trajan. The perse- cution of Christianity had been "permanent" like that of highwaj'men, but not systematic or general. Neither was Trajan's rescript an edict of toleration, though on the whole it was favorable to the Christians in minimizing the dangers to which they were exposed. The question was as yet purely one of administration.

      Trajan initiated no procedure against Christians — in fact rather discouraged any, asking his lieu- tenant to close his eyes to offenders — and Pliny con- sulted him in the hope of obtaining milder treatment for the Christians by putting in question form what he really wished to be approved. Trajan's rescript "marks the end of the old system of uncompro- mising hostility" (see Persecution, 15).

      (2) Hadrian.~The reign of Hadrian (117-38) was a period of toleration for the Christians. He was no bigot, but tolerant and eclective, inquiring into all religions and initiated into several mysteries and willing to leave religion an open question. In Asia, where Christianity was making most progress,



      a state of terrorism was imminent if delalores were encouraged against Christians making a profession of delatio (giving information). As we saw in the letter of Pliny, even non-Christians were accused, and any professing Christian could be threatened by these informers in order to secure a bribe for proceeding no farther. Licinius Silvanus Gra- nianus, lUce Pliny, found himself involved in diffi- culties and wrote to Hadrian for advice. Ha- drian's rescript in reply is addressed to Granianus' successor, Minucius Fundanus, the proconsul of Asia, about 124 AD. The genuineness of this im- portant document, though impugned by Overbeck, Keim and Lipsius, is vouched for by Mommsen, Hardy, Lightfoot and Ramsay. Indeed, it is much easier accounted for as authentic than as a forgery, for who but the broad-minded Hadrian could have written such a rescript? Apparently the questions put by the proconsul must have been of a similar nature to those extant of Pliny. The answer of Hadrian is a decided step in favor of Christianity and goes beyond that of Trajan: (1) information is not to be passed over (a) lest the innocent suffer (as was the case under Pliny), and (b) lest informers should make a trade of lodging accusations; (2) provincials accusing Christians must give proof that the accused have committed something illegal; (3) mere petitions and acclamations against the Christians are not to be admitted; (4) a prosecutor on failing to make good his case is to be punished. These terms would greatly increase the risk for informers and lessen the dangers for Christians. That the name is a crime is not admitted, neither is this established principle rescinded. It is quite possible that Hadrian's rescript "gave a certain stimulus toward the employment of the more definite and regular legal procedure."

      (3) Antoninus Pius (138-61). — The liberal policy of Trajan and Hadrian was continued by An- toninus, though persecution occurred in his reign in which Ptolemaeus and Lucius were executed at Rome and Polycarp at Smyrna. But he decidedly confirmed Hadrian's policy of protecting the Chris- tians uncondemned against mob violence in his letters to Larissae, Athens, Thessalonica and to "all the Hellenes." As at Smyrna, his "rescript was in advance of public feeling," and so was disregarded. Anonjrmous delation was also repressed.

      (4) Marcus Aurdius [16 ISO) .—VnAar Aurelius a strong reaction set in afi'ecting the Christians, caused partly by the frontier disasters and devastat- ing pestilence and partly by Aurelius' policy of returning to ancient principles and reviving the Rom national religion. In this reign we find per- secution extending to the West (Gaul) and to Africa — a step toward the general persecutions of the next century. Though no actual change was made by Aurelius, the leniency of the last three reigns is absent. No general edict or definite rescript of persecution was issued; the numerous martyrdoms recorded in this reign are partly due to the fuller accounts and the rise of a Christian litera- ture. Christianity in itself still constituted a crime, and the obstinacy (Tra/jdrafis, -parataxis) of Chris- tians in itself deserved punishment. _ Aurelius seems to have actually rebuked the severity of the Rom governor at Lugdunum, and to have further discouraged the trade of informers against Chris- tians. Tertullian actually styles him as debellator Christianorum ("protector of Christians"). We find as yet therefore no systematic or serious attempt to extirpate the new faith. The central govern- ment "was all this time without a permanent or steady policy toward the Christians. It had not yet made up its mind" (Hardy).

      Under the rule of Commodus (180-92) Christians again enjoyed a respite. The net result of the colhsions

      between tlic new faith and tlie government in tlii.s period is somewhat differently estimated by Ramsay and by Hardy. The latter thinks (Christianity and Rom Gov- ernment, 1.56 f) that Ramsay "has to some extent ante- dated the existence of anything like a policy of pro.scrip- tion," due to antedating tlie time when Christianity was regarded as a serious pohtical danger. Hardy thinks that the Christian organization was never suspected as more than an abstract danger during the first two cen- turies. Had Rome taken the view that Christianity In its organization was a real danger and an imperium in im-perio, she must have started a systematic extermi- nating policy during a period when Christianity could have least withstood it. When the empire did — as in the .'Jd cent. — apprehend the practical danger and took the severest general measures, Christianity was already too strong to be harmed, and we shall find the empire henceforth each time worsted and Anally offering terms.

      In the next period the insecurity of the throne, when in less than 100 years about a score of candi- dates wore the purple and almost 4. Chang- each new emperor began a new dynasty, ing Dy- enabled Christianity to spread prac-

      nasties, 192 tically untroubled. Further diver- -284 At) sions in its favor were created by those fierce barbarian wars and by the necessity of renewed vigilance at the frontier posts. The Christians' aloofness from political strife and their acquiescence in each new dynasty brought them generally into no collision with new rulers. Further, the fact that many of these emperors were non-Rom provincials, or foreigners who had no special attachment to the old Rom faith, and were eclectic in their religious views, was of much im- portance to the new eastern faith. Moreover, some of the emperors proved not only not hostile to Christianity, but positively friendly. In this period we find no severe (except perhaps that of Decius) and certainly no protracted persecution. The Christian church herself was organized on the principle of the imperial government, and made herself thus strong and united, so that when the storm did come she remained unshaken. In 202 Severus started a cruel persecution in Africa and Egypt, but peace was restored by the savage Cara- calla {lacte Christiana educatus: Tert.). HeUo- gabalus assisted Christianity indirectly (1) by the degradation of Rom religion, and (2) by tolerance. According to one writer he proposed to fuse Chris- tianity, Judaism and Samaritanism into one reli- gion. Alexander Severus was equally tolerant and syncretic, setting up in his private chapel images of Orpheus, ApoUonius, Abraham, and Christ, and engraving iihe golden rule on his palace walls and public buildings. He was even credited with the intention of erecting a temple to Christ. Local persecution broke out under Maximin the Thra- cian. The first general persecution was that of Decius, in which two features deserve notice: (1) that death was not the immediate result of Christian profession, but every means was employed to induce Christians to recant; (2) Rom authorities already cognizant of the dangers of Christian organization directed their efforts esp. against the officers of the church. Gallus continued this policj^, and Valerian, after first stopping persecution, tried to check the spread of the worship by banishing bishops and closing churches, and later enacted the death pen- alty. Gallienus promulgated what was virtually the first edict of toleration, forbade persecution and restored the Christian endowments. Chris- tianity now entered upon a period of 40 years' tranquillity: as outward dangers decreased, less desirable converts came within her gates and her adherents were overtaken in a flood of worldliness, stayed only by the persecution of Diocletian.

      LUie some other persecutors, Diocletian was one of the ablest Rom rulers. He was not disposed to proceed against the Christians, but was finally driven to harsh measures by his son-in-law Galerius. The first edict, February 24, 303, was not intended

      Roman Empire Roman Law



      to exterminate Christianity, but to check its growth

      and weaken its political influence, and was directed

      principally against Bibles, Christian

      5. Diocle- assemblies and churches. The second tian till was against church organization. A First Gen- third granted freedom to those who eral Edict recanted, but sought to compel the of Tolera- submission of recalcitrants by tortures tion, 284- — a partial confession of failure on 311 AD the part of the imperial government.

      Bloodshed was avoided and the death penalty omitted. But a fourth edict issued by Maximin prescribed the death penalty and required the act of sacrifice to the gods. In the same year (304) Diocletian, convinced of the uselessness of these measures, stayed the death penalty. The change of policy on the part of the emperor and his abdication next year were virtually a confession that the Galilean had conquered. After the persecu- tion had raged 8 years (or 10, if we include local persecutions after 311), Galerius, overtaken by a loathsome disease, issued from Nicomedia with Con- stantine and Licinius the first general edict of tolera- tion, April 30, 311. Christianity had thus in this period proved a state within a state; it was finally acknowledged as a religio licita, though not yet on equality with paganism.

      In the next period the first religious wars began,

      and Christianity was first placed on an equal footing

      with its rival, then above it, and

      6. First finally it became the state religion of General both West and East. As soon as Edict of Christianity had gained tolerance it Toleration immediately became an intolerant, till Fall of bitter persecutor, both of its old rival Western and of heresy. Constantine, having Empire, defeated Maxentius at the MUvian 311^76 AD Bridge (October 27, 312), became sole

      ruler of the West, and, in conjunction with his eastern colleague Licinius, i.ssued the famous edict of toleration from Milan, March 30, 313, by which all religions were granted equal tolerance, and Christianity was thus placed on an equal foot- ing with heathenism. Constantine's favors toward the Christian faith were largely political; he wished simply to be on the winning side. With each fresh success he inclined more toward Christianity, though his whole life was a compromise. His dream was to weld pagan and Christian into one society under the same laws; he in no way pro- hibited paganism. With the founding of Con- stantinople Christianity became practically the state religion — an alliance with baneful conse- quences for Christianity. It now began to stifle the liberty of conscience for which it had suffered so much, and orthodoxy began its long reign of intolerance. The sons of Constantine inherited their father's cruel nature with his nominal Chris- tianity. Constantine had left the old and the new religions on equal footing: his sons began the work of exterminating paganism by violence. Constan- tius when sole emperor, inheriting none of his father's compromise or caution, and prompted by women and bishops, published edicts demanding the closing of the temples and prohibiting sacrifices. Wise provincial administrators hesitated to carry out these premature measures. Christianity was now in the ascendancy and on the aggre.ssive. It not only persecuted paganism, but the dominant Chris- tian party proscribed its rival — this time hcterodo.xy banishing orthodoxy. The violence and intoler- ance of the sons of Constantine justified the mild reaction under Julian the Apostate — the most humane member of the Constantine family. He made a "romantic" effort to ree.stablish the old re- ligion, and while proclaiming tolerance for Chris- tianity, he endeavored to weaken it by heaping

      ridicule upon its doctrines, rescinding the privileges of the clerg}', prohibiting the church from receiving many bequests, removing Christians from public positions and forbidding the teaching of classics in Christian schools lest Christian tongues should become better fitted to meet heathen arguments, and lastly by adding renewed splendor to pagan service as a counter-attraction. But the moral power of Christianity triumphed. Dying on a battle-field, where he fought the Persians, he is said (but not on good authority) to have exclaimed, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean" {vevlKriKai Va\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\i- 'Koie, nenikekas Galilaie). For a brief period after his death there was religious neutrality. Gratian — at the instigation of Ambrose — departed from this neutrality, removed the statue of Victory from the senate-house, refused the title and robes of pontifex maximus, prohibited bloody sacrifices, and dealt a severe blow to the old faith by withdrawing some of the treasury grants, thereby making it dependent on the voluntary system. Theodosius I, or the Great, adopted a strenuous religious policy against both heresy and paganism. His intolerance must be attributed to Ambrose — a bigot in whose eyes Jews, heretics and pagans alike had no rights. Systematic proscription of paganism began. In 381 Theodosius denied the right of making a will to apostates from Christianity, in 383 the right of in- heritance, in 391 heathen public worship was inter- dicted, in 392 several acts of both private and pub- lic heathen worship were forbidden, and greater penalties were attached to the performance of sac- rifice. Christian vandalism became rampant; all kinds of violence and confiscation were resorted to, monks or priests often leading the populace. For the present the W^est did not suff'er so severely from fanatic iconoclasm. Under the sons of Theodosius the suppression of paganism was steadily pursued. Honorius in the West excluded (408 AD) pagans from civil and military offices; in a later edict (423) the very existence of paganism is doubted (paganos .... quamquam iam nullos esse credamus). That heathenism was still an attraction is proved by the repeated laws against apostasy. Under Valen- tinian III (423-55) and Theodosius II, laws were enacted for the destruction of temples or their con- version into Christian churches. In the western empire heathenism was persecuted till the end, and its final overthrow was hastened by the extinction of the western empire (476). In the East Justinian closed the heathen schools of philosophy at Athens (.529 AD), and in a despotic spirit prohibited even heathen worship in private under pain of death.

      V, Victory of Christianity and Conversion of the Roman Empire, — Christianity was now acknowl- edged as the religion of both East and West. It had also grown strong enough to convert the bar- barians who overran the West. It restrained and educated them under the lead of the papacy, so that its conquests now e.xtended beyond the Rom em- pire.

      Merivale (preface to Conversion of Rom Empire) attributes the conversion of ttie Rom empire to four causes: (1) tiie external evidence of apparent fulfliment of propiiecjr and the evidence of miracles, (2) internal evidence as satisfying the spiritual wants of the empire and offering a Redeemer, (3) the example of the pure lives and heroic deaths of the early Christians, ancf (4) the success which attended the Christian cause imder Constantine. Gibbon (ch xv of Decline and Fall) seeks to account for the phenomenal success of Christianity in the empire by (1) the zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians, (2) the belief of Christianity in immortality with both future rewards and future retributions, (3) miracles, (4) the high ethical code and pure morals of professing Christians, and (5) strong ecclesiastical organi- zation on imperial patterns. But neither of tliese lists of causes seems to account satisfactorily for the progress and success of the reUgion of Jesus.

      This was due in the first place to negative causes



      Roman Empire Roman Law

      —the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of the antique

      world, the internal rottenness and decay of heathen

      systems. All ancient national religions

      1. Negative had failed and were abandoned ahke Causes by philosophers and the masses, and

      no universal religion for humanity was offered except by Christianity. Worship had degenerated into pure formalism which brought no comfort to the heart. An imperious demand for revelation was felt which no philosophy or natural religion could satisfy.

      But it was to positive causes chiefly that the suc- cess of the new religion was due, among which were

      the zeal, enthusiasm, and moral ear-

      2. Positive nestness of the Christian faith. Its Causes sterling qualities were best shown in

      persecution and the heroic deaths of its adherents. Paganism, even with the alliance of the civil power and the prestige of its romantic past, could not withstand persecution. And when heathenism was thrown back on the voluntary system, it could not prosper as Christianity did with its ideals of self-sacrifice. The earnestness of early Christianity was raised to its highest power by its belief in a near second coming of the Lord and the end of the aeon. The means of propagation greatly helped the spread of Christianity, the prin- cipal means being the exemplary lives of its pro- fessors. It opposed moral and spiritual power to political. Besides, Christianity when once studied by the thinkers of the ancient world was found to be in accord with the highest principles of reason and Nature. But "the chief cause of its success was the congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of mankind" (Lecky). There was a deep- seated earnestness in a large section of the ancient world to whom Christianity offered the peace, com- fort and strength desired. It was possessed also of an immense advantage over all competing reli- gions of the Rom empire in being adapted to all classes and conditions and to all changes. There was nothing local or national about it; it gave the grandest expression to the contemporary ideal of brotherhood. Its respect for woman and its at- traction for this sex gained it many converts who brought honor to it; in this respect it was far superior to its greatest rival, Mithraism. In an age of vast social change and much social distress it appealed to the suffering by its active- self-denial for the happiness of others. As an ethical code it was equal and superior to the noblest contern- porary systems. One incalculable advantage it could show above all religions and philosophies — the charm and power of an ideal perfect life, in which the highest manhood was held forth as an incentive to nobler living. The person of Jesus was an ideal and moral dynamic for both philosopher and the common man, far above any abstract virtue. "It was because it was true to the moral sentiments of the age, because it represented faithfully the supreme type of excellence to which men were then tending, because it corresponded with their religious wants, aims and emotions, because the whole spiritual being could then expand and expatiate under its influence that it planted its roots so deeply in the hearts of men" (Lecky, Hist of European Morals, ch iii). Add to all this the favorable circunista,nces mentioned under "Preparation for Christianity," above (II), and we can understand how the Rom empire became the kingdom of Christ.

      Literature. — Ancient sources include Tacitus, Sue- tonius, Josepims, Pliny '.s Letters, x.97-98 (in Hardy s ed), Dlo Cassius (in Xiphllin), the apologists, Ctiurcn Fathers, Inscriptions, etc. • * ,i

      Modern sources are too numerous to mention in tun, but those most helpful to the student are: Gibbon Decline and Fall of the Rom Empire; MerxxaXe Hist of the Romans under the Empire; The Fall of the Rom Republic, 1856; Conversion of the Rom Empire. lSb5,

      Milman, Hist of Christianity; Hist of Lai Christianity; Ramsay, The Church in the Rom Empire; Expos. IV, Viii, pp. 8ff, 110 ir, 282 ft; E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Rom Government. 1894; D. Duff, The Early Church: a Hist of Christianity in the First Six Centuries. Edin- burgh, 1891; J. J. Blunt, A Hist of the Christian Church during the First Three Centuries, 18(31; Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity. 1907; Mommsen, " Der Religionsfrevel nach rom. Recht," in Hist. Zeit. 1890, LXIV (important); Provinces of the Rom Empire; Expos, 1893, pp. G ff; G. Boissier, La religion romaine d' Auguste aux Antonins; La fin du paganisme; Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Rtjmer; Gerb. Uhlhorn. Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, ET by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; B. Aube, Histoire des persecutions de I'eglise jusqu'A la fin des An- tonins. 187.5; Schaff, Hist of the Christian Church (with useful bibliographies of both ancient and modern authori- ties) ; Orr, Neglected Factors in Early Church Hist; Keim, Rom u. Christentum; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East. ET, London, 1910; Wendland, Die hellenistisch- rOmische Kultur^. 1912; F. Overbeck, " Gesetzo der rom. Kaiser gegen die Christen," in his Studien. 187.5; C. F. Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung; Stud. zuT Gesch. der Plinianischen Christenverfolgung; Westcott, "The Two Empires," in comm. to Epp. of St. John, 2.50-82; Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers; Lecky, Hist of European Morals, ch ill, "The Conversion of Rome."

      S. Angus ROMAN LAW:

      I. Roman Private Law

      1. The Twelve Tables

      2. Civil Procedure .3. Jus honorarium

      4. The praetor peregrinus

      5. Imperial Ordinances

      6. Golden Age of Juristic Literature

      7. Codification in the Later Empire II. Roman Criminal Law

      1. Jurisdiction in the Royal Period

      2. The Right of Appeal

      (1) Penalties

      (2) The Porcian Law

      3. Popular Jurisdiction Curtailed

      4. Jurors

      5. Disappearance of Criminal Courts

      6. Right of Trial at Rome Literature

      In the present art. we shall treat (I) Rom Private Law and (II) Criminal Law only, reserving a con- sideration of the development of the principles of constitutional law for the art. on Rome, since it is so closely interwoven with the political history of the state.

      It will be necessary to confine the discussion of private law to its external history, without attempting to deal with the substance of the law itself. In the treatment of criminal law attention will be directed chiefly to the constitutional guaranties which were intended to pro- tect Rom citizens against arbitrary and unjust punish- ments, these being one of the most important privileges of Rom citizenship (see Citizenship).

      Rom law found its original source in the family as a corporation. The proprietary rights of the paler familias as representative of this primitive unit of organization are a fundamental element in private law, and the scope of the criminal jurisdiction of the state was limited by the power of life and death which was exercised by the head of the family over those who were under his authority, by virtue of which their transgressions were tried before the domestic tribunal.

      It is likewise of fundamental importance to re- call the tact that before the earhest period in the history of Rom law of which we have positive in- formation, there must have been a time when a large number of different classes of crime were pun- ished by the priests as sacrilege, in accordance with divine law {fan), by putting the offender to death as a sacrifice to the offended deity, while restitution for private violence or injustice was left to private initiative to seek. For a law of the Twelve Tables that the person guilty of cutting another's grain by night should be hanged, as an offering to Ceres, is a survival of the older religious character of con- demnation to death, and the right to kill the noc- turnal thief and the adulterer caught in the act may be cited as survivals of primitive private ven-

      Roman Law



      geance. The secular conception of crime as an offence against the welfare of the state gradually superseded the older conception, while private law arose when the community did away with the dis- order incident to the exercise of self-help in attempt- ing to secure justice, by insLstiug that the parties to a disagreement should submit their claims to an arbitrator.

      /. Roman Private Law. — Rom private law was

      at first a body of unwritten usages handed down by

      tradition in the patrician families.

      1. The The demand of the plebeians for the Twelve publication of the law resulted in the Tables adoption of the famous Twelve Tables

      (449 BC), which was looked upon by later authorities as the source of aU public and private law {quae nunc quoque in hoc immenso aliarum super alias acervatarum legum cumulo fans omnis publici privatique estiuris: Livyiii. 34, 6), although it was not a scientific or comprehensive code of all the legal institutions of the time. This primitive sys- tem of law was made to expand to meet the growing requirements of the republican community chiefly by means of interpretation and the jus honorarium, which corresponds to equity.

      The function of interpretation may be defined by

      mentioning the principal elements in civil procedure.

      The praetor, or magistrate, listened to

      2. Civil the claims of the litigants and prepared Procedure an outline of the disputed issues, called

      a formula, which was submitted to the judex, or arbitrator, a jury, as it were, consisting of one man, who decided the questions of fact in- volved in the case. Neither praetor nor judex had special legal training. The court had recourse, therefore, for legal enlightenment to those who had gained distinction as authorities on the law, and the opinions, or responsa, of these scholars (Jurispru- dentes) formed a valuable commentary on the legal institutions of the time. In this way a body of rules was amassed by interpretative adaptation which the authors of the Twelve Tables would never have recognized.

      Jus honorarium derived its name from the cir- cumstance that it rested upon the authority of

      magistrates (Aoreor = magistrac}')- In

      3. Jus hon- this respect and because it was com- orariam posed of orders issued for the purpose

      of affording relief in cases for which the existing law did not make adequate provision, this second agency for legal expansion may be com- pared with English equity. These orders issued by the praetors had legal force during the tenure of their office only; but those the expediency of which had been established by this period of trial were generally reissued by succeeding magistrates from year to year, so that in time a large, but uni- form body of rules, subject to annual renewal, formed the greater part of the edict which was issued by the praetors before entering upon their term of office. By these means Rom law maintained a proper bal- ance between elasticity and rigidity.

      After the institution of the praetor peregrinus

      (241 BC), who heard cases in which one or both of

      the parties were foreigners, a series of

      4. The similar edicts proceeded from those praetor who were chosen to this tribunal. The peregrinus annual edicts of the praetor pere- grinus became an important means

      for broadening Rom law, for the strangers who appeared in the court of this magistrate were mostly Greeks from Southern Italy, so that the principles of law which were gradually formulated as a basis for proceedings were largely an embodiment of the spirit of Gr law.

      Direct legislation superseded the other sources of law under the empire, taking the form, occasion-

      ally, of bills ratified by the people {leges), but

      usually of enactments of the senate (senatus con-

      sultd), or imperial ordinances. The

      5. Imperial latter, which eventually prevailed to Ordinances the exclusion of all other types, may

      be classified as edicta, which were issued by the emperor on the analogy of the similar orders of the republican magistrates, decreta, or decisions of the imperial tribunal, which had force as precedents, and rescripta, which were replies by the emperor to requests for the interpretation of the law. All these acts of imperial legislation were known as constitutiones.

      In the 2d cent. Salvius Julianus was commis- sioned to invest the praetorian edict with definite

      form. The Institutes of Gaius ap-

      6. Golden pearing about the same time became a Age of model for subsequent textbooks on Juristic jurisprudence {Gait institulionum com- Literature meiitarii quattuor, discovered by Nie-

      buhrin 1816 at Verona in a palimpsest) . This was the Golden Age of juristic literature. A succession of able thinkers, among whom Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, and Gaius hold fore- most rank (cf Codex Theodosianus 1, 4, 3), applied to the incoherent mass of legal material the methods of scientific investigation, developing a system of Rom law and establishing a science of jurispru- dence.

      The period of the later empire was characterized by various attempts at codification which culmi- nated in the final treatment of the body

      7. Codifi- of Rom law under Justinian. The cation in work of the board of eminent jurists the Later to whom this vast undertaking was Empire intrusted was published in three parts:

      (1) the Code, which contains a selec- tion of the imperial enactments since Hadrian in twelve books, (2) the Digest or Pandects, which is composed of extracts from the juristic literature in fifty books, and (3) the Institutes, which is a text- book in four books. In this form mainly Rom private law has come down to modern times, and has become, in the words of an eminent authority (Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Ox- ford, 1901), next to the Christian religion, the most plentiful source of the rules governing actual con- duct throughout Western Europe.

      //. Roman Criminal Law. — In the royal period criminal jurisdiction, in so far as it was a function

      of secular administration, belonged by 1. Juris- right to the king. The titles quaes- diction in tores parricidii and duumviri perduel- the Royal lionis, belonging to officials to whom Period the royal authority in these matters

      was occasionally delegated, indicate the nature of the earliest crimes brought under secular jurisdiction. The royal prerogative passed to the republican magistrates, and embraced, be- sides the right to punish crimes, the power to com- pel obedience to their own decrees {coercitio) by means of various penalties.

      But the right of the people to final jurisdiction in cases involving the life or civil status of citizens "was estab- lished by an enactment ilex Valeria) which 2 Right of '^ ^^*^ ^^ iia^'e been proposed by one of the .' ^, first consuls (.509 BC), and which granted

      Appeal the right of appeal to the assembly (pro-

      vocatio) against the execution of a "capital or other serious penalty pronounced by a magistrate (Cicero De Re Publica ii.31, 54; Livy ii.8. 2: Dionysius V.19). This right of appeal was reinforced or extended by subsequent enactments {tegea Valeriae) in 449 and 299 BC. It was vahd against penalties imposed by virtue of the coercive power of tlie magistrates as well as those based upon a regular criminal charge. Gen- erally the magistrates made no provisional sentence of their own, but brought their charges directly before the people.

      (1) Penalties. — The death penalty was practically abrogated in republican times by allowing the accused



      Roman Law

      the alternative of voluntary exile. Tlie Romans rarely employed imprisonment as a punishment. The imposi- tion of fines above a certain amount was made subject to the right of appeal. At first the dictator possessed ab- solute power of lite and death over the citizens, but this authority was limited, probably about 300 BC (Livy xxyii.6 5), by being made subject to the right of appeal. (2) The Porciaii law. — The right of appeal to the people was valid within the city and as far as the first milestone: and although it was never extended beyond this hmit, yet its protection was virtually secured for all Rom citizens, wherever they might be, by the pro- vision of the Porcian law (of unknown date), which established their right to trial at Rome. In consequence of this a distinction of great importance was created in criminal procedure in the provinces, since Rom citizens were sent to Rome for trial in all serious cases, while other persons were subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the municipalities, except when the governor sum- moned them before his own tribunal.

      of 70 BC provided for the equal representation of all three classes of the people in the courts. There were then about 1,080 names on the list of available jurors, of whom 7.5 seem to iiave been chosen for each trial (Cicero In Piaonem 40). Caesar abolished the plebeian jurors (Suetonius Caesar 41). Augustus restored the representatives of the third class (Suetonius Aug. 32), but confined their action to civil cases of minor impor- tance. He likewise excused the members of the senate from service as jurors.

      The system of criminal courts (quaesHones per- petuae) diminished in importance under the em- pire and finally disappeared toward the close of the 2d cent. Their place was taken by the senate under the presidency of a consul, the emperor, and eventually by imperial officials by delegated authority from the emperor. In the first case the

      Roman Forum.

      The exercise of popular jurisdiction in criminal matters was gradually curtailed by the establish- ment of permanent courts (quaesHones

      3. Popular perpetuae) by virtue of laws by which Jurisdiction the people delegated their authority Curtailed to judge certain classes of cases. The

      first of these courts was authorized in 149 BC for the trial of charges of extortion brought against provincial governors. Compensation was the main purpose of accusers in bringing charges before this and later permanent courts, and for this reason, perhaps, the procedure was similar to that which was employed in civil cases. A praetor pre- sided over the tribunal; a number of jiulices took the place of the single juror. The laws by which Sulla reorganized the systems of criminal jurisdic- tion provided for seven courts dealing individually with extortion, treason, peculation, corrupt elec- tioneering practices, murder, fraud, and assault.

      The indices, or jurors, were originally chosen from the

      senate. A law proposed by C. Gracchus transferred

      membership in all the juries to the eques-

      A T ..„.c trian class. Sulla replenished the senate

      4. jurors |3y admitting about 300 members of the

      equestrian class, and then restored to it the exclusive control of the juries. But a judicial law

      senate stood in somewhat the same relation to the

      presiding consul as the jurors in the permanent

      courts to the praetor. But the em-

      5. Disap- peror and imperial officials decided pearance of without the help of a jury, so that Criminal after the 3d cent., when the judicial Courts competence of the senate was gradu- ally lost, trial by jury ceased to exist.

      An important innovation in the judicial system of the empire was the principle of appeal from the decision of lower courts to higher tribunals. For the emperors and eventually their delegates, chiefly the praefectus urbi and praefectus praetorio, heard appeals from Rom and ItaUan magistrates and pro- vincial governors.

      Under the early empire, provincial governors were generally under obligation to grant the de- mand of Rom citizens for the privilege

      6. Right of of trial at Rome {Digest xlviii.6, 7), Trial at although there appear to have been Rome some exceptions to this rule (Pliny,

      Episl. ii.ll; Digest xlviii.8, 16). Lysias, tribune of the cohort at Jerus, sent St. Paul as prisoner to Caesarea, the capital of the province.

      Roman Religion Romans, Epistle to



      so that Felix the procurator might determine what was to be done in his case, inasmuch as he was a Rom citizen (Acts 23 27), and two years later St. Paul asserted his privilege of being tried at Rome by the emperor for the same reason (25 11.21).

      Rom citizens who were sent to Rome might be brought either before the senate or emperor, but cognizance of these oases by the imperial tribunal was more usual, and finally supplanted entirely that of the senate, the formula of appeal becoming pro- verbial: cives Romantis sum, provoco ad Caesarem ( Kaisara epikaloiimai: Acts 25 11).

      As Rom citizenship became more and more widely extended throughout the empire its relative value diminished, and it is obvious that many of the special privileges, such as the right of trial at Rome, which were attached to it in the earlier period must have been gradually lost. It became customary for the emperors to delegate their power of final juris- diction over the lives of citizens {ius gladii) to the provincial governors, and finally, after Rom citizen- ship had been conferred upon the inhabitants of the empire generally by Caracalla, the right of appeal to Rome remained the privilege of certain classes only, such as senators, municipal decurions {Digest xlviii.l9, 27), officers of equestrian rank in the army, and centurions (Dio Cassius lii.22, 33).

      LlTER.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\TURE. — Greenidge. The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time. 0-"tford, 1901; Kriiger. Geschichte der Quellen u. Litteratur des romischen Rechls, Leipzig, 1888; Mommsen. Romisches Strafrecht, Leipzig, 1899: Roby, Rom Private Law in the Times of Cicero and of the An- ionines. Cambridge, 1902; Sohm, The Institutes of Rom Law, tr

      George H. Allen

      ROMAN RELIGION. See Roman Empire and Christianity, III; Rome, IV.


      1. Genuineness

      2. Integrity

      3. Pro-ximate Date

      4. Place of Writing

      5. Destination

      6. Language

      7. Occasion

      8. Some Characteristics

      9. Main Teachings of the Epistle

      (1) Doctrine of Man

      (2) Doctrine of God

      (3) Doctrine of Son of God — Redemption; Justi- fication

      (4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God

      (5) Doctrine of Duty

      (6) Doctrine of Israel Literature

      This is the greatest, in every sense, of the apostolic letters of St. Paul; in scale, in scope, and in its wonderful combination of doctrinal, ethical and administrative wisdom and power. In some re- spects the later Epp., Eph and Col, lead us to even higher and deeper arcana of revelation, and they, like Rom, combine with the exposition of truth a luminous doctrine of duty. But the range of Rom is larger in both directions, and presents us also with noble and far-reaching discussions of Christian polit}^ instructions in spiritual utterance and the like, to which those Epp. present no parallel, and which only the Corinthian Epp. rival.

      No suspicion on the head of the genuineness of the Ep. exists which needs serious consideration. Signs of the influence of the Ep. can 1. Genuine- be traced, at least very probably, in ness the NT itself; in 1 Pet, and, as some

      think, in Jas. But in our opinion Jas was the earlier writing, and Lightfoot has given strong grounds for the belief that the paragraph on faith and justification (Jas 2) has no reference to perversions of Pauline teaching, but deals with rab- binism. Clement of Rome repeatedly quotes Rom, and so do Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin. Marcion includes it in his list of Pauline Epp., and it is safe

      to say in general Rom "has been recognized in the Christian church as long as any collection of St. Paul's Epp. has been e.xtant" (A. Robertson, in HDB, S.V.). But above all other evidences it testifies to itself. The fabrication of such a writing, with its close and complex thought, its power and marked originality of treatment, its noble morale, and its spiritual elevation and ardor, is nothing short of a moral impossibihty. A mighty mind and equally great heart live in every page, and a soul exquisitely sensitive and alwaj's intent upon truth and holiness. Literary personation is an art which has come to anything like maturity only in modern times, certainly not before the Renaissance. In a fully developed form it is hardly earlier than the 19th cent. And even now who can point to a con- sciously personated authorship going along with high moral principle and purpose?

      The question remains, however, whether, accept- ing the Ep. in block as Pauline, we have it, as to details, just as it left the author's 2. Integrity hands. Particularly, some phenom- ena of the text of the last two chapters invite the inquiry. We may — in our opinion we must — grant those chapters to be Pauline. They breathe St. Paul in every sentence. But do they read precisely hke part of a letter to Rome? For example, we have a series of names (16 1-15), representing a large circle of personally known and loved friends of the writer, a much longer list than any other in the Epp., and all presumably — -on the theory that the passage is integral to the Ep. — ■ residents at Rome. May not such a paragraph have somehow crept in, after date, from another writing ? Might not a message to Philippian, Thessalonian or Ephesian friends, dwellers in places where St. Paul had already established many intimacies, have fallen out of its place and found lodgment by mis- take at the close of this letter to Rome? It seems enough to reply by one brief statement of fact. We possess some 300 MSS of Rom, and not one of these, so far as it is uninjured, fails to give the Ep. complete, all the chapters as we have them, and in the present order (with one exception, that of the final doxology). It is observable meanwhile that the difficulty of supposing St. Paul to have had a large group of friends living at Rome, before his own arrival there, is not serious. To and from Rome, through the whole empire, there was a per- petual circulation of population. Suppose Aquila and Priscilla (e.g.) to have recently returned (Acts 18 2) to Rome from Ephesus, and suppose similar migrations from Greece or from Asia Minor to have taken place within recent years; we can then readily account for the greetings of Rom 16.

      Lightfoot has brought it out in an interesting way (see his Philippiatis, on 4 22) that many of the names (e.g. Amplias, Urbanus, Tryphena) in Rom 16 are found at Rome, in inscriptions of the early imperial age, in cemeteries where members of the widely scattered "household of Caesar" were in- terred. This at least suggests the abundant possi- bility that the converts and friends belonging to the "household" who, a very few years later, perhaps not more than three, were around him at Rome when he wrote to Philippi (Phil 4 22), and sent their special greeting ("chiefly they") to the Philip- pians, were formerly residents at Philippi, or else- where in Macedonia, and had moved thence to the capital not long before the apostle wrote to the Romans. A. Robertson (ut supra) comes to the conclusion, after a careful review of recent theories, "that the case for transferring this section .... from its actual connection to a lost Ep. to Ephesus is not made out."

      Two points of detail in the criticism of the text of Rom may be noted. One is that the words "at



      Roman Religion Romans, Epistle to

      Rome" (1 7.15) are omitleil in a very few MSS, in a way to remind us of the interesting phenomenon of the omission of "at Ephesus" (Eph 1 1 m). But the evidence for this omission being original is entirely inadequate. The fact may perhaps be accounted for by a possible circulation of Rom among other mission churches as anEp. of universal interest. This would be much more likely if the MSS and other authorities in which the last two chapters are missing were identical with those which omit "at Rome," but this is not the case.

      The other and larger detail is that the great final doxology (16 25-27) is placed by many cursives at the end of ch 14, and is omitted entirely by three MSS and by Marcion. The leading uncials and a large preponderance of ancient evidence place it where we have it. It is quite possible that St. Paul may have reissued Rom after a time, and may only then have added the doxology, which has a certain resemblance in manner to his later (cap- tivity) style. But it is at least likely that dog- matic objections led Marcion to delete it, and that his action accounts for the other phenomena which seem to witness against its place at the finale.

      It is worth noting that Hort, a singularly fearless, while sober student, defends without reserve the entirety of the Ep. as we have it, or practically so. See his essay printed in Lightfoot's Bib. Studies.

      We can fix the proximate date with fair certainty

      within reasonable limits. We gather from 15 19

      that St. Paul, when he wrote, was in

      3. Proxi- the act of closing his work in the East mate Date and was looking definitely westward.

      But he was first about (15 25.26) to revisit Jerus with his collection, mainly made in Macedonia and Achaia, for the "poor saints." Placing these allusions side by side with the refer- ences in 1 and 2 Cor to the collection and its con- veyance, and again with the narrative of Acts, we may date Rom very nearly at the same time as 2 Cor, just before the visit to Jerus narrated in Acts 20, etc. The year may be fixed with great probability as 58 AD. This estimate follows the lines of Lightfoot's chronology, which Robertson (ut supra) supports. More recent schemes would move the date back to 56 AD.

      "The reader's attention is invited to tliisdate. Broadly .speaicing. it was about 30 years at tlie most after tlie Crucifixion. Let anyone in middie life reflect on the freshness in memory of events, whether public or pri- vate, which .30 years ago made any marked impression on his mind. Let him consider how concrete and vivid still are the prominent personages of 30 years ago, many of whom of course are still with us. And let him trans- fer this thought to the 1st cent., and to the time of our Ep. IjCt him remember that we have at least this one great Christian writing composed, for certain, within such easy reach of the very lifetime of Jesus Christ when His contemporary friends were still, in numbers, alive and active. Then let him open the Ep. afresh, and read, as if for the first time, its estimate of Jesus Christ — a Figure then of no legendary past, with its halo, but of the all but present day. Let him note that this transcendent estimate comes to us conveyed in the vehicle not of poetry and rhetoric, but of a treatise preg- nant with masterly argument and admirable practical wisdom, tolerant and comprehensive. And we think that the reader will feel that the result of his meditations on date and circumstances is reassuring as to the solidity of the historic basis of the Christian faith" (from the present writer's introduction to the Ep. in the Temple Bible; see also his Light from the First Days: fihort Studies in 1 Thess).

      With confidence we may name Corinth as the

      place of writing. St. Paul was at the time in some

      "city" (16 2.3). He was staying with

      4. Place of one Gains, or Caius (ib), and we find Writing in 1 Cor 1 14 a Gaius, closely con- nected with St. Paul, and a Corinthian.

      He commends to the Romans the deaconess Phoebe, attached to "the church at Cenchreae" (16 1), presumably a place near that from which he was

      writing; and Cenchreae was the southern part of Corinth.

      The first advent of Christianity to Rome is un- recorded, and we know very little of its early prog- ress. Visiting Romans (^7ri5-))ftoCcTei,epi-

      5. Desti- dcinounles), both Jews and proselytes, nation appear at Pentecost (Acts 2 10), and

      no doubt some of these returned home believers. In Acts 18 2 we have Aquila and Pris- cilla, Jews, evidently Christians, "lately come from Italy," and probably from Rome. But we know practically nothing else of the story previous to this Ep., which is addressed to a mission church obviously important and already spiritually advanced. On the other hand (a curious paradox in view of the historical development of Rom Christianity), there is no allusion in the Ep. to church organization. The Christian ministry (apart from St. Paul's own apostleship) is not even mentioned. It may fairly be said to be incredible that if the legend of St. Peter's long episcopate were historical, no allusion whatever to his work, influence and authority should be made. It is at least extremely difficult to prove that he was even present in Rome till shortly before his martyrdom, and the very ancient beUef that Peler and Paul founded the Rom church is more likely to have had its origin in their martyr- doms there than in St. Peter's having in any sense shared in the early evangelization of the city.

      As to Rome itself, we may picture it at the date of the Ep. as containing, with its suburbs, a closely massed population of perhaps 800,000 people; a motley host of many races, with a strong oriental element, among which the Jews were present as a marked influence, despised and sometimes dreaded, but always attracting curiosity.

      The Ep. was written in Gr, the "common dia- lect," the Gr of universal intercourse of that age. One naturally asks, why not in Lat,

      6. Lan- when the message was addressed to the guage supreme Lat city? The large major- ity of Christian converts beyond doubt

      came from the lower middle and lowest classes, not least from the slave class. These strata of society were supplied greatly from immigrants, much as in parts of East London now aliens make the main population. Not Lat but Gr, the then lingua franca of the Mediterranean, would be the daily speech of these people. It is remarkable that all the early Rom bishops bear Gr names. And some 40 years after the date of this Ep. we find Clement of Rome writing in Gr to the Corinthians, and later again, early in the 2d cent., Ignatius writing in Gr to the Romans.

      We cannot specify the occasion of -nTiting for

      certain. No hint appears of any acute crisis in the

      mission (as when 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, or

      7. Occasion Col were written). Nor would per-

      sonal reminiscences influence the writer, for he had not yet seen Rome. We can only sug- gest some possibilities as follows:

      (1) A good opportunity for safe communication was offered by the deaconess Phoebe's proposed visit to the metropolis. She doubtless asked 8t. Paul for a com- mendatory letter, and this may have suggested an ex- tended message to the church.

      (2) St. Paul's thoughts had long gone toward Rome. See Acts 19 21: "/ must see Rome," words which seem perhaps to imply some Divine intimation (cf 33 11). And his own life-course would fall in with such a super- natural call. He had always aimed at large centers; and now his great work in the central places of the Levant was closing; he had worked at Ephesus, Thessa- lonica, Corinth; he was at last to think of the supreme center of all. Rome must always have had a dominant interest for the "Apostle of the Nations," and any sug- gestion that his Lord's will tended that way would intensify it to the highest degree.

      (3) The form of the Ep. may throw further light on the occasion. The document falls, on the whole, into three parts. First we liave chs 1-8 inclusive, a prolonged



      exposition of tlie contrasted and related plienomena of sin and salvation, with special initial references to the cases of Jew and non-Jew respectively. Then come chs 9-11, which deal with the Jewish rejection of the Jewish Messiah, developing into a prophetic revelation of the future of Israel in the grace of God. Lastly we have chs 12-16. Some account of the writer's plans, and his salutations to friends, requests for prayer, etc, form the close of this section. But it is mainly a state- ment of Cliristian duty in common hfe, personal, civil, rehgious. Under the latter head we have a noble treat- ment of problems raised by varying opinions, particularly on reUgious observances, among the converts, Jew and Gentile.

      Such phenomena oast a possible hght on the occasion of writing. The Rom mission was on one side, by its locality and surroundings, eminently gentile. On the other, there was, as we have seen, a strong Judaic element in Rom life, particularly in its lower strata, and no doubt around the Jewish community proper there had grown up a large com- munity of "worshippers" {

      (4) Was it not with this position before him, known to him through the many means of commu- nication between Rome and Corinth, that St. Paul cast his letter into this form? And did not the reali- zation of the central greatness of Rome suggest its ample scale? The result was a writing which shows everywhere his sense of the presence of the Judaic problem. Here he meets it by a statement, massive and tender, of "heaven's easy, artless, unencum- bered plan" of redemption, grace, and glory, a plan which on its other side is the very mystery of the love of God, which statement is now and forever a primary treasure of the Christian faith. And then again he lays down for the too eager champions of the new "liberty" a law of loving tolerance toward slower and narrower views which is equally our permanent spiritual possession, bearing a signifi- cance far-reaching and benign.

      (5) It has been held by some great students, notably Lightfoot and Hort, that the main, purpose of Rom was to reconcile the opposing "schools" in the church, and that its e.xposition of the salvation of the individual is secondary only. The present writer cannot take this view. Read the Ep. from its spiritual center, so to speak, and is not the per- spective very different? The apostle is always con- scious of the coUeotive aspect of the Christian life, an aspect vital to its full health. But is he not giving his deepest thought, animated by his own

      experience of conviction and conversion, to Ihe sinful man's relation to eternal law, to redeeming grace, and to a coming glory? It is the question of personal salvation which with St. Paul seems to us to live and move always in the depth of his argu- ment, even when Christian poUty and policy is the immediate theme.

      Excepting only Eph (the problem of the author- ship of which is insoluble, and we put that great document here aside), Rom is, of all

      8. Some St. Paul has written, least a letter and Character- most a treatise. He is seen, as we read, istics to approach religious problems of the

      highest order in a free but reasoned suc- cession; problems of the darkness and of the light, of sin and grace, fall and restoration, doom and remission, faith and obedience, suffering and glory, transcendent hope and humblest duty, now in their relation to the soul, now so as to develop the holy collectivity of the common life. The Rom converts are always first in view, but such is the writer, such his handUng, that the results are for the universal church and for every behever of all time. Yet all the while (and it is in this a splendid example of that epistolary method of revelation which is one of the glories of the NT) it is never for a moment the mere treatise, however great. The writer is always vividly personal, and conscious of persons. The Ep. is indeed a masterpiece of doctrine, but also always "the unforced, unartificial utterance of a friend to friends."

      Approaching the Ep. as a treatise rather than a

      letter (with the considerable reserves just stated),

      we indicate briefly some of its main

      9. Main doctrinal deliverances. Obviously, in Teachings limine, it is not set before us as a com- of the plete system either of theology or of Epistle morals; to obtain a full view of a Paul- ine dogma and ethics we must certainly

      place Eph and Col, not to speak of passages from Thess, beside Rom. But it makes by far the near- est approach to doctrinal completeness among the Epp.

      (1) The doctrine of man. — In great measure this resolves itself into the doctrine of man as a sinner, as being guilty in face of an absolutely holy and absolutely imperative law, whether announced by abnormal revelation, as to the Jew, or through nature and conscience only, as to the Gentile. At the back of this presentation lies the full recognition that man is cognizant, as a spiritual being, of the eternal difference of right and wrong, and of the witness of creation to personal "eternal power and Godhead" as its cause, and that he is responsible in an awe-inspiring way for his unfaithfulness to such cognitions. He is a being great enough to be in personal moral relation with God, and able to realize his ideal only in true relation with Him; therefore a being whose sin and guilt have an un- fathomable evil in them. So is he bound by his own failure that he cannot restore himself; God alone, in sovereign mercy, provides for his pardon by the propitiation of Christ, and for his restoration by union with Christ in the life given by the Holy Spirit. Such is man, once restored, once become "a saint" (a being hallowed), a "son of God" by adoption and gi-ace, that his final glorification will be the signal (in some sense the cause?) of a trans- figuration of the whole finite universe. Meanwhile, man is a being actually in the midst of a life of duty and trial, a member of civil society, with ob- ligations to its order. He lives not in a God- forsaken world, belonging only to another and evil power. His new life, the "mind of the Spii-it" in him, is to show itself in a conduct and character good for the state and for society at large, as well as for the "brotherhood."



      (2) The doctrine of God. — True to the revelation of the OT, St. Paul presents God as absolute in will and power, so that He is not only the sole author of nature but the eternal and ultimately sole cause of goodness in man. To Him in the last resort all is due, not only the provision of atonement but the power and will to embrace it. The great passages which set before us a "fore-defining" (jpobpi.

      (.3) The doctrine of the Son of God.— The Ep. affords materials for a magnificently large Chris- tology. The relation of the Son to creation is indeed not expounded in terms (as in Col), but it is implied in the language of ch 8, where the inter- relation of our redemption and the transfiguration of Nature is dealt with. We have the Lord's man- hood fully recognized, while His Godhead (as we read in 9 5; so too Robertson, ut supra) is stated in terms, and it is most certainly implied in the lan- guage and tone of e.g. the close of ch 8. Who but a bearer of the Supreme Nature could satisfy the conception indicated in such words as those of 8 32.35-39, coming as they do from a Heb monotheist of intense convictions'? Meantime this transcend- ent Person has so put Himself in relation with us, as the willing worker of the Father's purpose of love, that He is the sacrifice of peace for us (ch 3), our "propitiatory" One (IXaffT-Ziptov, hilasltrion, is now known to be an adj .), such that (whateverthe mystery, which leaves the fact no less certain) the man who believes on Him, i.e. (as ch 4 fully demon- strates) relies on Him, gives himself over to His mercy, is not only forgiven but "justified," "justi- fied by faith . ' ' Aid ' ' j ustification' ' is more than for- giveness; it is not merely the remission of a penalty but a welcome to the offender, pronounced to be lawfully at peace with the eternal holiness and love. See Justification; Propitiation.

      In closest connection with this message of justi- fication is the teaching regarding union with the Christ who has procured the justification. This is rather assumed than expounded in Rom (we have the exposition more expUcitly in Eph, Col, and Gal), but the assumption is present wherever the pregnant phrase "in Christ" is used. Union is, for St. Paul, the central doctrine of all, giving life and relation to the whole range. As Lightfoot has well said {Sermons in St. Paul's, no. 16), he is the apostle not primarily of justification, or of liberty, great as these truths are with him, but of union with Christ. It is through union that justification is ours; the merits of the Head are for the member. It is through union that spiritual liberty and power are ours; the Spirit of life is from the Head to the member. Held by grace in this profound and multi- plex connection, where life, love and law are inter- laced, the Christian is entitled to an assurance full of joy that nothing shall separate him, soul and (ultimately) body, from his once sacrificed and now risen and triumphant Lord. . .

      (4) The doctrine of the Spirit of God.— No writing of the NT but St. John's Gospel is so full upon this great theme as Rom. Ch 8 may be said to be the

      locus classicus in the Epp. for the work of the Holy Ghost in the believer. By implication it reveals personality as well as power (see esp. ver26). Note particularly the place of this great passage, in which revelation and profoundest conditions run con- tinually into each other. It foUows ch 7, in which the apostle depicts, in terms of his own profound and typical experience, the struggles of conscience and will over the awful problem of the "bondage" of indwelling sin. If we interpret the passage aright, the case supposed is that of a regenerate man, who, however, attempts the struggle against inward evil armed, as to consciousness, with his own facul- ties merely, and finds the struggle insupportable. Then comes in the Divine solution, the promised Spirit of life and liberty, welcomed and put into use by the man who has found his own resources vain. "In Christ Jesus," in union with Him, he "by the Spirit does to death the practices of the body," and rises through conscious liberty into an exulting hope of "the liberty of the glory of the sons of God" — not so, however, as to know nothing of "groaning within himself,' while yet in the body; but it is a groan which leaves intact the sense of sonship and Divine love, and the expectation of a final completeness of redemption.

      (5) The doctrine of duty. — While the Ep. is emi- nently a message of salvation, it is also, in vital connection with this, a treasury of principle and pre- cept for the fife of duty. It does indeed lay down the sovereign freedom of our acceptance for Christ's sake alone, and so absolutely that (6 1.2.15) the writer anticipates the inference (by foes, or by mis- taken friends), "Let us continue in sin." But the answer comes instantly, and mainly through the doctrine of union. Our pardon is not an isolated fact. Secured only by Christ's sacrifice, received only by the faith which receives Him as our all, it is ipso facto never received alone but with all His other gifts, for it becomes ours as we receive, not merely one truth about Him, but Him. Therefore, we receive His Life as our true life; and it is morally unthinkable that we can receive this and express it in sin. This assumed, the Ep. (ch 12 and on- ward) lays down with much detail and in admirable appKcation large ranges of the law of duty, civil, social, personal, embracing duties to the state, loyalty to its laws, payment of its taxes, recognition of the sacredness of political order, even ministered by pagans; and also duties to society and the church, including a large and loving tolerance even in rehgious matters, and a response to every call of the law of unselfish love. However we can or cannot adjust mentally the two sides, that of a supremely free salvation and that of an inexorable responsibility, there the two sides are, in the Pauline message. And reason and faith combine to assure us that both sides are eternally true, "antinomies" whose harmony will be explained hereafter in a higher life, but which are to be lived out here con- currently by the true disciple, assured of their ulti- mate oneness of source in the eternal love.

      (6) The doctrine of Israel. — Very briefly we touch on this department of the message of Rom, mainly to point out that the problem of Israel's unbelief nowhere else in St. Paul appears as so heavy a load on his heart, and that on the other hand we nowhere else have anything like the light he claims to throw (ch 11) on Israel's future. Here, if any- where, he appears as the predictive prophet, charged with the statement of a "mystery," and with the announcement of its issues. The promises to Israel have never failed, nor are they canceled. At the worst, they have always been inherited by a chosen remnant, Israel within Israel. And a time is com- ing when, in a profound connection with Messianic blessing on the Gentiles, "all Israel shall be saved,"




      with a salvation which shall in turn be new life to the world outside Israel. Throughout the passage St. Paul speaks, not as one who "will not give up a hope," but as having had revealed to him a vast and definite prospect, in the Divine purpose.

      It is not possible in our present space to work out other Mnes of the message of Rom. Perhaps enough has been done to stimulate the reader's own in- quiries.

      LiTEHATUBE. — Of the Fathers, Chrysostom and Augustine are preeminent as interpreters of Rom: Chrysostom in his e-xpository Homilies, models of elo- quent and illuminating discourse, full of "sanctified conunon sense," while not perfectly appreciative of the inmost doctrinal characteristics; Augustine, not in any continuous comm., but in his anti-Pelagian writings, which show the sympathetic intensitj^ of his study of the doctrine of the Ep., not so much on justification as on grace and the will. Of the Reformers, Calvin is emi- nently the great commentator, almost modern in his constant aim to ascertain the sacred writer's meaning by open-eyed inference direct from the words. On Rom he is at his best; and it is remarkable that on cer- tain leading passages where grace is the theme he is much less rigidly " Calvinistic " than some of his fol- lowers. In modern times, the not learned but masterly exposition of Robert Haldane (c 1830) claims mention, and the eloquent and highly suggestive expository lec- tures (about the same date) of Thomas Chalmers. "H. A. W. Meyer {.5th ed, 1872, ET 1873-74) among the Ger- mans is exceUent for carefulness and insight: Godet (1879, ET 1881) equally so among French-writing divines: of late English interpreters I. A. Beet (1877, many revisions), Sanday and Headlam (1895, in the "International" series) and E. H. Gifford (admirable for scholarship and exposi- tion; his work was printed first in the Speaker's [Bible] Comm., ISSl, now separately) claim particular mention. J. Denney "writes on Rom in The Expositor's Gr Test. (1900).

      Luther's Iccttu'es on Rom, delivered in 1516-17 and long supposed lost, have been recovered and were pub- lished by J. Ficker in 1908. Among modern German commentators, the most important is B. "U^iss in the later revisions of the I^Ieyer series (9th ed, 1899), while a very elaborate comm. has been produced by Zahn in his own series (1910). Briefer are the works of Lipsius (Haud-Kommentar, 2d ed, 1892, very scholarly and sug- gestive) ; Lietzmann (Handbuch zum- NT, interest chiefly linguistic), and Jiilicher (in J. Weiss, Schriften des 2\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\[Ts, 2d ed, 1908, an intensely able piece of popular ex- position).

      A. E. Garvie has written a brilliant little comm. in the "[New] Century" series (no date) ; that of R. St. John Parry in the Cambridge Gr Test,, 1913, is more popular, despite its use of the Gr text. P. B. Westcott's St. Paul and Justification, 1913, Contains a close grammatical study with an excellent paraphrase.

      The writer may be allowed to name his short comm. (1879) in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and a fuller one, in a more homiletic style, in the Expositor's Bible, 1894,

      Handley Dunelm ROME, rom:

      I. Development of the Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n Coxstitution

      1. Original Roman State

      2. Struggle between Patricians and Plebeians

      3. The Senate and JNIagistrates

      4. Underlying Principles

      II. Extension of Rom.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n Sovereignty

      III. The I.mperial Government

      1. Imperial Authority

      2. Three Classes of Citizens

      IV. R0.MAN Religion

      1. Deities

      2. Religious Decay V. Rome and the .Jews

      1. .Tudaeaunder Roman Procurators and Governors

      2. Jewish Proselytism

      VI. Rome and the Christians

      1. Introduction

      2. Tolerance and Proscription

      3. Persecution Literature

      Rome (Lat and Ital. Roma; 'Puj|jlt], Rhome) : The capital of the Rom republic and empire, later the center of Lat Christendom, and since 1871 capital of the kingdom of Italy, is situated mainly on the left bank of the Tiber about 1.5 miles from the Mediterranean Sea in 41° .5.3' 54" N, lat. and 12° 0' 12" long. E. of Greenwich.

      It wcjuld be impo,ssible in the limited space a.s- signed to this article to give even a comprehensive outline of the ancient history of the Eternal City. It win suit the general purpose of the work to

      consider the relations of the Rom government and society with the Jews and Christians, and, in addi- tion, to present a rapid sur^'ey of the earUer devel- opment of Rom institutions and power, so as to provide the necessary historical setting for the appreciation of the more essential subjects.

      /. Development of the Republican Constitution. — The traditional chronology for the earhest period of Rom history is altogether unreli- 1. Original able, partly because the Gauls, in Roman ravaging the city in 390 BC, de-

      State stroyed the monuments which might

      have offered faithful testimony of the earlier period (Li'^^y vi.l). It is known that there was a settlement on the site of Rome before the traditional date of the founding (753 BC). The original Rom state was the product of the coalition of a number of adjacent clan-communities, whose names were perpetuated in the Rom gentes, or groups of imaginary kindred, a historical survival which had lost aU significance in the period of authentic history. The chieftains of the associated clans composed the primitive senate or council of elders, which exercised sovereign authority. But as is customary in the development of human society a mihtary or monarchical regime succeeded the looser patriarchal or sacerdotal organs of authority. This second stage may be identified with the legendary rule of the Tarquins, which -tvas probably a period of Etruscan domination. The confederacy of clans was welded into a homogeneous poUtical entity, and society was organized for civic ends, upon a timocratic basis. The forum was drained and became a social, industrial and political center, and the CapitoUne temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva (Etruscan pseudo-Hellenic deities) was erected as a common shrine for aU the people. But above aU the Romans are indebted to these foreign kings for a training in disciphne and obedience which w^as exempUfied in the later conception of magisterial authority signified by the term im- perium.

      The prerogatives of the kings passed over to the consuls. The reduction of the tenure of power to a single year and the institution of the principle of coUeagueship were the earhest checks to the abuse of unlimited authority. But the true corner- stone of Rom Kberty was thought to be the lex Valeria, which provided that no citizen should be put to death by a magistrate without being allowed the right of appeal to the decision of the assembly of the people.

      A period of more than 150 years after the estab- lishment of the repubhc was consumed chiefly by the struggle between the two classes or 2. Struggle orders, the patricians and plebeians, between The former were the descendants of Patricians the original clans and constituted the and ^ populus, or body-politic, in a more

      Plebeians particular sense. The plebeians were descendants of former slaves and de- pendents, or of strangers who had been attracted to Rome by the obvious advantages for industry and trade. They enjoyed the franchise as mem- bers of the mihtary assembly (comitia centuriata), but had no share in the magistracies or other civic honors and emoluments, and were excluded from the knowledge of the civil law which was handed down in the patrician families as an oral tradition. The first step in the progress of the plebeians toward political equality was taken when they wrested from the patricians the privilege of choosing representatives from among themselves, the trib- unes, whose function of bearing aid to oppressed plebeians was rendered effective by the right of veto (inlerccssio) , by virtue of which any act of a magistrate could be arrested. The codification of




      the law in the Twelve Tables was a distinct ad- vantage to the lower classes, because the evils which they had suffered were largely due to a harsh and abusive interpretation of legal institutions, the nature of which had been obscure (see Roman Law). The abrogation, directly thereafter, of the prohibition of intermarriage between the classes resulted in their gradual intermingling.

      The kings had reduced the senate to the position of a mere advising body. But under the republi- can regime it recovered in fact the 3. Senate authority of which it was deprived in and Magis- theory. The controlling power of the trates senate is the most significant feature

      of the republican government, although it was recognized by no statute or other constitu- tional document. It was due in part to the diminu- tion of the power of the magistrates, and in part to the manner in which the senators were chosen. The lessening of the authority of the magistrates was the result of the increase in their number, which led not only to the curtailment of the actual prerogative of each, but also to the contraction of their aggregate independent influence. The aug- mentation of the number of magistrates was made necessary by the territorial expansion of the state and the elaboration of administration. But it was partly the result of plebeian agitation. The events of 367 BC may serve as a suitable example to illus- trate the action of these influences. For when the plebeians carried by storm the citadel of patrician exclusiveness in gaining admission to the consul- ship, the highest regular magistracy, the necessity for another magistrate with general competency afforded an opportunity for making a compensating concession to the patricians, and the praetorship was created, to which at first members of the old aristocracy were alone eligible. Under the fully developed constitution the regular magistracies were five in number, consulship, praetorship, aedileship, tribunate, and quaestorship, aU of which were filled by annual elections.

      Mention has been made of the manner of choosing the members of the senate as a factor in the devel- opment of the authority of the supreme council. At first the highest executive officers of the state exercised the right of selecting new members to maintain the senators at the normal number of three hundred. Later this fimction was transferred to the censors who were elected at intervals of five years. But custom and later statute ordained that the most distinguished citizens should be chosen, and in the Rom community the highest standard of distinction was service to the state, in other words, the holding of public magistracies. It followed, therefore, that the senate was in reality an assem- bly of aU living ex-magistrates. The senate in- cluded, moreover, all the poUtical wisdom and experience of the community, and so great was its prestige for these reasons, that, although the ex- pression of its opinion (senatus consuUum) was endowed by law with no compelUng force, it inevi- tably guided the conduct of the consulting magis- trate, who was practically its minister, rather than

      When the plebeians gained admission to the mag- istracies, the patriciate lost its political significance. But only the wealthier plebeian famihes were able to profit by this extension of privilege, inasniuch as a poHtical career required freedom from gainful pursuits and also personal influence. These ple- beian families readily coalesced with the patricians and formed a new aristocracy, which is called the nobilitas for the sake of distinction. It rested ulti- mately upon the foundation of wealth. The dig- nity conferred by the holding of pubUc magistra- cies was its title to distinction. The senate was its

      organ. Rome was never a true democracy except in theory. During the whole period embraced be- tween the final levelhng of the old distinctions based upon blood (287 BC) and the beginning of the period of revolution (1.33 BC), the magistracies were occupied almost exclusively by the representatives of the comparatively limited number of families which constituted the aristocracy. These alone entered the senate through the doorway of the magistracies, and the data would almost justify U3 in asserting that the repubhcan and senatorial government were substantially and chronologically identical.

      The seeds of the political and social revolution were sown during the Second Punic War and the period which followed it. The prorogation of mili- tary authority established a dangerous precedent in violation of the spirit of the repubhc, so that Pub. Cornelius Scipio was really the forerunner of Marius, Julius Caesar, and Augustus. The stream of gold which found its way from the provinces to Rome was a bait to attract the cupidity of the less scrupulous senators, and led to the growth of the worst kind of professionalism in politics. The middle class of small farmers decayed for various reasons; the allurement of service in the rich but effete countries of the Orient attracted many. The cheapness of slaves made independent farming unprofitable and led to the increase in large estates; the cultivation of grain was partly displaced by that of the vine and oUve, which were less suited to the habits and ability of the older class of farmers.

      The more immediate cause of the revolution was the inabihty of the senate as a whole to control the conduct of its more radical or violent members. For as poUtical ambition became more ardent with the increase in the material prizes to be gained, aspiring leaders turned their attention to the people, and sought to attain the fulfilment of their pur- poses by popular legislation setting at nought the concurrence of the senate, which custom had con- secrated as a requisite preliminary for popular ac- tion. The loss of initiative by the senate meant the subversion of senatorial government. The senate possessed in the veto power of the tribunes a weapon for coercing unruly magistrates, for one of the ten tribunes could always be induced to inter- pose his veto to prohibit the passage of popular legislation. But this weapon was broken when Tib. Gracchus declared in 133 BC that a tribune who opposed the wishes of the people was no longer then- representative, and sustained this assertion.

      It would be foreign to the purpose of the present article to trace the vicissitudes of the civil strife of the last century of the republic. A 4. Under- few words will suffice to suggest the lying general principles which lay beneath

      Principles the surface of political and social phenomena. Attention has been called to the ominous development of the influence of military commanders and the increasing empha- sis of popular favor. These were the most im- portant tendencies throughout this period, and the coahtion of the two was fatal to the supremacy of the senatorial government. Marius after winning unparalleled military glory formed a political alli- ance with Glaucia and Satuminus, the leaders of the popular faction in the city in 100 BC. This was a turning-point in the course of the revolution. But the importance of the sword soon outweighed that of the populace in the combination which was thus constituted. In the civil wars of Marius and Sulla constitutional questions were decided for the first time by superiority of military strength exclu- sively. Repeated appeals to brute force dulled the perception for constitutional restraints and the rights of minorities. The senate had already dis-




      jilayed signs of partial paralysis at the time of the Gracchi. How rapidly its debility must have in- creased as the sword cut off its most stalwart mem- bers! Its power expired in the proscriptions, or organized murder of poUtical opponents. The popular party was nominally triumphant, but in theory the Rom state was still an urban common- wealth with a single poUtical center. The fran- chise could be exercised only at Rome. It followed from this that the actual political assemblies were made up largely of the worthless element which was so numerous in the city, whose irrational in- stincts were guided and controlled by shrewd political leaders, particularly those who united in themselves military ability and the wiles of the demagogue. Sulla, Crassus, JuUus Caesar, Antony, and lastly Octavian were in effect the ancient counterpart of the modern pohtical "boss." When such men realized their ultimate power and inevi- table rivalry, the ensuing struggle for supremacy and for the survival of the fittest formed the neces- sary process of elimination leading naturally to the establishment of the monarchy, which was in this case the rule of the last survivor. When Octavian received the title Augustus and the proconsular power (27 BC), the transformation was accom- plished.

      Literature. — The standard work on Rom political institutions is Mommsen and Marquardt, Handbuch der klassischen AUertilmer. Abbott, Rom Political Institu- tions, Boston and London, 1901, offers a useful summary treatment of the subject.

      //, Extension of Roman Sovereignty. — See Ro- man Empire and Christianity, I.

      Literature. — Only the most important general works on Rom history can be mentioned: Ihne, Rijmische Geschichte (2d ed), Leipzig, 1893-96, ET, Longmans, London, 1871-82: Mommsen, History of Rome, ET by Dickson, New York, 1874: Niebuhr, History of Rome, ET by Hare and Thirlwall, Cambridge, 18.31-32: Pais, Storia di Roma, Turin, 1898-99; Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of Rome, ET by Zimmem, New York, 1909.

      ///. The Imperial Government. — Augustus dis- played considerable tact in blending his own mastery in the state with the old institutions 1. Imperial of the republican constitution. His Authority authority, legally, rested mainly upon the tribunician power, which he had probably received as early as 36 BC, but which was established on a better basis in 23 BC, and the proconsular prerogative (imperium proconsulare), conferred in 27 BC. By virtue of the first he was empowered to summon the senate or assemblies and could veto the action of almost any magistrate. The second title of authority conferred upon him the command of the military forces of the state and consequently the administration of the prov- inces where troops were stationed, besides a general supervision over the government of the other provinces. It follows that a distinction was made (27 BC) between the imperial provinces which were administered by the emperor's representatives (legati Augusti pro praelore) and the senatorial provinces where the republican machinery of ad- ministration was retained. The governors of the latter were called generally proconsuls (see Prov- ince). Mention is made of two proconsuls in the NT, Galho in Achaia (Acts 18 12} and Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (13 7). It is instructive to com- pare the lenient and common-sense attitude of these trained Rom aristocrats with that of the turbulent local mobs who dealt with St. Paul in Asia Minor, Judaea, or Greece (Tucker, Life in the Rom World of Nero and St. Paul, New York, 1910, 9.5).

      Rom citizens were still divided into three classes socially, senatorial, equestrian, and plebeian, and the whole system of government harmonized with this triple division. The senatorial class was com- posed of descendants of senators and those upon

      whom the emperors conferred the lalus clavus, or privilege of wearing the tunic with broad purple

      border, the sign of membership in this 2. Three order. The quaestorship was stiU the Classes of door of admission to the senate._ The Citizens qualifications for membership in the

      senate were the possession of senatorial rank and property of the value of not less than 1,000,000 sesterces ($45,000; £9,000). Tiberius transferred the election of magistrates from the people to the senate, which was already practically a closed body. Under the empire senatus consulla received the force of law. Likewise the senate acquired judicial functions, sitting as a court of justice for trying important criminal cases and hearing appeals in civil cases from the senatorial provinces. The equestrian class was made up of those who possessed property of the value of 400,000 sesterces or more, and the privilege of wearing the narrow purple band on the tunic. With the knights the emperors filled many important financial and administrative positions in Italy and the provinces which were under their control.

      IV. Roman Religion. — (1) The Rom religion was originally more consistent than the Gr, because

      the deities as conceived by the un- 1. Deities imaginative Lat genius were entirely

      without human character. They were the influences or forces which directed the visible phenomena of the physical world, whose favor was necessary to the material prosperity of mankind. It would be incongruous to assume the existence of a system of theological doctrines in the primitive period. Ethical considerations entered to only a limited extent into the attitude of the Romans toward their gods. Religion partook of the nature of a contract by which men pledged themselves to the scrupulous observance of certain sacrifices and other ceremonies, and in return deemed themselves entitled to expect the active support of the gods in bringing their projects to a fortunate conclusion. The Romans were naturally polytheists as a result of their conception of divinity. Since before the dawn of science there was no semblance of unity in the natural world, there could be no unity in heaven. There must be a controlhng spirit over every important object or class of objects, every person, and every process of nature. The gods, therefore, were more numerous than mankind itself.

      (2) At an early period the government became distinctly secular. The priests were the servants of the community for preserving the venerable aggregation of formulae and ceremonies, many of which lost at an early period such spirit as they once possessed. The magistrates were the true representatives of the community in its relation- ship with the deities both in seeking the divine will in the auspices and in performing the more impor- tant sacrifices.

      (3) The Romans at first did not make statues of their gods. This was partly due to lack of skill, but mainly to the vagueness of their conceptions of the higher beings. Symbols sufficed to signify their existence, a spear, tor instance, standing for Mars. The process of reducing the gods to human form was inaugurated when they came into contact with the Etruscans and Greeks. The Tarquins summoned Etruscan artisans and artists to Rome, who made from terra cotta cultus statues and a pediment group for the CapitoUne temple.

      The types of the Gr deities had already been definitely established when the Hellenic influence in molding Rom culture became predominant. When the form of the Gr gods became familiar to the Romans in works of sculpture, they gradually supplanted those Rom deities with which they were nominally identifled as a result of a real or fancied resemblance. See Greece, Religion in.

      (4) The importation of new gods was a comparatively




      easy matter. Polytheism is by its natm-e tolerant be- cause of its indeflniteness. The Romans could no more presume to have exhaustive knowledge ol the gods than they could pretend to possess a comprehensive acquaint- ance with the universe. The nimiber of their gods in- creased of necessity as human consciousness of natural phenomena expanded. Besides, it was customary to invite the gods of conquered cities to transfer their abode



      ^Rf* ■•--»...








      '■-' i* '

      ^;'i%-.. ,




      to Rome and favor the Romans in their undertakings. But the most productive source for religious expansion was the Sibylhne Books. See Apoc.vlyptic Literature, V. This oracular work was brought to Rome from Cumae, a center of the cult of Apollo. It was consulted at times of crisis with a view to discover what special ceremonies would secure adequate divine aid. The forms of worship recommended by the Sibylhne Books were exclusively Gr. As early as the 5th cent. BC the cult of ApoUo was introduced at Rome. Heracles and the Dioscuri found their way thither about the same time. Later Italian Diana was merged with Artemis, and the group of Ceres, Liber, and Libera were identified with foreign Demeter, Dionysus, and Persephone. Thus Rom religion became progressively Hellenized. By the close of the Second Punic War the greater gods of Greece had all found a home by the Tiber, and the myriad of petty local deities who found no counterpart in the celes'tial beings of Mt. Olympus fell into oblivion. Their memory was retained by the antiquarian lore of the

      friests alone (see Roman Empire and Christianity, II, 1).

      Rom religion received with the engrafted branches of Gr rehgion the germs of rapid decay, for its Hellenization made Rom reli- 2. Religious gion peculiarly susceptible to the attack Decay of philosophy. The cultivated class

      in Gr society was already permeated with skepticism. The philosophers made the gods appear ridiculous. Gr philosophy gained a firm foothold in Rome in the 2d cent. BC, and it became customary a little later to look upon Athens as a sort of university town where the sons of the aris- tocracy should be sent for the completion of their education in the schools of the philosophers. Thus at the termination of the republican era rehgious faith had departed from the upper classes largely, and during the turmoil of the civil wars even the external ceremonies were often abandoned and many temples fell into ruins. There had never been any intimate connection between formal reUgion and conduct, except when the faith of the gods was invoked to insure the fulfibnent of sworn promises.

      Augustus tried in every way to restore the old rehgion, rebuilding no fewer than 82 temples which lay in ruins at Rome. A revival of religious faith did occur under the empire, although its spirit was largely ahen to that which had been displayed in the performance of the official cult. The people remained superstitious, even when the cultivated classes adopted a skeptical philosophy. The formal religion of the state no longer appealed to them since it offered nothing to the emotions or

      hopes. On the other hand the sacramental, mys- terious character of oriental religions inevitably attracted them. This is the reason why the reli- gions of Egypt and Syria spread over the empire and exercised an immeasurable influence in the moral life of the people. The partial success of Judaism and the ultimate triumph of Christianity may be as- cribed in part to the same causes.

      In concluding we should bear in mind that the state dictated no system of theology, that the em- pire in the beginning presented the spectacle of a sort of religious chaos where all national cults were guaranteed protection, that Rom polytheism was naturally tolerant, and that the only form of religion which the state could not endure was one which was equivalent to an attack upon the system of poly- theism as a whole, since this would imperil the wel- fare of the community by depriving the deities of the offerings and other services in return for which their favor could be expected.

      Literature. — Marquardt, Rlimische SiaaUverwaltung, III, 3, "Das Sacralwesen " ; Wissowa, Religion u. Kul~ tus der RSmer, Munich, 1902; Boissier, La religion to- maine, Paris, 1SS4.

      V. Rome and the Jews. — Judaea became a part of the province of Syria in 63 BC (Jos, BJ, vh, 7), and Hyrcanus, brother of the last 1. Judaea king, remained as high priest {archier- under etls kai ethndrches; Jos, Ant, XIV,

      Roman iv, 4) invested with judicial as well as

      Procurators sacerdotal functions. But Antony and and Octavius gave Pal (40 BC) as

      Governors a kingdom to Herod, sumamed the Great, although his rule did not be- come effective until 3 years later. His sovereignty was upheld by a Rom legion stationed at Jerus (Jos, A?d, XV, iii, 7), and he was obhged to pay tribute to the Rom government and provide auxil- iaries for the Rom army (Appian, Bell. Civ., v. 75). Herod built Caesarea in honor of Augustus (Jos, Ant, XV, ix, 6), and the Rom procurators later made it the seat of government. At his death in 4 BC the kingdom was divided between his three surviving sons, the largest portion falling to Archelaus, who ruled Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea with the title ethnarches (Jos, Ant, XVII, xi, 4) until 6 AD, when he was deposed and his realm reduced to the position of a province. The administration by Rom proc- urators (see Procurator), which was now estab- hshed, was interrupted during the period 41-44 AD, when royal authority was exercised by Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, over the lands which had been embraced in the kingdom of his grandfather (Jos, Ant, XIX, viii, 2), and, after 53 AD, Agrippa II ruled a considerable part of Pal (Jos, Arit, XX, vii, 1; viii, 4).

      After the fall of Jerus and the termination of the great revolt in 70 AD, Pal remained a separate province. Henceforth a legion (legio X Frelensis) was added to the military forces stationed in the land, which was encamped at the ruins of Jerus. Consequently, imperial governors of praetorian rank {legati Augusli pro praetore) took the place of the former procurators (Jos, BJ , VII, i, 2, 3; Dio Cassiuslv.23).

      Several treaties are recorded between the Ro- mans and Jews as early as the time of the Macca- bees (Jos, Ant, XII, X, 6; XIII, ix, 2; viii, 5), and Jews are known to have been at Rome as early as 138 BC. They became very numerous in the capital after the return of Pompey who brought back many captives (see Libertines). Cicero speaks of mul- titudes of Jews at Rome in 58 BC {Pro Flacco 28), and Caesar was very friendly toward them (Sueto- nius Caesar 84). Held in favor by Augustus, they recovered the p ivilcge of collecting sums to send to the temple (Philo Legatio ad Caium 40). Agrippa

      Rome Rosh



      offered 100 oxen in the temple when visiting Herod (Jos, Ant, XVI, ii, 1), and Augustus established a daily offering of a bull and two lambs. Upon the whole the Rom government displayed noticeable consideration for the rehgious scruples of the Jews. They were exempted from miUtary service and the duty of appearing in court on the Sabbath. Yet Tiberius repressed Jewish rites in Rome in 19 AD (Suetonius Tiberius 36) and Claudius expelled the Jews from the city in 49 AD (Suetonius Clau- dius 25) ; but in both instances repression was not of long duration.

      The Jews made themselves notorious in Rome in propagating their religion by means of prosely- tizing (Horace Satires i.4, 142; i.9, 2. Jewish 69; Juvenal xiv.96; Tacitus Hist. Proselytism v. 5) , and the hterature of the Augustan age contains several references to the observation of the Sabbath (TibuUus i.3; Ovid Ars amatoria i.67, 415; Remedium amoris 219). Proselytes from among the Gentiles were not always required to observe all the prescriptions of the Law. The proselytes of the Gate {sebomenoi), as they were called, renounced idolatry and serious moral abuses and abstained from the blood and meat of suffocated animals. Among such proselytes may be included the centurion of Capernaum (Lk 7 5), the centu- rion ComeKus (Acts 10 1), and the empress Poppaea (Jos, Ant, XX, vui, 11; Tacitus Ann. xvi.6).

      On "proselj'tes of the Gate," GJV, III. 177, very properly corrects the error in HJP. These "Gate" people were not proselytes at all ; they refused to take the final step that carried them into Judaism — viz. circumcision (Ramsay. Expos, 1896. p. 200; Hamack, Expansion of Cliristianity, 1, 11; see Devout; Proselytes).

      Notwithstanding the diffusion of Judaism by means of proselytism, the Jews themselves Uved for the most part in isolation in the poorest parts of the city or suburbs, across the Tiber, near the Circus Maximus, or outside the Porta Capena. Inscrip- tions show that there were seven communities, each with its synagogue and councU of elders presided over by a gerusiarch. Five cemeteries have been discovered with many Gr, a few Lat, but no Heb inscriptions.

      Literature. — Ewald, The Hist of LsraeLTLT hy Smith, London, 188.5; Renan. Hist of the People of Israel. ET. Boston, 1896; Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. ET by MacPherson, New York.

      VI. Rome and the Christians. — The date of the introduction of Christianity into Rome cannot be

      determined. A Christian community 1. Intro- existed at the time of the arrival of St. duction of Paul (Acts 28 15), to which he had Christianity addressed his Ep. a few years before

      (58 AD). It is commonly thought that the statement regarding the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius on account of the commotion excited among them by the agitation of Chrestus (Suetonius Claudius 25: ludaeos impul- sore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit), probably in 49 AD, is proof of the diffusion of Chris- tian teaching in Rome, on the ground that Chrestus is a colloquial, or mistaken, form of Christus. It has been suggested that the Christian faith was brought to the capital of the empire by some of the Romans who were converted at the time of (Acts 2 10.41). It would be out of place to discuss here the grounds for the traditional be- hef that St. Peter was twice in Rome, once before 50 AD and again subsequent to the arrival of St. Paul, and that together the two apostles established the church there. Our present concern is with the attitude of the government and society toward Christianity, when once estabhshed. It may suf- fice, therefore, to remind the reader that St. Paul

      was permitted to preach freely while nominally in custody (Phil 1 13), and that as early as 64 AD the Christians were very numerous (Tacitus Ann. xv.44: multitudo ingens).

      At first the Christians were not distinguished from the Jews, but shared in the toleration, or even pro- tection, which was usually conceded 2. Toler- to Judaism as the national rehgion of ance and one of the peoples embraced within Proscription the empire. Christianity was not legally proscribed untU after its dis- tinction from Judaism was clearly perceived. Two questions demand our attention: (1) When was Christianity recognized as distinct from Judaism? (2) When was the profession of Christianity declared a crime? These problems are of fundamental im- portance in the history of the church under the Rom empire.

      (1) If we may accept the passage in Suetonius cited above {Claudius 2.5) as testimony on the vicissitudes of Christianity, we infer that at that time the Christians were confused with the Jews. The account of Pomponia Graecina, who was committed to the jurisdiction of her husband (Tacitus Ann. xiii.32) tor adherence to a foreign belief (superstitionis externae rea). is frequently cited as proof that as early as 57 AD Christianity had secured a convert in the aristocracy. The characterization of the evidence in this case by the contemporary authority from whom Tacitus has gleaned this incident would apply appropriately to the adherence to Judaism or several oriental religions from the point of view of Ro- mans of that time; for Pomponia had hved in a very austere manner since 44 AD. Since there is some other evidence that Pomponia was a Christian, the indefinite account of the accusation against her as mentioned by Tacitus is partial proof that Christianity had not as yet been commonly recognized as a distinct religion (Marucchi, Itlements d'archeologie chretienne I, 13). At the time of the great conflagration in 64 AD the popu- lace knew of the Christians, and Nero charged them collectively mth a plot to destroy the city (Tacitus Ann. xv.44). The recognition of the distinctive character of Christianity had already taken place at this time. This was probably due in large measure to the circimastances of St. Paul's sojourn and trial in Rome and to the unprec- edented number of converts made at that time. The empress Poppaea, who was probably an adherent of Judaism (Jos. .-Int. XX, viii), may have enlightened the imperial court regarding the heresy of the Chiistians and their separation from the parent stock.

      (2) In attempting to determine approximately the time at which Christianity was placed under the official ban of the imperial government, it will be convenient to adopt as starting-points certain incontestable dates between which the act of prosecution must have been issued. It is clear that at the time of the great confla- gration (64 AD), the profession of Christianity was not a ground for criminal action. St. Paul had just been set at liberty by decree of the imperial court (cf 2 Tim 4 17). Moreover, the charge against the Christians was a plot to burn the city, not adherence to a proscribed religion, and they were condenmed, as it appears, for an attitude of hostility toward the human race (Tacitus Ann. xv. 44). While governor of Bithynia (c 112 AD), Phny the younger addressed Trajan in a celebrated letter (x.96) asking advice to guide his conduct in the trial of many persons who were accused as Christians, and inquiring particularly whether Cliristianity in itself w^as culpable, or only the faults which xisually accompanied adherence to the new faith. The reply of the emperor makes quite plain the fundamental guilt at that time of adherence to Christianity, and it supposes a law already existing against it (x.97). It follows, therefore, that the law against Christianity wliich w^as the legal basis for persecution must have i)een issued between the con- flagration in 64 AD and Phny's administration of Bi- thynia.

      We cannot define the time of this important act of legislation more closely with absolute certainty, al- though evidence is not wanting for the support of the- ories of more or less apparent probability. Tradition ascribes a general persecution to the reign of Domitian, which would imply that Christianity was already a forbidden religion at that time. AUusions in Rev (as 6 9), the references to recent calamities in Rome by St. Clement in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Ad Cor.)', the condemnation of Acilius Glabrio (Dio Cassius lxvii.13). a man of consular rank, together with the emperor's cousin Flavins Clemens (Dio Cassius, xiii) and Flavia Domitilla and many others on the charge of atheism and Jewish customs (95 AD), are cited as evidence for this I^ersecution. The fact that a number of persons in Bithynia abandoned Christianity 20 years before the judicial investigation of Pliny (Pliny x. 96) is of some im- portance as coiToborative evidence.



      Rome Rosh

      But there are grounds worthy of consideration for carrying the point of departure baclj oi Domitian. The letter of St. Peter from Babylon (Rome ?) to the Chris- tians in Asia Minor implies an impending persecution (1 Pet 4 12-16). This was probably in the closing years of the reign of Nero. Allard cleverly observes {flistoire dcs pcrsGcutions, 61) that the mention of the Neronian persecution of the Christians apart from the description of the great Are in the work of Suetonius (Ner. 16), amid a number of acts of legislation, is evi- dence of a general enactment, which must have been adopted at the time of, or soon after, the proceedings which were instituted on the basis of the charge of arson. Upon the whole the theory that the policy of the imperial government was definitely estabhshed under Nero carries with it considerable probabihty (cf Sulpitius Severus, Chron., ii.41).

      Although the original enactment has been lost the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan enables us to formu- late the imperial policy in dealing with the 3. PerseCU- Christians during the 2d cent. Adherence .." to Christianity was in itself culpable. But

      "O'^ proceedings were not to be undertaken by

      magistrates on their own initiative: they were to proceed only from charges brought by volun- tary accusers legally responsible tor estabUshing the proof of their assertions. Informal and anonymous in- formation must be rejected. Penitence shown in abjur- ing Christianity absolved the accused from the legal penalty of former guilt. The act of adoring the gods and the living emperor before their statues was sufficient proof of non-adherence to Christianity or of repentance.

      The attitude of the imperial authorities in the 3d cent, was less coherent. The problem became more compli- cated as Christianity grew. Persecution was directed more esp. against the church as an organization, since it was believed to exert a dangerous power. About 202 AD, Septimius Severus issued a decree forbidding spe- cifically conversion to Judaism or Christianity (Spar- tianus, Severus, 17) , in which he departed from the method of procedure prescribed by Trajan (conquirendi non sunt), and commissioned the magistrates to proceed directly against suspected converts. At this time the Christians organized funerary associations for the pos- session of their cemeteries, substituting corporative for individual ownership, and it would appear that under Alexander Severus they openly held places of worship in Rome (Lampridius. AlexandeT Severus, 22, 49). The em- peror Philip (244^-49) is thought to have been a Christian at heart (Eusebius, HE, VI, 34). A period of com- parative calm was interrupted by the persecution un- der Decius (250-51 AD), when the act of sacrifice was required as proof of non-adherence to Christianity. Several certificates testifying to the due performance of this rite have been preserved.

      Under Valerian (257 AD) the Christian organizations were declared illegal and the cemeteries were sequestrated. But an edict in 260 AD restored this property (Eusebius, VII, 13). A short persecution under AureUan (274 AD) broke the long period of cahn which extended to the first edict of persecution of Diocletian (February 24, 303). The Christians seem to have gained a sort of prescriptive claim to exist, for Diocletian did not at first consider them guilty of a capital crime. He sought to crush their organization by ordering the cessation of assembhes, the destruction of churches and sacred books, and ab- juration under pain of pohtical and social degradation. (Lactantius, £»e Morte Persecutorum, x.ll, 12, 13; Euse- bius VIII, 2 ; IX, 10). Later he ordered the arrest of all the clergy who were to be put to death unless they re- nounced the faith (Eusebius, VIII, 6). Finally the requirement of an act of conformity in sacrificing to the gods was made general. This final persecution, con- tinuing in an irregular way with varying degrees of se- verity terminated with the defeat of Maxentms by Con- stantino (October 29, 312). The Edict of Milan issued by Constantino and Liclnius the following year estab- lished toleration, the restoration of ecclesiastical property and the peace of the church. See Roman Empibe and Christianity, III, IV, V. < , . -n •

      LiTEKATUHE. — Allard, Hisloire des persecutions, i'aris, 1903: he christianisme el I'empire romain. Paris, 1903: Duchesne, Hisloire ancienne de I'ei/lise, Paris, 1907 (lil); Marucchi, Elements d'archeologie chretienne, Paris, 1899- 1902- Hardy, Christianity and the Rom Government, London, 1894: Renan, L'eglise chretienne. Pans, 1879: Ramsay, The Church in the Rom Empire, London, ISOc!.

      George H. Allen

      ROOF, roof. See House.

      ROOF-CHAMBER. See House.

      ROOM, room. See House.

      ROOT, root (iSnilJ , shoresh; pila, rlAza) : Fre- quently mentioned 'in the OT and NT, but almost always in a figurative sense, e.g. "root of the right- eous" (Prov 12 3.12); "root that beareth gall"

      (Dt 29 18); "Their root shall be as rottenness" (Lsa 5 24); "root of bitterness" (He 12 15). Also of peoples: "they whose root is in Amalek" (Jgs 6 14); of A.ssyria (Ezk 31 7); "Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up" (Hos 9 16); ",Judah shall again take root downward" (2 K 19 30; of Isa 27 6; 37 31); the root of Je,sse (Isa 11 10; Rom 15 12); root of David (Rev 5 5; 22 16).

      ROOT OF DAVID. See David, Root of.

      ROOT OF JESSE ("iffl"! ffihilj , shmeah yishay [Isa 11 10]; pC^a Tov Ttcro-at, rhiza lou lessai [Rom 15 12]) : The Heb and Gr words are practically the same in meaning. "Root" means descendant, branch of the family or stock. The Messianic king was to be of the family of Jesse the father of David. In Rom 15 12 Paul quotes the LXX of Isa 11 10. Jesus is a branch or descendant of the family of Je.sse, as well as of David. See also David, Root


      ROPE, rop: Used in the OT for 5Dn , hebhel, "that which binds" (2 S 17 13, etc), and for Diy, 'abholh, "that which is woven" (.Igs 15 13, etc). In neither word is any specified thickness or strength connoted, and hebhel is tr"* equally well by "line" (2 S 8 2, etc)' 01- "cord" (Josh 2 15, etc), and 'abhoih by "cord" (Ps 118 27, etc), as best suits the context. Similarly in the NT the word a-xoivlov, schoinion, lit. "made of rushes," can mean the rope by which a boat is fastened (Acts 27 32) or small cords suitable for a whip (Jn 2 15). The usual material for ropes was certainly flax (hemp), but the Egyptians, and so possibly the Hebrews, at times made ropes of leathern thongs. See Cokd; Line; Ships ajstd Boats, III, 2.

      Burton Scott Easton

      ROSE, roz: (1) (rtsan, MbhafQeleih; &veo$, dnthos, "a flower" [Cant 2 1], Kplvov, krinon, "a lily" [Isa 35 1]): By general consent EV is wrong: in Cant 2 1m reads "Heb hahazzeleth, the autumn crocus," and in Isa 35 1, m reads "or autumn cro- cus." This is the Colchicum autumnale (N.O. Lilia- ceae). A Tg on Cant 2 1 explains the Heb word as "narcissus," a very common plant in the plains and mountains of Pal and a great favorite with the natives. Two species, A'^. iazella and A'', serolinus (N.O. Amaryllideae) , occur, the latter being the finer; they are autumn plants. AU authorities agree that the so-called "rose" was some kind of bulbed plant. (2) (jihSov, rh6don, "the rose," mentioned in Ecclus 24 14; 39 13; 50 8; Wisd 2 8; 2 Esd 2 19): There is no reason why the rose, of which several varieties are common in Pal, should not be meant. Tristram favors the rhododendron. The expression, "rose plants in Jericho," in Ecclus 24 14 has nothing whatever to do with what is now sold there as a "rose of Jericho," a dwarf annual plant, Anastatica hierochuntina (N.O. Cruciferae), which dries up and can be made to reexpand by placing the root in water. E. W. G. Mastekman

      ROSH, rosh, rosh (ffiSI , ro'sh): A son or grand- son of Benjamin (Gen 46 21).

      ROSH (fflSI, ro'sh; 'Pus, Bho.?, var. [Q-""] kc- ^a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\s, kephales; Yulg capitis): This name occurs

      in the prophecies against Gog in Ezk 1. Rosh 38 2.3 and 39 1, where AV has "Gog, and Its the land of IMagog, the chief prince of

      Renderings IVIeshech and Tubal." This tr is due

      to ro'sh being the common Heb word for "head" or "chief" (cf the Gr variant and the Vulg), and is regarded as incorrect, that of the RV,

      Rot, Rottenness Ruler



      "Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal," being preferred.

      The identification of Rosh is not without its diffi- culties. Gesenius regarded it as indicating the Russians, who are mentioned in Byzan-

      2. Identi- tine writers of the 10th cent, under ficationwith the name of 'Pws, Rhos. He adds that Russia they are also noticed by Ibn Fosslan

      (same period), under the name of Rus, as a people dwelling on the river Rha (Volga). Apart from the improbabiUty that the dominion of Gog extended t« this district, it would be needful to know at what date the Rtis of the Volga arrived there.

      Notwithstanding objections on account of its eastern position, in all probability Fried. Delitzsch's

      identification of Rosh with the mdt

      3. Probably Rdsi, "land of Rash" of the Assyr the Assyr- inscriptions, is the best. Sargon of ian Rasu Assyria (c 710 BC) conquered the

      countries "from the land of Rasu on the border of Elam as far as the river of Egypt," and this country is further described in his Khorsabad Inscription, 18, as "the land of Rdsu, of the boundary of Elam, which is beside the Tigris." Assj'ria having disappeared from among the nations when Ezekiel WTote his prophecies. Babylonia was probably the only power with which "Gog of the land of Magog" would have had to reckon, but it may well be doubted whether the Bab king would have allowed him to exercise power in the district of Rasu, except as a very faithful vassal. It may here be noted that the Heb spelling of Rosh presupposes an earUer pronunciation as Rdsh, a form agreeing closely with that used by the Assyrians. See Fried. Dehtzsch, Wo lag das Parodies? 325.

      T. G. Pinches ROT, rot, ROTTENNESS, rot"n-nes (vb. 2p,-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ , rakebh, noun rakahh [rikkabhon, Job 41 27], with p«, mak, "decay" [Isa 5 24], and TBa?, 'ahhash, "shrivel" [so Joel 1 17 RVm]): "Rottenness of the bones" (Prov 12 4; 14 30; Hab 3 16) is ulcera- tion {caries) of the bones, used as an example of an intensely painful disease. AV, in addition, has "rot" in Nu 6 21.22.27, where RV has "fall away" (5SD , naphol), but a euphemistic paraphrase is in point (see the comms.). In Jer 38 11.12 AV has "old rotten rags" for nbu , melah, "rag" (RV "worn- out garments," a tr that specializes too far).

      ROTE, rot: RVm gives "learned by rote" in Isa 29 13 for AV "taught," which indicates that the service of Jeh was merely formal.

      ROWER, ro'er, ROWING, ro'ing.

      AND BOAT.S, III, 1.

      See Ships

      ROYAL, roi'al: Either belonging to a king (king- dom) or having kingly power, dignity, authority, etc. In Heb, the word is expressed by using different nouns in the gen. case (the "construct state"). They are: (1) melekh, "king": "Asher .... shall yield royal dainties," lit. choice morsels of the king, meaning fit for a king (Gen 49 20); "besides that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty," lit. which he gave her according to the hand (the wealth) of King Solomon (1 K 10 13; cf RVm); "a royal statute," lit. statute of a malka', which is the em- phatic Aram, term for melekh, "king" (Dnl 6 7); (2) mamldkhah, "the power and dignity of a king," "Gibeon .... one of the royal cities," i.e. a capital city with a king of her own (Josh 10 2; cf 1 S 27 5); "all the seed royal," Ut. the seed of the kingdom (2 K 11 1; cf2 Ch 22 10); (3) inalkhnth, "kinghood," "kingdom": "royal majesty," lit.

      majesty of kinghood (1 Ch 29 25); quite fre- quently m the Book of Est; royal wine (1 7); crown (1 11; cf2 17; 6 8); commandment (1 19); "her royal estate," ht. her kinghood (1 19); house royal (2 16; cf 5 1); royal apparel (5 1; cf 6 8. 15); throne (5 1); (4) m'lUkhah, "kingdom," "kingly power and dignity": "royal city," lit. the city of the kingdom, meaning here that part of the city (Rabbah) in which the royal palace was situated (2 S 12 26); "royal diadem," lit. turban of king- hood (Isa 62 3) ; (5) in Jer 43 10 we find the word shaphrvr; its meaning is uncertain: "royal pavilion" (RV and AV), "ghttering" (RVm), "scepter," "a carpet covering a throne."

      The NT uses the word for basilikos, "belonging to a king": "royal apparel" (Acts 12 21); "the royal law," something like "the golden rule," being fore- most because including all others (Jas 2 8), and for baMleios (being vested with kingly power and honor), "royal priesthood," the Heb rendering would be mamlekheth kohanlm, "a kingdom of priests," i.e. a kingdom whose citizens are priests, emphasizing the two facts that the true Christians have free access to the grace of God and that they enjoy the liberties and privileges of His kingdom (1 Pet 2 9). William Baub

      ROYAL CITY. See Royal, (2), (4).

      RUBY, roo'bi. See Stones, Precious.

      RUDDER, rud'er, RUDDER-BANDS.

      Ships and Boats, III, 2, (3).


      RUDDY, rud'i CIlTanX , 'adhmoni [1 S 16 12; 17 42; Gen 25 25 RVm],bnS , 'adhom [Cant 5 10]; vbs. DIX , 'adiiam [Lam 4 7], and tpuBpiaa), eru- thrido, "to blush" [Ad Est 15 5]): "Ruddy" is the form taken by the adj. "red" when tised as a term of praise of the human skin, and this is its use in the Bible (the Heb and Gr words are all usual words for "red" or "to be red"). The dark-skinned Hebrews found great beauty in a clear complexion.

      RUDE, rood: Not "impoKte" in EV (except per- haps 2 Mace 12 14), but "untrained," "ignorant"; cf the modern phrase, "a rude drawing." So Sir 8 4 (awalSiVTos, apaideutos) and 2 Cor 11 6 (/5i(iT7;s, idiotes, 'though I lack technical training in rhetoric'); cf AV and RVm Sir 21 24.

      RUDIMENTS, roo'di-ments (o-roixeia, stoicheia, pi. of o-Toixeiov, sloicheion [Gal 4 3.9; Col 2 8.20; He 5 12; 2 Pet 3 10.12]): This word occurs 7 t in the NT, and AV translates it in three different ways. In the two passages in Gal, and in the two in 2 Pet, it is rendered "elements." In the two passages in Col, it is tr"* "rudiments." In He it is rendered "first principles."

      The etymological meaning of the word is, that which belongs to a row or rank, hence any first thing, an element, first principle. It 1. Etymo- denotes, specially (1) the letters of the logical alphabet, the spoken sounds, as the

      Meaning elements of speech; (2) the material elements of the universe, the physical atoms of which the world is composed; (3) the heavenly bodies; (4) the elements, rudiments, fundamental principles of any art, science or dis- cipUne; cf the phrase, "the a, b, c."

      (1) The NT use of the word, where it always occurs in the pi., is as follows: In 2 Pet 3 10.12, "The elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat," that is, the physical elements of the world and of the heavens are to be consumed, or subjected to change.



      Rot, Rottenness Ruler

      by means of fire. In He 5 12, AV "Ye have need that one teach you again which be the first prin- ciples of the oracles of God." This 2. Use of means that the Heb Christians had Term in not made the advance expected, in the NT grace and in the knowledge of God,

      but were in need of instruction in the elementary truths of the Christian faith.

      (2) The Pauline use of the term is in Gal and Col; see references as above. InGal4 3.9 AV Paul writes, "When we were children, [we] were in bondage un- der the elements of the world' ' ; "How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" The apostle here means the ceremonial precepts of the worship of the Jews. These requirements involved much and protracted difficulty in their observance; they were "a yoke .... which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15 10). Yet the Galatian converts were turning back again to these legal ordinances, and desired to be in bondage to them. These ele- ments were "of the world," they had reference to material and not to spiritual things, they were formal and sensuous. They were "weak," for they had no power to rescue man from condemnation, and they could not save him from sin. They were "beggarly," for they brought no endowment of the heavenly riches. By these epithets Paul signifies that rites, ordinances, sacrifices, observance of days and seasons belonged to the elementary stages of the Jewish religion, which had now attained its end and purpose in the coming of Christ and His work. These things were necessary at the time they were Divinely instituted, but the time had come when they were no longer required. They con- tained and conveyed an elementary knowledge, and were intended, from the first, to lead to an advance ip the moral and spiritual hfe, which is now revealed in Christ.

      It has been thought by some that what is meant by "elements" or "rudiments" in Gal and Col is the physi- cal elements, presided over by angels, and that this is in some way connected with the worship of angels, to which Paul refers in Col 2 18. The Jews beUeved that there were angels of fire and of the wind, and of the other physical elements. The apostle therefore wished to show the foohshness of the worship of angels and of the heavenly bodies which they were supposed to control. . .,.■,. .1 i

      This latter meaning of the term is a possible, but not a probable one. The interpretation, already first given, which understands "elements" to mean the ordinances of Jewish legahsm, is most in harmony with the gospel and with the teaching of Paul. "This is probably the correct interpretation, both as simpler m itself and as suiting the context better. St. Paul seems to be dweU- ing still on the rudimentary character of the law, as fitted for an earher stage in the world's history" (Lightfoot, Comm. on Gal, 167).

      In Col 2 8 AV Paul vprites, "Beware lest any man spoil you .... after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" ; and in ver 20, AV "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why .... are ye subject to ordinances?" The meaning of the term here is the elements of reh- gious training, the ceremonial precepts of the Jewish Law. In Col and Gal the meaning is that the sys- tems of the false teachers, both in Colossae and in Galatia, laid stress on Jewish ritual, ceremonial law and ascetic observances— things of this world, be- longing to the visible sphere, things elementary, and intended, so far as the Jewish Law is concerned, simply as a preparation for the commg of Christ. Such were the rudiments of the world, so far as their source was Jewish. On their heathen side they were still more decidedly anti-Christian. Both of these tendencies, Jewish and heathen, were not according to Christ." For Christ HimseH who atoned for sin, and who now lives and reigns, de- livers believers from all such methods, as well as from the need of them. John Ruthbrfurd



      •* f^^.'


      ^ 'vf%

      RUE, roo (irTi-yavov, ptganon) : One of the plants mentioned in Lk 11 42 as subject to tithe: in the || passage, Mt 23 23, anise and cummin are men- tioned. Ruta graveolens (N.O. Rutaceae) is the officinal rue, and a very similar species, R. chale- pensis, is indigenous. Rue is a small shrub grow- ing 2 to 4 ft. high with a heavy odor, disagree- able to Westerners, but a favorite with Orientals. A sprig of rue is often fixed on a child's cap or clothes as a kind of

      charm. Rue (Ruta graveolens).

      RUFUS, roo'fus ('PoO

      RUG, rug: Alternative rendering of a word (np-'iytp, s'mlkhah) in Jgs 4 18 RV, "mantle" AV. The tr is doubtful; OHL gives "rug or thick coverlet [?]."

      RUHAMAH, roo-ha'ma, rob-ha'ma: See Lo- RuHAMAH, the symbohcal name of Hosea's daughter (Hos 1 6.8).

      RUIN, rob'in (nD"iin, hdrl?ah, etc; pfj-yiia, rhtgma): "Ruin," the tr of hdri?ah (Am 9 11; cf Acts 15 16, where RV Gr text, td katestrammena), and of a number of other Heb words: in Lk 6 49 rhegma, "breakage," is used both iQ a hteral sense (Isa 23 13; 25 2, of faUen buildings; Ezk 27 27; 31 13, of a state or people; Lk 6 49, of a house, etc) and with a moral significance (Prov 26 28). RVm correctly renders mikhshol in Ezk 18 30 "stumblingblock" (AV "ruin"), and RV in 21 15 "stumblings" (AV "ruins"). RV has "ruins" for AV "desolations" in Ezr 9 9, m "waste places"; Ps 74 3; "in their ruins" for "with their mat- tocks" (2 Ch 34 6. m "'with their axes.' The Heb is obscure"); ''midst of the ruin" for "deso- lation" (Job 30 14); "their ruin" for "their wicked- ness" (Prov 21 12). "Ruinous" is the tr of map- pdlah (Isa 17 1) and of ndgah (2 K 19 25; Isa 37 26). W. L. Walker

      RULER, rool'er:

      (1) bm, moshel, "ruler," "prince," "master" (tyrant), applied to Joseph in Egypt (Gen 45 8; cfPs 105 21); to the Philis (Jgs 15 11); to David s descendants, the future kings of Israel (2 Ch 7

      Ruler Ruth



      IS; cf Jer 33 26); to Pharaoh (Ps 105 20); to a wicked prince, a tjTant (Prov 28 15; cf Isa

      14 5; 49 7); to the theocratic king, 1. In the the Messiah (Mic 5 2); it is often OX used in general (Prov 6 7; 23 1; 29

      12; Eccl 10 4; Isa 16 1, etc).

      (2) T"?;, naghldh, "leader," "noble" (nobles), "prince." In a number of instances RV renders it "prince," where AV has ruler (1 S 25 30; 2 S 6 21; 1 K 1 35, etc). It is used of Azrikam hav- ing charge of the palace of King Ahaz (2 Ch 28 7, "governor" of the house, AV); of Azariah (Seraiah, Neh 11 11), who is called the "ruler of the house of God" (1 Ch 9 11; cf 2 Ch 31 13); he was the leader of a division or group of priests. In 2 Ch 35 8 the names of three others are given (Hilkiah, Zechariah and Jehiel).

      (3) ^<^^CD, nasV, "prince" (so Nu 13 2, AV "ruler"); generally speaking, the nasi' is one of the public authorities (Ex 22 28) ; the rulers of the congregation (Ex 16 22; ef 34 31); "The rulers brought the onyx stones" (Ex 35 27), as it was to be expected from men of their social stancling and financial abihty: "when a ruler [the head of a tribe or tribal division] sinneth" (Lev 4 22).

      (4) ')3D , ^dghdn, the representative of a king or a prince; a vice-regent; a governor; then, in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, a leader or principal of the people of Jerus under the general supervision of these two men. The EV renders it "ruler" (Ezk 23 12.23), "deputy" (Jer 51 23.28.57), and, in most, "ruler" with "deputy" in m (Ezr 9 2; Neh 2 16; 4 14.19; 5 7.17; 7 5; 12 40; 13 11; Isa 41 25; Ezk 23 6) always used in pi.

      (•5) r^P. bmn, "a judge" or "magistrate" (Isa 1 10; 3 6.7; 22 3; Mic 3 1.9); "a military chief" (Josh 10 24).

      (6) rril , rodheh, one having dominion: "There is httle Benjamin their ruler" (Ps 68 27); the meaning is obscure; still we may point to the facts that Saul, the first one to conquer the heathen (1 S 14 47 f), came of this the smallest of aU the tribes, and that within its boundaries the temple of Jeh was erected.

      (7) "Til, rozen, a "dignitary," a "prince." "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Jeh" (Ps 2 2); in the NT the word is rendered drchonles (Acts 4 26).

      (8) "IW , sar, "chief," "head"; prince, king; a nobleman having judicial or other power; a royal officer. RV renders it frequently "prince": "rulers over my cattle" ("head-shepherds," Gen 47 6); "rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds," etc (Ex 18 21); they had to be men of good char- acter because they were endowed with judicial power (ver 22); in Dt 1 15 the rendering of EV is "captains," etc; they were military leaders.

      chariots" (1 K 9 22); the rulers of Jezreel (2 K 10 1) were, presumably, the ruler of the palace of the king and the ruler of the city of Samaria (cf ver 5). It is difficult to explain why they should be called the rulers of Jezreel; both LXX and Vulg omit the word; "the rulers of the substance which was king David's" (1 Ch 27 31) overseers of the royal do- main; "The rulers were behind aU the house of Judah" (Neh 4 16), the officers were ready to assume active command in case of an attack.

      (9), (10) "VoblC, shiUmi, "a commander," "an officer": "the rulers of the provinces" (Dnl 3 2 f); U"!?!? , shallU, "a person in power," "a potentate" (Dnl 2 10) ; there seems to be little doubt that the

      Aram, term is used as an adj. (cf RVm); in Dnl 5 7 occurs the vb. sh'lat, "to have dominion," "he shall rule as the third in rank" (cf vs 16.29).

      (11) ]^'^ , mdghen, "shield" : "Her rulers [shields] dearly love shame" (Hos 4 18). Perhaps we ought, to read (with LXX) migg"' ondm, "their glory," and to translate it "they love shame more than their glorj'"; they would rather have a good (!) time than a good name.

      (1) apx"**', drckon, used of the "rulers" of the Spar- tans (1 Mace 14 20) and, in a general sense, of the priest Mattathias (1 Mace 2 17). AV 9 Tn thp has the word also in a general sense in ^. XII uie g.j, ^^ jg ^-^y "mighty man").

      ^P^** (2) Tjyoii/i-ei'o?, higoumenos, "one leading

      the way." A quite general term, Sir 10 2 (ruler of a eitv) ; 17 17 (of gentile nations) ; 46 18 (of the Tyrians). Also 3 17 AV (BV "he that ruleth"), and 32 1 RV ("ruler o/ a /easf." AV "master").

      (.3) OL ^e-yicTTai-eg, hoi megistdnes, a rare word found only in the pi., for "rulers of the congregation" (Sir 33 18). The same word in Mk 6 21 is tr-i "lords."

      (4) 2 Mace 4 27 AV for en-ipx"?, epdrchos (RV "gov- ernor").

      (5) AV inserts the word without Gr equivalent in 1 Mace 6 14; 11 57; 2 Maee 13 2.

      (1) (Spxwi drchon, "a person in authority," "a magistrate," "a judge," "a prince"; a councillor,

      a member of the supreme council of 3. In the the Jews; a man of influence. "There NT came a ruler" (Mt 9 IS), meaning a

      ruler of the synagogue (cf Mk 5 22; Lk 8 41); see (2) below; "one of the rulers of the Pharisees" (Lk 14 1), perhaps a member of the Jewish council belonging, at the same time, to the Pharisees, or, more probably, one of the leading Pharisees; "the chief priests and the rulers" (Lk 23 13..35; 24 20; cf Jn 3 1; 7 26.48; 12 42; Acts 3 17; 4 5.8; 13 27; 14 5); the rulers were, wdth the chief priests and the scribes, members of the Sanhedrin, either of two councils of the Jews (the Great and the Lesser) ; they were lay-members' (elders); "before the rulers" (Acts 16 19), the pohce magistrates {praetores, "praetors") of the city of Philippi; "Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people" (Acts 23 5; cf Ex 22 2S, nasi'; see 1, [3] above), a magistrate, a person in authority (cf Acts 7 27.35; Rom 13 3, the pubhc authori- ties); "the rulers of this world" (1 Cor 2 6.8), persons being mentally superior to their fellow-men, and so having great influence in shaping their opin- ions and directing their actions.

      (2) dpxi-o-viidyujyos, archisundgogos, "ruler of the synagogue." He was the presiding officer of a board of elders, who had charge of the synagogue. Sometimes they, also, were given the same name (cf "one of the rulers of the synagogue," Mk 5 22.35; Lk 8 41.49; in Mt 9 18 Jairua is simply called archon); the ruler mentioned in Lk 13 14 was, of course, the president of the board (cf Acts 18 l7, Sosthenes), whUe in Acts 13 15 the phrase "rulers of the synagogue" simply signifies the board. It was a dehberative body, but at the same time responsible for the maintenance of good order in the synagogue and the orthodoxy of its members; having, therefore, disciphnary power, they were authorized to reprimand, and even to excommuni- cate, the guilty ones (cf Jn 9 22; 12 42; 16 2).

      (3) apxiTpiKXtvos, architrihlinos, the ruler ("stew- ard," RVm) of the feast (Jn 2 8.9). See sepa- rate article.

      (4) Koaij.oKp6.Tup, kosmokrdtor, a "world-ruler" (Eph 6 12). The angels of the devU (Mt 25 41; 12 45) or Satan, the prince of this world (Jn 12 31), participate in his power; they are his tools, their sphere of action being "this darkness," i.e. the morally corrupt state of our present existence.

      (5) woXirdpxv^, politdrches; the prefect of a city (Acts 17 6.8). Luke being the only one of the Bib. authors to hand down to us this word, it is a



      Ruler Ruth

      noteworthy tact that, in rohitively modern times, a Gr inscription was discovered containing this very word and, moreover, having reference to the city of Thessalonica {AJT, 1898, II, 598-643). Here it was where Paul and Silas preiiched the gospel so successfully that the Jews, "being moved with jealousy," caused Jason and certain brethren to be dragged before the rulers of the city (epi toils politdr- chas). These magistrates suffered themselves to be made the tools of the unscrupulous Jews by demand- ing and getting security from Jason and the rest.

      William Baur RULER OF THE FEAST (apxirplKXivos, arcU- trlklinos; AV governor) : The word occurs in the NT in the account of the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (Jn 2 8.9). According to Ecclus (32 1) it was customary to appoint a "master of the cere- monies" from among the invited guests. It was his duty to determine the places of the guests, to see that the ordinary rules of etiquette were observed, etc, and generally to supervise the arrangements. RVm "steward" is possible if the "governor of the feast" meant the "head waiter" (Merx renders "head servant of the feast"), and not one of the guests appointed for the purpose. But the context is in favor of the view that the person in question was one of the prominent guests — an intimate friend or rela- tive of the host. See Ruler, 2, (2). T.Lewis

      RULER OF THE SYNAGOGUE. See Ruler, 3, (1), (2).

      RULERS OF THE CITY. See Ruler, 1, (8), 2, (2), 3, (5).

      RUMAH, roo'ma (rTall, rumah; B, 'Po\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\j|ia, Rhoumd, A, 'Pu|ia, Rhumd): To this place belonged Pedaiah whose daughter Zebudah (RV "Zebidah") entered the harem of Josiah, king of Judah, and became the mother of Jehoiakim (2 K 23 36). Jos {Ant, X, V, 2) calls the place Abouma, but this is an obvious clerical error for Arouma. This sug- gests a possible identification with Arumah (Jgs 9 41), which lay not far from Shechem. Another possible identification is with the Rumah men- tioned by Jos (BJ, III, vii, 21) in Galilee (cf Neu- bauer, Geog. du Talm, 203), which may be identical with the modem Khirbet Eumeh, about 3 miles N. of Seffuriyeh. Some, however, would identify Rumah' with Dumah of Josh 15 52, where the sub- stitution of r for d is supported by the LXX {Rheu- ma), possibly represented by the modern Domeh, about 13 miles S.E. of Beit Jihrin. This of course was in the territory of Judah, and no question of jus connuhium is involved, such as might arise in the case of a GaUlean site. W. Ewma

      RUMP, rump: AV uses this word as tr of Tnt^ , 'alyah (Ex 29 22; Lev 3 9; 7 3; 8 25; 9 19), where RV correctly renders "fat tail." Reference is here had to the broad tail of the Syrian sheep, which occasionally weighs as much as 20 lbs., and is considered one of the daintiest portions of mutton. It was one of those portions of the peace and tres- pass offering which were not eaten by the priest or the sacrificer, but which with other choice portions were waved before the Lord and wholly burnt on the altar as a sweet savor unto Jeh.

      RUNAGATE, run'a-gat: A runaway: "The runa- gates continue in scarceness" (Ps 68 6, Prayer Book Version, RV "The rebellious dwell in a parched land").

      RUNNER, run'er. See Games.

      RUSH: (1) (X^il, gome'; vdwvpos, pdpuros, "bul- rushes," m "papyrus" [Ex 2 3]; "rush," m "papy-

      rus" [Job 8 11]; "papyrus," AV "rush" [Isa 18 2); "rushes" [35 7]): This is ahnost certainly the famous papyrus, C'yperus papyrus (N.O. Cypera- ceae), known in Arab, as habir (whence comes our word "paper"). This plant, the finest of the sedges, flourishes plentifully m Upper Egypt; in Pal there is a great mass of it growing in the marsh to the N. of Lake Huleh, and it also occurs on the Lake of Galilee and the Jordan. Light boats of plaited papyrus have been used on the Nile from ancient times and are mentioned by many writers (cf Ex 2 3; Isa 18 2).

      (2) (li^5S5 , 'aghmon, "rope," m "Heb 'a rope of rushes,' " AV "hook" [.lob 41 2); "[burning] rushes," AV "caldron" [Job 41 20]; "rush," AV "bulrush" [Isa 58 5]; "rush" in Isa 9 14; 19 15, used of the humble and lowly folk as contrasted with the "palm branch," the highest class): The word 'aghmon comes from QJb? , 'ogham, meaning a marsh (see Pools), being transferred from the place of the things growing there. The word doubtless includes not only the rushes — of which there are several kinds in Pal — but also members of the sedge family, the Cyperaceae. See also Reed.

      E. W. G. Masterman

      RUST, rust (nsbn , hel'ah; ppw

      Brosis, lit. "eating," which occurs in Mt 6 19. 20, may refer to the diseases which attack such vegetation as wheat, grapes, cucumbers, etc. In no country is the saying "where moth and rust con- sume" (Mt 6 19) more true than in Syria. Any metal subject to corrosion seems to rust faster in that country than anywhere else. There are also many rusting fungi which the people have not learned to destroy and which do much damage to the crops. See also Scum. James A. Patch

      RUTH, rooth (nil , ruth; 'Pov9, Rhouth) : The name Ruth is found in the OT only in the book which is so entitled. It is a contraction for re'uth (PW)), perhaps signifying "comrade," "compan- ion" (fem.; cf Ex 11 2, "every woman of her neigh- bor"). OHL, 946, explains the word as an abstract noun = "friendship." The Book of Ruth details the history of the one decisive episode owing to which Ruth became an ancestress of David and of the royal house of Judah. From this point of view its pecuhar interest hes in the close friendship or alhance between Israel and Moab, which rendered such a connection possible. Not improbably also there is an allusion to this in the name itself.

      The history hes in the period of the Judges (1 1), at the close of a great famine in the land of Israel. Ehmelech, a native of Bethlehem, had, 1. History with his wife Naomi and two sons, taken refuge in Moab from the famine. There, after an interval of time which is not more precisely defined, he died (1 3), and his two sons,

      Ruth Sabbath



      liaving married women of Moab, in the course of a further ten j'ears also died, and left Orpah and Ruth widows (1 5). Naomi then decided to return to Pal, and her two daughters-in-law accompanied her on her way (1 7). Orpah, however, turned back and only Ruth remained with Naomi, journey- ing with her to Bethlehem, where they arrived "in the beginning of barley harvest" (1 22). The piety and fidelity of Ruth are thus early exhibited in the course of the narrative, in that she refused to abandon her mother-in-law, although thrice exhorted to do so by Naomi herself, on account of her own great age and the better prospects for Ruth in her own country. Orpah yielded to persuasion, and returned to Moab, but Ruth remained with Naomi.

      At Bethlehem Ruth employed herself in gleaning in the field during the harvest and was noticed by Boaz, the owner of the field, a near kinsman of her father-in-law EUmelech. Boaz gave her permission to glean as long as the harvest continued; and told her that he had heard of her fiUal conduct toward her mother-in-law. Moreover, he directed the reapers to make intentional provision for her by dropping in her way grain from their bundles (2 15 f). She was thus able to return to Naomi in the even- ing with a whole ephah of barley (ver 17). In answer to questioning she explained that her success in gleaning was due to the good-will of Boaz, and the orders that he had given. She remained accord- ingly and gleaned with his maidens throughout the barley and wheat harvest, making her home with her mother-in-law (2 23). Naomi was anxious for the remarriage of Ruth, both for her sake and to secure compliance with the usage and law of Israel; and sent her to Boaz to recall to him his duty as near kinsman of her late husband EUmelech (3 If). Boaz acknowledged the claim and promised to take Ruth in marriage, failing fulfilment of the legal duty of another w'hose relationship was nearer than that of Boaz himself (3 8-13). Naomi was confident that Boaz would fulfil his promise, and advised Ruth to ■lAait in patience.

      Boaz then adopted the customary and legal meas- ures to obtain a decision. He summoned the near kinsman before ten elders at the gate of the city, related to him the circumstances of Naomi's return, with her desire that Ruth should be married and settled with her father-in-law's land as her marriage- portion, and called upon him to declare his inten- tions. The near kinsman, whose name and degree of relationship are not stated, declared his inability to undertake the charge, which he renounced in legal form in favor of Boaz according to ancient custom in I.srael (4 6ff). Boaz accepted the charge thus transferred to him, the elders and bystanders bear- ing witness and pronouncing a formal blessing upon the union of Boaz and Ruth (4 9-12). Upon the birth of a son in due course the women of the city congratulated Naomi, in that the continuance of her family and house was now assured, and the latter became the child's nurse. The name of Obed was given to the boy; and Obed through his son Jesse became the grandfather of David (cf Mt 1 5.6; Lk 3 31.32).

      Thus the life and history of Ruth are important in the eyes of the narrator because she forms a link in the ancestry of the greatest 2. Interest king of Israel. From a more modern and Tm- point of view the narrative is a simple portance of idyllic history, showing how the faith- the Nana- ful loving service of Ruth to her tive mother-in-law met with its due reward

      in the restored happiness of a peaceful and prosperous home-life for herself. Incidentally are illustrated also ancient marriage customs of Israel, which in the time of the writer had long since

      become obsolete. The narrative is brief and told without affectation of style, and on that account will never lose its interest. It has preserved more- over the memory of an incident, the national signifi- cance of which may have passed away, but to which value will alwaj's be attached for its simplicity and natural grace.

      For the literature, see Ruth, Book of.

      A. S. Geden RUTH, BOOK OF: The place which the Book of Ruth occupies in the order of the books of the Eng. Bible is not that of the Heb

      1. Order in Canon. There it is one of the five the Canon m'ghillolh or Rolls, which were ordered

      to be read in the synagogue on 5 special occasions or festivals during the year.

      In printed edd of tlie OT the m'ghiUoth are usually arranged In the order : Cant, Ruth, Lam, Eccl, Est. Ruth occupied the second position because the booli was ap- pointed to be read at the Feast of Weeks which was the second of the 5 special days. In Heb MSS, however, the order varies considerably. In Spanish MSS gen- erally, and in one at least of the Ger. school cited by Dr. Ginsburg {Intro to the Heb Bible, London, 1897, 4), Ruth precedes Cant; and in the former Eccl is placed before Lam. The m'gh Moth constitute the second portion of the kHhuhhlm or Haglographa, the third great division of the books of the Heb Scriptures. The Talm, how- ever, dissociates Ruth altogether from the remaining m^ghilldth, and places it first among the Haglographa, before the Book of Fss. By the Gr translators the book was removed from the position which it held in the Heb Canon, and because it described events contemporaneous with the Judges, was attached as a kind of appendix to the latter work. This sequence was adopted in the Vulg, and so has passed into aU modern Bibles.

      The book is written without name of author, and

      there is no direct indication of its date. Its aim is

      to record an event of interest and im-

      2. Author- portance in the family history of David, ship and and incidentally to illustrate ancient Purpose custom and marriage law. There is

      no ground for supposing, as has been suggested, that the writer had a polemical purpose in view, and desired to show that the strict and stern action taken by Ezra and Nehemiah after the return in forbidding mixed marriages was not justi- fied by precedent. The narrative is simple and direct, and the preservation of the tradition which it records of the descent of Israel's royal house from a Moabite ancestress was probably due in the first instance to oral communication for some considerable time before it was committed to writing. The Book of 1 S also indicates a close rela- tion between David and Moab, when during the period of his outlawry the future king confided his father and mother to the care of the king of Moab (1 S 22 3f), and so far supports the truth of the tradition which is embodied in the Book of Ruth.

      With regard to the date at which the narrative

      was committed to writing, it is evident from the

      position of the Book of Ruth in the

      3. Date of Heb Canon that the date of its com- Composition position is subsequent to the close of

      the great period of the "earlier proph- ets." Otherwise it would have found a natural place, as was assigned to it in the Gr Bible, together with the Book of Jgs and other historical writings, in the second division of the Heb Scriptures. In the opening words of the book also, "It came to pass in the days when the judges judged" (Ruth 1 1), the writer appears to look back to the period of the Judges as to a comparatively distant epoch. The character of the diction is pure and chaste; but has been supposed in certain details, as in the pres- ence of so-called Aramaisms, to betray a late origin. The reference to the observance of marriage cus- toms and their sanctions "in former time in Israel" (4 7) does not necessarily imply that the composi- tion of Ruth was later than that of Dt, in which the laws and rights of the succession are enjoined, or



      Ruth Sabbath

      that the writer of the former work was acquainted with the latter in its existing form. Slight differ- ences of detail in the procedure would seem to sug- gest the contrary. On the other hand, the motive of the book in the exhibition of the ancestry of David's house would have lost its significance and raison d'etre with the death or disappearance of the last ruler of David's line in the early period of the return from Babylon (cf Zee 4 9). The most probable date therefore for the composition of the book would be in the later days of the exile, or immediately after the return. There is no clue to the authorship. The last four verses, giving the genealogy from Perez to David (cf 1 Ch 2 4-15; Mt 1 3-6; Lk 3 31-33), are generally recognized as a later addition.

      The ethical value of the Book of Ruth is con- siderable, as setting forth an example of stedfast

      fihal piety. The action of Ruth in 4. Ethical refusing to desert her mother-in-law Teaching and persevering in accompanying her

      to her own land meets with its due reward in the prosperity and happiness which be- come hers, and in the honor which she receives as

      ancestress of the royal house of David. The writer desires to show in the person and example of Ruth that a sincere and generous regard for the claims of duty and affection leads to prosperity and honor; and at the same time that the principles and recompense of righteous dealing are not de- pendent upon race, but are as valid for a Moabit- ess as for a Jew. There is no distinctive doctrine taught in the book. It is primarily historical, recording a decisive incident in the origin of David's house; and in the second place ethical, indicating and enforcing in a well-known example the ad- vantage and importance of right dealing and the observance of the dictates of filial duty. For de- tailed contents see preceding article.

      Literature. — Eng. comm.s. upon the Book of Ruth are natarall.v not numerous. Cf G. W. Thatcher, "Judges and Kuth," in [New] Century Bible; R. A. Watson, in Expositor" fi Bible; the most recent critical comm. is by L. B. Woifeuson in AJSL. XXVII (.July, 1911), 28.5 ft, who defends the early date of the book. See also the relevant arts, in Jew Eric, HUB, EB, and Driver, LOT, 6, 454 If.

      A. S. Geden

      RYE, ri. See Spelt.

      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