International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Christ, Intercession of — Cockle

Christ, Intercession of

Christ, Intercession of - See INTERCESSION OF CHRIST.

Christ, Offices of

Christ, Offices of - of'-is-is.

General Titles of our Lord

I. CHRIST'S MEDIATION EXPRESSED IN THE SPECIFIC OFFICES

Historical Review of the Theory

II. THE THREEFOLD OFFICE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Failure of the Offices to Secure Their Desired Ends

III. THE PROPHET

The Forecast of the True Prophet

IV. CHRIST THE PROPHET

1. Christ's Manner of Teaching

2. Christ as Prophet in His Church

V. THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST

1. Judaic Priesthood

2. Sacrificial Relations of Christ in the Gospels

3. Christ's Ethical Teaching Affected by Sacrificial Ideas

4. Mutual Confirmations of the Synoptics

5. The Dual Outgrowth of Sacrifice, the Victim and Sacrificer

6. Christ's Priesthood in the Apostolic Ministry and Epistles

7. The Crowning Testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews

8. Christ's Relation to Sin Expressed in Sacrificial Terms

VI. CHRIST'S KINGLY OFFICE

The Breakdown of the Secular Monarchy

VII. THE MESSIANIC BASIS OF THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF THE LORD

LITERATURE

General Titles of our Lord:

This term has been used by theologians to describe the various characters of our Lord's redemptive work. Many appellative and metaphorical titles are found in Scripture for Christ, designative of His Divine and human natures and His work: God (John 20:28); Lord (Matthew 22:43, 14); Word (John 1:1, 14); Son of God (Matthew 3:17; Luke 1:35; Colossians 1:15; 1 John 5:20); Firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18); Beginning of the Creation of God (Revelation 3:14); Image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4); Express Image of His Person (Hebrews 1:3 the King James Version); Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1:8; 22:13); Son of Man (Matthew 8:20; John 1:51; Acts 7:56); Son of David (Matthew 9:27; 21:9); Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47); Captain of Salvation (Hebrews 2:10 margin) ; Saviour (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31); Redeemer (Isaiah 59:20; Titus 2:14); Author and Perfecter of Faith (Hebrews 12:2); Light of the World (John 8:12); Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36); Creator of all things (John 1:3, 10); Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5); Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15; Luke 24:19); Great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14); King (Luke 1:33; Revelation 17:14; 19:16); Way, Truth and Life (John 14:6). These and many others express the mediatorial office of the Lord. As mediator, He stands between God and Man, revealing the Father to man, and expressing the true relation of man to God. The term (Greek mesites), moreover, signifies messenger, interpreter, advocate, surety or pledge in Galatians 3:19-20, where a covenant is declared to be assured by the hand of one who intervenes. Thus the covenant is confirmed and fulfilled by Him who secures that its stipulations should be carried out, and harmony is restored where before there had been difference and separation (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Thus is expressed the purpose of God to redeem mankind by mediation.

I. Christ's Mediation Expressed in the Specific Offices.

In presenting a systematic idea of this Redemptive Work of Christ by Mediation, Christian thought gave to it a harmonious character by choosing the most general and familiar titles of the Lord as the most inclusive categories expressive of the mode of Redemption. These were prophetic, priestly and regal.

Historical Review of the Theory:

The first trace of this division is found in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 3, and his Demonstratio Evangelica, IV, 15. It was accepted very largely in the Greek church, and continues to be used by Russian ecclesiastical writers. The Roman church has not so generally followed it, though it is found in the writings of many Roman theologians. The earlier reformers, especially Lutheran, ignored it. But Gerhard employed it and the Lutheran theologians followed his example, although some of these repudiated it, as Ernesti, Doderlein and Knapp. Calvin employed the division in his Institutes, II, 15. It was incorporated in the Heidelberg Catechism and has been adopted by most theologians of the Reformed church and by English and American divines. In Germany most theological writers, such as De Wette, Schleiermacher, Tholuck, Nitzsch, Ebrard, adopt it, affirming it as expressive of the essential quality of the work of redemption, and the most complete presentment of its contents. The justification of this position is found in the important place occupied in the progress of revelation by those to whom were entrusted the duties of teaching and leading men in relation to God in the offices of priest, prophet and king. Even the modern development of Christian thought which extends the view of Divine dealing with man over the entire race and its religious history, not excluding those who would find in the most recent conditions of the world's life the outworking of the will of God in the purposes of human salvation, cannot discover any better form of expressing Christ's relation to man than in terms of the prophetic, the priestly and the governmental offices. The prophet is the instrument of teaching: the priest expresses the ethical relation of man to God; while the king furnishes the typical form of that exercise of sovereign authority and Providential direction which concerns the practical life of the race.

II. The Threefold Office in the Old Testament. From the close relation which Jesus in both His person and work bore to the Old Testament dispensation, it is natural to turn to the preparatory history of the early Scriptures for the first notes of these mediatorial offices. That the development of the Jewish people and system ever moved toward Christ as an end and fulfillment is universally acknowledged. The vague and indeterminate conditions of both the religious and national life of Israel manifest a definite movement toward a clearer apprehension of man's relationship to God. Nothing is more clear in Israel's history than the gradual evolution of official service both of church and state, as expressed in the persons and duties of the prophet, the priest and the king. The early patriarch contained in himself the threefold dignity, and discharged the threefold duty. As the family became tribal, and the tribe national, these duties were divided. The order of the household was lost for a while in the chaos of the larger and less homogeneous society. The domestic altar was multiplied in many "high places." Professional interpreters of more or less religious value began to be seers, and here and there, prophets. The leadership of the people was occasional, ephemeral and uncertain. But the men of Divine calling appeared from time to time; the foundation work of Moses was built on; the regular order of the worship of Yahweh, notwithstanding many lapses, steadily prevailed. Samuel gave dignity to his post as judge, and he again beheld the open vision of the Lord; he offered the appointed sacrifices; he established the kingly office; and although he was not permitted to see the family of David on the throne, like Moses he beheld afar off the promised land of a Divinely appointed kingdom. With the accession of the Davidic house, the three orders of God's service were completely developed. The king was seated on the throne, the priest was ministering at the one altar of the nation, the prophet with the Divine message was ever at hand to teach, to guide and to rebuke.

The Failure of the Offices to Secure Their Desired Ends:

Notwithstanding this growth of the special institutions--prophet, priest and king--the religious and national condition was by no means satisfactory. The kingdom was divided; external foes threatened the existence of the nation; idolatry was not extinguished, and the prophets who were true to Yahweh were compelled to warn and rebuke the sins of the rulers and the people, and even to testify against the priests for their unfaithfulness to the truth and purity of the religion which they professed. The best hopes of Israel and the Divine promises seem thus to be contradicted by the constant failure of the people to realize their best ideals. Hence, slowly arose a vague expectation of reform. The idea of the better condition which was coming grew ever more distinct, and settled down at length to Israel's Messianic hope, expressed in various forms, finally converging to the looking for of one who should in some mysterious way gather into himself the ideas which belonged especially to the three great offices.

III. The Prophet. In this article we are concerned only with the offices as they tend to their fulfillment in Christ. For the more general treatment of each office, reference must be made to the special articles.

The Forecast of the True Prophet:

The first appearance of the idea of the special prophet of Yahweh is in Deuteronomy 18:15. Moses had been sent by the people to hear the Lord's words on their behalf (Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27); and this incident in the later passage of Deuteronomy 18:15-22 is connected with the promise of a prophet, while at the same time reference is made to the general fact of prophecy and the conditions of its validity and acceptance. Here we find the germ of the expectation of the Prophet, which occupied so large a place in the mind of Israel. In the act of the people sending Moses to receive the word, and Yahweh's promise to send a prophet whom they would accept, we see also the suggestion of a distinction between the first dispensation and the latter. The Divine promise was to the effect that what was given by Moses God would consummate in a prophetic revelation through a person. The conception of this personality is found in the second part of Isa (40 through 66). Isaiah's mission was vain, Isaiah 49:4, but the coming one shall prevail, Isaiah 49:1-26 through Isaiah 53:1-12 (passim). But the success of this servant of Yahweh was not to be only as a prophet, but by taking on himself the penalty of sin (Isaiah 53:5), and by being made an offering for sin; and as Mighty Victor triumphing over all foes (Isaiah 53:10-12), the dignities of whose kingship are set forth in various parts of the prophetic writings. Thus the general effect of the course of the earlier revelation may be summed up in this prophetic ministry with which has been combined a priestly and a royal character. It was an ever-advancing manifestation of the nature and will of God, delivered by inspired men who spake at sundry times and in divers manners, but whose message was perfected and extended by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1), who thus became the Prophet of the Lord.

IV. Christ the Prophet. Christ's ministry illustrates the prophetic office in the most extensive and exalted sense of the term. He was designed and appointed by the Father (Isaiah 61:1-2; compare Luke 4:16-21; Matthew 17:5). In 1 Corinthians 1:30, Christ is declared to be made to us wisdom. His intimate knowledge of God (John 1:18; Matthew 11:27; John 16:15), the qualities of His teaching dependent upon His nature, both Divine and human (John 3:34); His authority (John 1:9, 17-18; Luke 4:18-21); His knowledge of God (Mark 12:29; John 4:24; Matthew 11:25; John 17:11, 25; Matthew 18:35)--these all peculiarly fitted Christ to be the Revealer of God. Besides His doctrine of God, His ministry included the truth concerning Himself, His nature, claims, mission, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and the religious life of man. He taught as none other the foundation of religion, the facts on which it was based, the essence of Divine service, the nature of sin, the grace of God, the means of atonement, the laws of the kingdom of God and the future state. By the acknowledgment of even those who have denied His Divine nature and redemptive work, He has been recognized as the Supreme Moral Teacher of the world. His claim to be the Prophet is seen in that He is the source of the ever-extending revelation of the eternal. His own words and works He declared were only part of the fuller knowledge which would be furnished by the system which He established (Luke 9:45; 18:34; John 12:16; 14:26; 15:26; John 16:12-13, 14).

1. Christ's Manner of Teaching: How remarkable was His method of teaching! Parable, proverb, absolute affirmation, suggestion, allusion to simple objects, practical life--these all made His teaching powerful, easily understood, living; sometimes His action was His word--and all with a commanding dignity and gracious winsomeness, that was felt by His hearers and has ever been recognized (Matthew 7:29). So perfect and exalted was the teaching of Jesus that many have supposed that revelation ceased with Him, and the immediate followers whom He especially inspired to be His witnesses and interpreters. Certainly in Him the prophetic ministry culminated.

2. Christ as Prophet in His Church: An important aspect of Christ's prophetic office is that of His relation to the church as the source, through the instrumentality of His Spirit, of ever-enlarging knowledge of Divine truth which it has been able to gain. This is the real significance of the claim which some churches make to be the custodians and interpreters of the tradition of faith, with which has also gone theory of development--not as a human act but as a ministration of the Lord through His Spirit, which is granted to the church. Even those who hold that all Divine truth is to be found in the sacred Scriptures have yet maintained that God has much truth still to bring out of His word by the leading and direction of the Spirit of Jesus. The Scripture itself declares that Christ was the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:9). He Himself promised that the Spirit which He would give would guide His followers into all truth (John 16:13). The apostles claimed to receive their teaching and direction of the church from the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23). The testimony of Jesus is definitely declared to be the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). Indeed, all the apostolic writings in almost every line affirm that what they teach is received from the Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Lord.

V. The Priesthood of Christ. 1. Judaic Priesthood: For the history of the development of the priesthood of Israel on which our Lord's High-Priesthood is ideally based, reference must be made to the article especially dealing with that subject. The bearings of that institution upon the work of Jesus as Redeemer alone fall under this section. Judaism like all religions developed an extensive system of priestly service. As the moral sense of the people enlarged and became more distinct, the original simplicity of sacrifice, especially as a commensal act, in which the unity of the celebrants with each other and with God was expressed, was expanded into acts regularly performed by officials, in which worship, thanksgiving, covenant and priestly expiation and atonement were clearly and definitely expressed. The progress of sacrifice may be seen in the history of the Old Testament from Cain and Abel's (Genesis 4:3-4), Noah's (Genesis 8:20), Abraham's covenant (Genesis 15:9-18), etc., to the elaborate services of the Mosaic ritual set forth in Lev, the full development of which is found only in the later days of Israel. When Christ appeared, the entire sacerdotal system had become incorporated in the mind, customs and language of the people. They had learned more or less distinctly the truth of man's relation to God in its natural character, and especially in that aspect where man by his sin had separated himself from God and laid himself open to the penalty of law. The conception of priesthood had thus grown in the consciousness of Israel, as the necessary instrument of mediation between man and God. Priestly acts were performed on behalf of the worshipper. The priest was to secure for man the Divine favor. This could only be gained by an act of expiation. Something must be done in order to set forth the sin of man, his acknowledgment of guilt, the satisfaction of the law, and the assurance of the Divine forgiveness, the restored favor of God and finally the unity of man and God.

2. Sacrificial Relations of Christ in the Gospels:

That the work of Christ partook of the nature of priestly service is already indicated by references in the Gospels themselves. He was called "Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Salvation from sin, in the habit of thought at which the Jew had arrived, must have expressed itself most clearly in the symbolic signification of the sacrifices in the temple. Thus in the very name which our Lord received His priesthood is suggested. The frankincense of the Magi's offering is not without its mystical meaning (Matthew 2:11). Some may find in the Baptist's words, "baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire" (Matthew 3:11), a suggestion of priestly action, for the understanding of John's declaration must be found in the conventional ideas of the Jewish thought of the period, determined as they undoubtedly were by the history of priestly service in the past and the fully developed ritual of the temple. The baptizing of the proselyte was not necessarily a priestly act, as indeed we cannot be certain that the baptism was always necessary at the introduction of a proselyte into the Jewish church. But the association of circumcision with the initiation of the proselyte certainly introduced the priest, and the sprinkling of the congregation by the priest was a familiar part of his official duties. It is quite probable therefore that John's use of the expression carried with it something of the sacerdotal idea.

3. Christ's Ethical Teaching Affected by Sacrificial Ideas:

The spirit of our Lord's teaching, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount, etc., as it reflects the thought of the Galilean ministry, may be regarded as prophetic rather than priestly. Still the end of the teaching was righteousness, and it was impossible for a Jew to conceive of the securing of righteousness without some reference to priestly administration and influence. The contrast of the effect of Christ's teaching with that of the scribes (Matthew 7:29) keeps us in the vicinity of the law as applied through the sacerdotal service of which the scribes were the interpreters and teachers, and surely therefore a hint of our Lord's relation to priesthood may have found its way into the minds of His immediate hearers. He was careful to recognize the authority of the priest (Matthew 8:4).

The doctrine of sacrifice emerges somewhat more distinctly in the reference to the cross, which our Lord associates with the thought of finding life by losing it (Matthew 16:24-25), and when the taking up the cross is interpreted by following Christ, and this hint is soon followed by Christ's distinct reference to His coming sufferings (Matthew 17:9, 12), more definitely referred to in Matthew 17:22-23. Now the object of the work of the Lord takes clearer form. The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost (Matthew 18:11 the American Revised Version, margin). As the time of the catastrophe drew nearer, the Lord became still more distinct in His references to His coming death (Matthew 20:18-19), and at length declares that "the Son of man came .... to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). our Lord's quotations (Matthew 21:42; 23:39) concerning the rejected "corner stone," and the Blessed One "that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Psalms 118:22, 26), are drawn from a psalm filled with the spirit of the priestly service of the temple, and in their reference to Himself again illustrate the ever-increasing recognition of His priesthood. He also uses the official term "Christ" (Messiah, the anointed one) more frequently (Matthew 24:5, 23, 14). On the eve of the betrayal and trial the crucifixion is clearly foretold (Matthew 26:2); and the death (Matthew 26:12). The full significance of the death is asserted at the institution of the Lord's Supper. The bread is "my body," the wine is "my blood of the new covenant," and it is declared to be "poured out for many unto remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28 margin).

4. Mutual Confirmations of the Synoptics: A similar succession of ideas of our Lord's priestly work may be found in the other gospels (see Mark 1:8, 44; 8:29; see below on the significance of the term Christ; Mark 8:31, 34; Mark 9:9-10). The inability of the disciples to understand the life that was to follow death here is indicated--the truth of the gospel of death and resurrection so closely bound up with the conception of sacrifice, where the blood is the life which given becomes the condition of the new union with God, being thus revealed by Christ as the initial doctrine to be continuously enlarged (Mark 9:31; 21, 33, 14, 45; 11:9; 12:10; Mark 13:21-22; Mark 14:8, 22-25, 61-62). In Luke the priestly "atmosphere" is introduced in the earliest part of the narrative, the history of Zacharias and Elisabeth giving emphasis to the setting of John's own mission (Luke 1:1-80). The name Jesus (Luke 1:31); the special relation of the new kingdom to sin, necessarily connected with sacrifice in the mind of a priest, found in Zacharias' psalm (Luke 1:77-78); the subtle suggestion of the Suffering One in the "also" of Luke 2:35 the King James Version (the American Standard Revised Version omits) shows that the third Gospel is quite in line with the two other Synoptics (see also Luke 3:3; 5:14). The claim to forgive sins must have suggested the sacrificial symbol of remission (Luke 5:24; 9:23; 13:35; 14:27; 18:31; 20:14; Luke 22:19-20; Luke 24:7, 26, 46-47). In the Fourth Gospel, we have the word of the Baptist, "Behold, the Lamb of God" (John 1:29, 36), where Christ's relation to sin is distinctly expressed (see LAMB OF GOD)--the baptism in the Spirit (John 1:33). It is highly probable that the apostle John was the "other" of the two disciples, (1:40) and, having heard the Baptist's words, is the only evangelist who records them, thus introducing from his personal knowledge the sacrificial idea earlier into his history than the Synoptics. Christ declares that He will give His life for the life of the world (6:51). The entire passage (6:47-65) is suffused with the conception of "life for life," one of the elements constituting the conception of the sacrificial act. In 8:28 (compare 3:14; 12:32) Christ predicts His crucifixion. The Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep (10:15). In 10:17,18, Christ claims the power to lay down His life and to take it again. He is the sacrifice and the Sacrificer.

5. The Dual Outgrowth of Sacrifice, the Victim and Sacrificer:

Here appears for the first time the double relation of Christ to the sacrificial idea, worked out in the later thought of the church into the full significance of our Lord's priestly office. In John 11:25-26 Christ is the source of life, and life after death. It is hardly possible that this conception should not have, even if remotely suggested, some reference to the significance of sacrifice; for in the sacrifices the Divine claim for the blood, as specially to be set apart as the Divine portion, was ever present. God ever claimed the blood as His; for to Him the life was forfeited by sin. And moreover He alone possesses life and gives it. Of that forfeit and that Divine sovereignty of life, sacrifice is the expression. This is fully realized and made actual in Christ's life and death for man, in which man shares by His unity with Christ. Man at once receives the penalty of sin in dying with Christ, and rises again into the new life which our Lord opened, and of which He is the ceaseless energy and power through the spirit of God. The emergence of this idea is illustrated by the evangelist in the sayings of Caiaphas, where as the high priest of the nation he gives, though unconsciously, a significant expression to the truth that it was "expedient" that Jesus `should die for the nation and for the children of God everywhere scattered' (John 11:47-52). Here the symbolic significance of sacrifice is practically realized: death in the place of another and the giving of life to those for whom the sacrifice was offered. The vitalizing power of Christ's death is asserted in the discourse following the visit of the Greeks (John 12:24-33). The idea of life from the dying seed is associated with the conception of the power of attraction and union by the cross. The natural law of life through death is thus in harmony with the gift of life through sacrifice involving death. That sacrifice may be found much more widely than merely in death, is shown by the law of service illustrated in the washing of the disciples' feet (John 13:14-17); and this is declared to spring out of love (John 15:13). For the priestly ideas of our Lord's prayer (John 17:1-26) see INTERCESSION; INTERCESSION OF CHRIST; PRAYERS OF CHRIST.

6. Christ's Priesthood in the Apostolic Ministry and Epistles:

Christ's priestly office finds illustration in the Acts of the Apostles, in the apostolic declaration of Christ's Messianic office, not only Lord, but also Christ the Anointed One (Acts 2:36). Peter's reference to the stone which completed the temple, the service of which was essentially sacrificial, as the Symbol of Christ, the Crown of that Spiritual Temple (Acts 4:11); Philip's application of the passage in Isa of the sheep led to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7-8) to our Lord (Acts 8:32, 35); Peter's discourse to Cornelius, culminating in the remission of sins through Christ (Acts 10:43)--all indicates the steady growth in the apostolic ministry of the conception of our Lord's priestly office. The idea takes its most distinct form in Paul's sermon at Antioch (Acts 13:38-39). The necessity of Christ's death and resurrection was the essence of Paul's message (Acts 17:3). And in the address to the elders, the church is declared to have been purchased by God with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

As the epistles express the more elaborated thought of the apostolic ministry, the sacrifice of our Lord naturally finds more definite exposition, and inasmuch as He was both active and passive in the offering of Himself, the conception of sacrifice branches into the twofold division, the object offered, and the person offering. It must never be forgotten, however, that the thought of Christ's sacrifice even when thus separated into its two great divisions necessarily involves in each conception the suggestion of the other: God setting Him forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25). He was delivered for our offenses and raised for our justification (Romans 4:25). Through Him we have access to the conditions of justification and peace (Romans 5:2). Christ died for the ungodly, and we are justified by His blood (Romans 5:8-9). The conception of life both as forfeit from man and gift by God, expressed by sacrifice, runs through the reasoning of Romans 8:1-39 (see especially 8:11,32-34, where Christ who died for man rises from the dead, and becomes the intercessor; the victim and the High Priest are thus united in the Lord, and thus He becomes full expression and supplier of the love of God which is the perfect life). In 1 Corinthians 1:23 Paul affirms the preaching of the cross as the center of his message. The subject of his teaching was not merely Christ, but Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Christ is declared to be the Passover, and sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 10:16-18). The manifestation of the death of the Lord by the bread and wine is given in the account of the institution of the Supper (1 Corinthians 11:26). In 1 Corinthians 15:3 Christ is said expressly to have died for our sins. Christ's sacrifice lies at the basis of all the thought of the Galatian epistle (1:4; 2:20; 3:13).

In Eph we have the definite statement of redemption through the blood of Christ (Ephesians 1:7). Christ's humiliation to the cross is given in Philippians 2:8; community with Christ's death, one of the important elements of sacrifice, in Philippians 3:10-11. Forgiveness, the essence of redemption, is declared to be through the blood of Christ (Colossians 1:14). Peace is secured through the blood of the cross, and reconciliation (Colossians 1:20); the presentation of us in Christ's flesh through death, holy and unblamable and unreprovable to God (Colossians 1:22). The community of sacrifice sets forth the oneness of believers with Christ (Colossians 3:1-4). Christ is declared to be the one Mediator between God and man, who gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:5-6).

7. The Crowning Testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews:

The chief source of the priestly conception of our Lord is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christ is declared to have by Himself purged our sins (Hebrews 1:3); to taste of death for every man (Hebrews 2:9); that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest to make reconciliation for the sins of the people (Hebrews 2:17; compare Hebrews 3:1); the community of sacrifice (Hebrews 3:14); our great High Priest has passed into the heavens (Hebrews 4:14); His pitifulness (Hebrews 4:15); the authority and power of Christ's priesthood fully set forth (Hebrews 5:1-14). Christ was made a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:6). The priesthood of Christ being of the order of Melchizedek is more excellent than the Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews 7:1-28). Christ's priesthood being eternal, that of the Aaronic is abolished (Hebrews 8:1-13). Christ's high-priesthood is made effectual by His own blood; and He entered once for all into the holy place, and has become the Mediator of a New Covenant (Hebrews 9:11-15). Christ is forever the representative of man in heaven (Hebrews 9:24-28). Christ by the sacrifice of Himself forever takes away sin, and has consecrated the new and living way to God (Hebrews 10:1-39). He is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 12:24). The entire Epistle is steeped in the conception of Christ's priesthood.

In 1 Peter 1:2 the sacrificial element appears in the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The sufferings of the Lord were prophesied, the spirit of the Anointed One signifying what the prophets desired to know (1:11); the redemption by the precious blood of Christ is of "a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1:19); the priesthood of believers was through Christ (2:5), who carried up our sins in his body to the tree (2:24 the Revised Version, margin).

In the Johannine writings we have the cleansing from sin by the blood of Jesus Christ (1 John 1:7). Christ is said to have laid down His life for us (1 John 3:16). The sacrifice as well as the teaching of Christ is insisted on in the coming by blood as well as by water (1 John 5:6).

The appearance of Christ in Revelation 1:13 is high-priestly; His robe is the talar, the high-priestly garment. The sacrificial place of Christ is indicated by "a Lamb .... as though it had been slain" (Revelation 5:6, 9, 12). The repeated title of Christ throughout the Apocalypse is The Lamb.

8. Christ's Relation to Sin Expressed in Sacrificial Terms:

This review of the Scripture teaching on priesthood clearly indicates the development of thought which led to the affirmation of our Lord's priestly office. He came to put away sin. The doctrine of sin was intimately associated with the priestly service of the temple. The sacrifices were in some cases sin offerings, and in these there ever appeared, by the function of the blood which is the life, the fatal loss of life by sin, the punishment of which was the withdrawal of the Divine gift of life. The life was always in the sacrifice reserved for God. It was natural therefore when Christ appeared that His work in taking away sin should have been interpreted in the light of sacrificial thought. We find the idea steadily developed in the New Testament. He was the sacrifice, the Lamb of God. The question as to who offered the sacrifice was answered--Himself. Then He became in the conception of apostolic teaching, especially emphasized in the Epistle to the He, the priest as well as the sacrifice. This was at length completely defined in theology of the church, and has generally been accepted as setting forth an important aspect of our Lord's redemptive work.

VI. Christ's Kingly Office. The Breakdown of the Secular Monarchy:

The association of rule with the redemption of mankind was early found in Divine revelation. It is in the Protevangelium of Genesis 3:15; the covenant with Abraham contains it (Genesis 22:17-18); the blessing of Jacob reflects it (Genesis 49:10). After the successive attempts to establish a visible and earthly monarchy, its settlement in the family of David was associated with Divine premonitions of continued and gracious royalty (2 Samuel 7:18-29; 2 Samuel 23:1-7; Psalms 2:1-12; Psalms 45:1-17; Psalms 72:1-20; Psalms 110:1-7). The failure of the earthly monarchy and the fatal experiences of the kingdom turned the thought of the devout, especially guided by prophetic testimony, to a coming king who should restore the glory of the Davidic house and the people of Israel. Here and there the conception appears of the more extended reign of the Coming One, and the royal authority finds a growing place in the prophetic Scriptures (Isaiah 2:1-4; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-10; Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:12; Isaiah 60:1-22; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Jeremiah 30:18-24; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:9-14, 27; Micah 5:1-4; Zechariah 3:1-10). The postexilic conception of the king became one of the supreme and most active ideas in the Jewish mind. The reign of the Messiah was to be earthly, and all nations were to be subject to the Jew. The Jews of Palestine seem to have retained the more patriotic and the more

material form of the idea (see 1 Maccabees 14:41), while the Egyptian and dispersed Jews began to regard the more spiritual character of the coming Messiah. References to the future blessedness of Israel under the restored royalty do not appear so largely in the Apocrypha writings which it must be remembered reflect chiefly their Egyptian-Jewish sources. Still there are some passages of interest (Baruch 4:21-5; Tobit 13; Ecclesiasticus 35:18, 19; Ecclesiasticus 36:11-16; 11, 22). In the New Testament we have references to the strong ex pectation of the restored royalty and kingdom (John 1:49; 6:15; John 12:12-15; Acts 1:6). Christ's kingship was speedily recognized by those who saw His works of power, and acknowledged His authority. He Himself clearly claimed this authority (Matthew 22:43-45; John 18:36-37). It was however not a kingdom based upon material and external power and rule, but on the foundation of truth and righteousness. The Kingdom of Heaven or of God is familiar to every reader of the words of Jesus. It was thus He described the new order which He had come to establish, of which He was to be the Lord and Administrator; not an earthly dominion after the fashion of this world's kingdoms; it was to be the rule of mind and of spirit. It was to be extended by ethical forces, and the principle of its authority was centered in Christ Himself. It was to be developed on earth but perfected in the future and eternal life. Some divines have distinguished Christ's regal power as that of nature, that of grace, that of glory. Many believe that there is to be a personal visible reign of Christ upon the earth. Some hold that this will be produced by His advent prior to an age of millennial glory. Other views regard the advent as the close of earthly conditions and the final judgment.

VII. The Messianic Basis of the Threefold Office of the Lord.

That the developments of Jewish thought centered round what may conveniently be called the idea of the Messiah is plain to any student of the Old Testament and other Jewish writings. They sprang from the ethical and theological ideas of this people, interpreted by and expressed in their political and religious forms, and continually nurtured by their experiences in the varied course of their national life. The essence of Messianic belief was a personal deliverer. Jewish history had always been marked by the appearance and the exploits of a great man. The capacity of the production of exceptional and creative individuals has been the characteristic of the race in all its ages. A judge, a lawgiver, a teacher, a seer, a king--each had helped, or even saved the people in some critical period. Each had added to the knowledge of God, whether received or rejected by the people. The issues of such service had remained, enshrined in a growing liturgy, or made permanent in a finally centralized and unified ritual, recorded in chronicle and lyric. The hope of Israel at one time did not take the completely personal form; indeed, it is probably easy to exaggerate the Messianic element as we look back from the perfect realization of it, in the Christian revelation and history. Much that has been called Messianic has been the result of reading into the Old Testament what has been derived from Christian thought and experience. Zephaniah has been described as a picture of Israel's restoration and triumph. Yet apparently it has no reference to the personal element. Still the "Messiah" begins to appear in the prophetic writings (see above), especially in the royal elements of His office. It is at this point that the meaning of the term is to be considered. "Yahweh's anointed" is found as applied to a king, and is familiar in this use in the Old Testament. But anointing belonged to the priesthood and to the prophetic order, if not actually, at least metaphorically, as sett ing apart (see 1 Kings 19:16; Psalms 105:15; Isaiah 61:1). And the word Messiah (Christ) the Anointed, came to be used for that conception of a person, perhaps first employed definitely (Daniel 9:24-26), who should be the Deliverer of the Jews and even still more widely, a Redeemer. In the age immediately preceding the Christian, the idea had taken possession not only of the Jews, but also of the Samaritans (John 4:25); and was not altogether unknown in Gentilethought; e.g. Sib Or, iii.97; Virgil Ecl. iv. It involves certainly the prophetic and royal offices and, in the idea of a Suffering Servant, was closely allied to the objects of the sacrificial order.

The claim of Jesus to be the Christ, and the recognition of this claim by His followers and apostles, gave a new meaning to the teaching of the Old Testament, and the writings lying outside the canon, but which were familiar to the people. Especially was the suffering and death of the Lord and its relation to sin the occasion of a new Understanding of the Mosaic and later-developed sacrificial system. Jesus as the Offerer of Himself perfected the function of the priest, as He became the Lamb of God who t aketh away the sins of the world. He thus completed the threefold ministry of the Messiah as the Prophet who reveals, the Priest who offers and intercedes, the King who rules. In Him the offices are commingled. He rules by His sacrifice and His teaching; He reveals by His Kingship and His offering. The offices spring from both His person and His work, and are united in the final issue of the salvation of the world.

LITERATURE.

Euseb., HE, I,3; Aug., De civ. Dei, x. 6; Catech. Council of Trent; Calvin, Instit., II, 15; Heidelb. Catech. Ans. 31 and Reformed Liturg; Thanksgiving aft. Inft. Bapt.; J. Gerhard, Loci Theolog; Spener, Catechism.; Ernesti, De officio Christi triplici; Knapp, Theology, section 107; Ebrard, Herzog Realencyc., under the word Further discussion is found in the standard theologies, as Pye Smith, First Lines, and Scrip. Teatim. to the Messiah; Hodge, Shedd, Weiss, Biblical Theol. of the New Testament, Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics. See also Higginson, Ecce Messias; Moule's brief but suggestive statement in Outlines of Christian Doctrine; Ritschl,A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, especially Introduction; Dorner, The Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ.

L. D. Bevan

Christ, Person of

Christ, Person of - See PERSON OF CHRIST.

Christ, Temptation of

Christ, Temptation of - See TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

Christ, the Exaltation of

Christ, the Exaltation of - egz-ol-ta'-shun:

I. THE RESURRECTION

1. Its Glorification of Christ

2. Resurrection Body--Identity, Change, Present Locality

3. The Agent of the Resurrection

II. ASCENSION OF OUR LORD

1. Its Actuality

2. General Doctrine of the Church

3. Lutheran Doctrine

4. Theory of Laying Aside the Existence-Form of God

5. Necessity

III. EXALTATION TO THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD

1. Its Significance

2. Its Essential Necessity

V. THE SECOND ADVENT

1. Reality

2. Judgment

This term is given to that condition of blessedness, glory and dominion into which our Lord entered after the completion of His earthly career of humiliation and suffering, and which is to be regarded as the reward of His meritorious obedience, and the issue of His victorious struggle, and at the same time the means of His prosecution and completion of His work as Redeemer and Saviour of the world. The classic passage of Scripture, rich in suggestion, and the source of much controversy in the development of Christian theology, is Philippians 2:5-11. The word "exalted" of Philippians 2:9, huperupsoo, occurs only in this place in the New Testament and, like its Latin representative, is limited to ecclesiastical use. Compare Romans 14:9; Ephesians 1:19-23; 1 Peter 3:21-22.

Christ's Exaltation includes His Resurrection, Ascension, Session at the right hand of God, and Advent as Judge and Consummator of the world's redemption.

I. The Resurrection. 1. Its Glorification of Christ: The historic place and validity of this event will be found under other heads; our concern is with the event as it relates to the glorification of our Lord. (1) It revealed His power over death. (2) It confirms all His claims to Divine Sonship. (3) It attests His acceptance and that of His work by God. (4) It crowns the process of the redemption of the world. (5) It forms the beginning of that new creation which is life eternal, and over which death can have no power. (6) It is the entrance of the Son of God into the power and glory of the New Kingdom, or the restored Kingdom of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe. The following Scriptures among many others may be consulted: Revelation 1:18; Acts 2:24; Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:20; John 5:25; Romans 4:25; Romans 6:4-5; Colossians 2:12; Philippians 3:10; Romans 6:9.

2. Resurrection Body--Identity, Change, Present Locality:

An interesting and important question arises in connection with Christ's exaltation, relating to the nature of the body of the risen Lord. It was clearly identical with that of His natural life. It was recognized by the marks which were upon it: Luke 24:39-40; John 20:24-29. It received food: Luke 24:43 (compare Luke 24:30; John 21:12-13; Acts 10:41). Nevertheless it was changed. After the resurrection, it was not at once recognized: John 20:15; 21:7; Luke 24:31. It appeared under apparently new conditions of relation to material substance: John 20:19; Luke 24:36. It suddenly became visible, and as suddenly vanished. These facts suggest what reverently may be surmised as to its exalted condition. The apostle's declaration as to the resurrection-body of the redeemed furnishes some hints: 1 Corinthians 15:35-49; compare Philippians 3:21. We may cautiously, from the history of the resurrection and the Pauline doctrine, conclude, that our Lord still possesses a human body. It is of material substance, with new properties. It occupies space. It was seen by Paul, by Stephen, by the seer of the Apocalypse. It is glorious, incorruptible, spiritual.

3. The Agent of the Resurrection: By whom was the resurrection effected? It is referred by some Scriptures to God. See Psalms 16:10 (compare Acts 2:27, 31); and the distinct affirmation by Peter (Acts 2:32). Paul declares that Christ was "raised .... through the glory of the Father" (Romans 6:4). In Ephesians 1:19-20, it was the mighty power of God which was wrought in Christ "when he raised him from the dead." Elsewhere it is ascribed to Christ Himself. He declared: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). In John 10:17-18, our Lord declares: "I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." The efficient agent is said, according to the generally received reading of Romans 8:2, to have been the Spirit of God, and thus the resurrection is referred to each person of the Godhead. The doctrine of the Lutheran church refers the act to the human power of the Lord Himself, which by incarnation had been endowed with attributes of Deity. This view consists with their teaching of the omnipresence of the body of Jesus (see below on the section "Ascension").

II. The Ascension of our Lord. 1. Its Actuality: The exaltation of Christ consisted further in His ascension. Some have held that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus ought to be regarded as aspects of the same event. But Mary saw the risen Lord, though she was forbidden to touch Him, for "I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend," etc. (John 20:17). This, compared with the invitation to Thomas to touch Him, eight days later, suggests something in the ascension added to that which the resurrection implied, and the general thought of the church has consistently regarded the latter as a further step in the exaltation of the Lord.

2. General Doctrine of the Church: The fact of ascension is recorded in Mark 16:19, and Luke 24:50-51, and with greater detail in Acts 1:9-11. According to these accounts, the ascension was seen by the disciples, and this suggests that heaven is a locality, where are the angels, who are not ubiquitous, and where Christ's disciples will find the place which He declared He was going to prepare for them (John 14:2). Heaven is also undoubtedly referred to as a state (Ephesians 2:6; Philippians 3:20), but Christ's body must be in some place, and where He is, there is Heaven.

3. Lutheran Doctrine: This is certainly the doctrine of the church in general, and seems to be consistent with the Scriptural teaching. But the Lutherans have maintained that the ascension of the Lord merely involved a change of state in the human nature of Christ. He possessed during His life on earth the Divine attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, but He voluntarily abstained from their exercise. But at His ascension He returned to the full use of these powers. The ascension is Christ's return to immensity. The community of natures gave these Divine qualities to the humanity of Jesus, which Luther declared involved its ubiquity, and that as He was at the right hand of God, and God was everywhere, so Christ in His human personality was in no specific place but everywhere. This omnipresence is not of the infinite extension of the body of the Lord, but He is present as God is everywhere present in knowledge and power.

4. Theory of Laying Aside the Existence-Form of God:

Another theory of the ascended humanity-of the Lord depends upon the conception of the Son of God laying aside at incarnation the "existence-form of God," and while affirming that Christ's body is now in a definite place, it proceeds to hold that at the ascension the accidental and variable qualities of humanity were laid aside, and that He dwells in heaven as a glorified man. Ebrard says: "He has laid aside forever the existence form of God, and assumed that of man in perpetuity, in which form by His Spirit He governs the church and the world. He is thus dynamically present to all His people." This form of doctrine seems to involve as the result of the incarnation of the Son of God His complete and sole humanity. He is no more than a man. The Logos is no longer God, and as the ascension did not involve the reassumption of the "existence-form of God," Christ in glory is only a glorified man.

5. Necessity: The ascension was necessary, in conformity with the spiritual character of the kingdom which Christ founded. Its life is that of faith, not sight. A perpetual life of even the resurrected Christ on earth would have been wholly inconsistent with the spiritual nature of the new order. The return of Christ to the special presence of God was also part of His high-priestly service (see CHRIST, OFFICES OF) and His corporal absence from His people was the condition of that gift of the Spirit by which salvation was to be secured to each believer and promulgated throughout the world, as declared by Himself (John 16:7). Finally, the ascension was that physical departure of the Lord to the place which He was to prepare for His people (John 14:2-3). The resurrection was this completion of the objective conditions of redemption. The ascension was the initial step in the carrying out of redemptive work in the final salvation of mankind.

III. Exaltation Completed at the Right Hand of God.

1. Its Significance: The term "the right hand of God" is Scriptural (Acts 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 1:3; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22) and expresses the final step in the Lord's exaltation. Care must be taken in the use of the expression. It is a figure to express the association of Christ with God in glory and power. It must not be employed as by Luther to denote the relation of the body of Christ to space, neither must it be limited to the Divine nature of the Logos reinstated in the conditions laid aside in incarnation. Christ thus glorified is the God-man, theanthropic person, Divine and human.

2. Its Essential Necessity: This exaltation is based upon the essential glory of the Son of God, who "being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person .... sat down on the right hand" (Hebrews 1:3 the King James Version). It is the claim which the Lord makes for Himself in His prayer (John 17:4-5), and is thus specifically declared in Philippians 2:6-11: "God highly exalted Him." But in His glory Christ received the power universal and Divine. In Ephesians 1:20-22 His supreme dignity and power are affirmed "far above .... every name," "all things .... under His feet" (compare Hebrews 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:27; 1 Peter 3:22). Christ at the "right hand of God" is the highly suggestive picture of His universal dominion asserted by Himself (Matthew 28:18): "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." It is vain to speculate upon the relation of Christ's nature in this exalted state. We cannot distinguish between the human and Divine. We can only believe in, and trust and submit to the One Glorified Person who thus administers the kingdom in perfect harmony with its Divine laws in all the ages, and His own revelation of the will of God, as given to man in His own earthly career: pitiful, tender, serving, helping, restoring, saving, triumphant. The exaltation is for His mediatorial and finally saving work. He is the Head of His church; He is the Lord of angels and men; He is the Master of the ages.

IV. The Second Advent. The exaltation of Christ is to be completed by His coming again at the close of the dispensation, to complete His redemptive work and judge the world, and so to establish the final Kingdom of God. This belief has found a place in all the ecumenical symbols. Theology has ever included it in its eschatology. It is clear that the apostles and the early church expected the second coming of the Lord as an immediate event, the significance of which, and especially the effect of the nonfulfillment of which expectation, does not fall within the province of this article to consider. The various theories of the Parousia, the different ideas as to the time and the form of the second Advent, do not concern its relation to the exaltation of the Lord. Whenever and however He may return; whether He is ever coming to the church and to the world, His visible or His spiritual presence, do not affect the fact that He has been exalted to the position of ultimate Lord and final judge of men. We may therefore define this crowning condition of exaltation as:

1. Reality: An advent, real, personal and visible. We must guard against the extremes of limiting this advent on the one side to a final particular event, on the other to those critical and catastrophic movements in world history which have led to the extension of God's kingdom and a virtual judgment of men. The Lord is ever coming, and also He will return. See Acts 1:11; Luke 17:24; Matthew 24:30; 25:31; Luke 19:12; Matthew 13:40-41, 49; Luke 18:8; John 5:28-29; 40, 54; 21:22; Acts 3:20; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 9:28; James 5:8; Jude 1:14; 1 John 2:28; Revelation 1:7. The reality and visibility of the advent depend upon the personal and abiding relation of the Lord to the world-redemption. Christianity is not merely a spiritual dynamic drawn from a series of past events. It is the living relation of the complete humanity of the redeemed to the God man, and must therefore be consummated in a spiritual and material form. The ultimate of Christianity is no more docetic than was its original. A reverent faith will be satisfied with the fact of the glory whenever it shall arrive. The form and time are unrevealed. Preparation and readiness are better than speculation and imaginary description.

2. Judgment: The Judgment is clearly taught by Scripture. our Lord declares that He is appointed Judge. (John 5:22; 9:39). Paul teaches that we must "all stand before the judgment-seat of God" (Romans 14:10). Here again there is the suggestion of the judgment which is ever being made by the Lord in His office as Sovereign and Administrator of the kingdom; but there is also the expectation of a definite and final act of separation and discernment. Whatever may be the form of this judgment (and here again a wise and reverent silence as to the unrevealed is a becoming attitude for the believer), we are sure that He who will make it, is the glorified Word incarnate, and it will be the judgment of a wisdom and justice and love that will be the complete glory of the Christ.

See also ASCENSION; JUDGMENT; PAROUSIA; RESURRECTION.

L. D. Bevan

Christian

Christian - kris'-chan, kris'-ti-an (Christianos):

1. Historicity of Acts 11:26

2. Of Pagan Origin

3. The Christian Attitude to the Name

4. Was "Christian" the Original Form?

5. The Christians and the Empire

6. Social Standing of the Early Christians

7. Christian Self-Designations

LITERATURE

1. Historicity of Acts 11:26: The word Christian occurs only three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; and 1 Peter 4:16). The first passage, Acts 11:26, gives the origin of the term, "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The older generation of critical scholars disputed the historicity of this statement. It was argued that, had the term originated so early, it must have been found far more frequently in the records of early Christianity; sometimes also that the termination -ianus points to a Latin origin. But there is general agreement now that these objections are groundless. The historicity of the Lukan account is upheld not only by Harnack, but by the more radical Knopf in Die Schriften des New Testament, edited by Johannes Weiss. In early imperial times, the adjectival termination -ianos was widely diffused throughout the whole empire. Originally applied to the slaves belonging to the great households, it had passed into regular use to denote the adherents of an individual or a party. A Christian is thus simply an adherent of Christ. The name belongs, as Ramsay says, to the popular slang, as indeed sect and party names generally do. It is only after a considerable interval, and very often under protest, that such names are accepted as self-designations.

2. Of Pagan Origin: The name, then, did not originate with the Christians themselves. Nor would the Jews have applied it to the followers of Jesus, whose claim to be the Christ they opposed so passionately. They spoke of the Christians as "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5); perhaps also as "Galileans," a term which the emperor Julian attempted later vainly to revive. The word must have been coined by the heathen population of Antioch, as the church emerged from the synagogue, and a Christianity predominantly Gentiletook its place among the religions of the world.

3. The Christian Attitude to the Name: Perhaps the earliest occurrence of Christian as a self-designation is in Didache 12:4. In the Apologists and Ignatius on the other hand the word is in regular use. 1 Pet simply takes it over from the anti-Christian judicial procedure of the law courts, without in any way implying that the Christians used it among themselves. There is every probability, however, that it was the danger which thus began at an early date to attach to the name which commended it to the Christians themselves as a title of honor . Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, 286) suggests that Christian means slave of Christ, as Caesarian means slave of Caesar. But the word can scarcely have had that fullness of meaning till the Christians themselves had come to be proud of it.

According to tradition, Luke himself belonged to Antioch. In Acts 11:27-28 Codex Bezae (D) reads "There was much rejoicing, and when we had assembled, there stood up," etc. In view of the greater authority now so frequently accorded to the so-called Western text, we cannot summarily dispose of such a reading as an interpolation. If the historian was not only an Antiochene, but a member of the original GentileChristian church, we have the explanation alike of his interest in the origin of the name Chris tian, and of the detailed precision of his information.

4. Was "Christian" the Original Form?: In all three New Testament passages the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus reads "Chrestian." We know from many sources that this variant was widely current in the 2nd century. Blass in his edition of Acts not only consistently reads "Chrestian," but conjectures that "Chrestian" is the correct reading in Tacitus (Annals, xv.44), the earliest extra-Biblical testimony to the word. The Tacitus manuscript has since been published in facsimile. This has shown, according to Harnack (Mission and Expansion (English translation), I, 413, 414), that "Chrestian" actually was the original reading, though the name "Christ" is correctly given. Harnack accordingly thinks that the Latin historian intended to correct the popular appellation of circa 64 AD, in the light of his own more accurate knowledge. "The common people used to call them `Chrestians,' but the real name of their founder was Christ." Be this as it may, a confusion between "Christos" (Christos) and the familiar Greek slave name "Chrestos" (chrestos is more intelligible at an early date than late r, when Christianity was better known. There must have been a strong tendency to conform the earlier witnesses to the later, familiar, and etymologically correct, usage. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that the original scribe of Codex Sinaiticus retains "Chrestian." On the whole it seems probable that this designation, though bestowed in error, was the original one.

5. The Christians and the Empire: The fuller discussion of this subject more appropriately falls under the articles dealing with the relation of the church and empire. Suffice it here to say that Paul apparently hoped that by his acquittal the legal position of Christianity as a religio licita would be established throughout the empire, and that 1 Peter belongs to a time when the mere profession of Christianity was a crime in the eyes of the state, but that in all probability this was a new position of affairs.

6. Social Standing of the Early Christians: That early Christianity was essentially a movement among the lower non-literary classes has been rightly emphasized--above all by Deissmann. This is a circumstance of the utmost importance for the correct understanding of the early history of our faith, though probably Deissmann in some degree exaggerates and misplaces the significance. Is it correct to say, for example, that "primitive Christianity was relatively indifferent to politics, not as Christianity, but as a movement of the humbler folks, whose lot on the whole had certainly been lightened by the Empire" (Licht vom Osten, 254)? Very probably however the difficulties of the Pauline Gentilemission were appreciably increased by the fact that he touched a lower social stratum than that of the original Jewish Christianity of Palestine. No class more resents being associated in any way with the "submerged masses" than the self-respecting peasant or artisan, who seems to have formed the backbone of the Palestine church. The apostle had conseq uently to fight against social, no less than racial and religious, prejudices.

7. Christian Self-Designations: The Christians originally called themselves "Disciples," a term afterward restricted to personal hearers of the Lord, and regarded as a title of high distinction. The ordinary self-designations of the apostolic age are "believers" (Acts 5:14; 1 Timothy 4:12), "saints" (Acts 9:13, 12, 41; Romans 1:7), "brethren" (Acts 6:3; 10:23, etc.), "the elect" (Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10), "the church of God" (Acts 20:28 margin), "servants (slaves) to God" (Romans 6:22; 1 Peter 2:16). The apostolic authors refer to themselves as "servants (slaves) of Christ Jesus" (Philippians 1:1). Other expressions are occasionally met with, of which perhaps the most significant is: Those "that call upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 9:14; Romans 10:12-13; 1 Corinthians 1:2). Compare Pliny's report to Trajan (Epistles, X, 97): "They affirmed that .... they had been wont to assemble and address a hymn to Christ as to a god."

LITERATURE.

The most recent discussion of the names of Christian believers, including "Christian," is in Harnack's Mission and Expansion of Christianity, English translation (2nd edition, 1908), I, 399 ff. See also EB ,HDB ,DCG , with the lit. there cited. On the social status of the early Christians, compare Orr's Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of Christianity; on the religious significance of the name, see CHRISTIANITY.

John Dickie

Christianity

Christianity - kris-chan'-i-ti, kris-chi-an'-i-ti, kris-ti-an'-i-ti (Christianismos):

I. IN PRINCIPLE AND ESSENCE

1. Early Use of Term

2. New Testament Implications: Messiahship--Resurrection--Redemption

Pauline Summaries

3. Did Jesus Claim to Be Christ?

4. The Resurrection

Its Evidence

5. Two Contrasted Estimates of our Lord's Person

(1) The Non-Believing Estimate--not Truly Historical

(2) The Believing Estimate--Relation to Experience

6. Christianity an Experience of Salvation

7. Jesus and the Gospel

8. New Testament Types of Doctrines

9. Naturalistic Interpretations--the Religio-Historic School

II. HISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL

1. "Religion of Christ" and "The Christian Religion"

(1) The Historical Jesus Is Supernatural

(2) Essence of Christianity in Redemption

2. Modern Definitions

(1) Schleiermacher

(2) Ritschl

3. Place in Historical Religions

(1) This Place Unique

(2) Universality of Christianity

(3) The Absolute Religion

(4) Religion of Redemption

4. Development and Influence

(1) Expansion of Christianity

(a) Apostolic Age

(b) Succeeding Period

(2) Doctrinal Shaping

(a) Gnosticism

(b) Monarchianism

(d) Sin and Grace

(e) Person of Christ

(f) The Atonement

(g) The Reformation

(h) Lutheran and Reformed

(3) Its Influence

(a) The Ancient World

(b) The Modern World

LITERATURE

I. In Principle and Essence. 1. Early Use of Term: Unlike "Christian" (the King James Version), the term "Christianity," so far as is known, was first used by the Christians themselves, but does not occur in the New Testament. It is exactly parallel to Judaism ("the Jews' religion"), found not only in Galatians 1:13-14, but in 2 Maccabees 2:21, etc. Our earliest authority for the word "Christianism" is Ignatius of Antioch. Christian is now a title of honor, and the Christian's glory is "to live according to Christianism" (Ignatius, Ad magnes, 10).

2. New Testament Implications: Messiahship--Resurrection--Redemption:

While, however, the name is foreign to the New Testament, the New Testament is by universal consent our most important source of information regarding the thing. Christianity arose out of the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be "the Christ." During Jesus' lifetime this claim was admitted by a circle of adherents, in whose view, afterwards, it was triumphantly vindicated by His resurrection from the dead. By resurrection He "was declared to be the Son of God with power" (Romans 1:4). With this was united from the first the recognition of Christ as the God-sent Redeemer, through whom has come to the world forgiveness, reconciliation with God and Divine spiritual power.

Pauline Summaries.

One of the oldest summaries of Christianity is that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; .... and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures." Of similar purport are the apostle's words in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19: "God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses." From this reconciliation springs the new life of believers (Romans 6:1-23; 2 Corinthians 5:14-17).

3. Did Jesus Claim to Be Christ?: More recently some have denied that Jesus advanced any such claim to Messiahship, but always upon purely arbitrary and subjective grounds. On the one hand these writers have been profoundly impressed by the grandeur of Jesus' character; on the other they have looked upon the claim to stand in such a unique relation to God and man as unfounded or meaningless. They have sought, accordingly, to escape the difficulty by denying that Jesus regarded Himself as the Anointed of the Lord (thus, e.g. Wrede). Sometimes they have gone the length even of affirming that Jesus was not so regarded by His personal disciples. Divine honors were accorded Him only gradually, as the memory of what He actually was faded away, and an idealization begotten of Christian faith took its place. The notion of Messiah is merely a piece of Jewish folklore. This position in its distinctively modern form has been answered, it seems to us, with absolute conclusiveness, by Professor James Denney in his Jesus and the Gospel. In a historical point of view, nothing in Jesus' life is more certain than that He regarded Himself as the Christ, the culmination and fulfillment of the Divine revelation given to Israel. This conviction of His is the point round which His whole message revolves. The most recent New Testament theology, that, e.g. of Dr. Paul Feine (1910), rightly starts from Jesus' Messianic consciousness, and seeks to understand His whole teaching in the light of it. Doubtless, like everything else which Jesus touched, the concept of Messiahship becomes transmuted and glorified in His hands. our Lord was in no way dependent upon current beliefs and expectations for the content of His Messianic consciousness. But is it likely that His followers, without His authority, would have attributed Messiahship to one so utterly unlike the Messiah of popular fancy?

4. The Resurrection: The New Testament proves not only that the Christians from the very outset were fully persuaded, on what they regarded as adequate grounds in history and experience, that their Lord had risen from the dead, but also that this conviction mastered them, giving direction and purpose to their whole lives. Historical Christianity was erected on the foundation of a Risen Lord.

Its Evidence.

On this point Professor Denney says (Jesus and the Gospel, 111): "The real historical evidence for the resurrection is the fact that it was believed, preached, propagated, and produced its fruit and effect in the new phenomenon of the Christian church, long before any of our gospels were written. .... Faith in the resurrection was not only prevalent but immensely powerful before any of our New Testament books were written. Not one of them would ever have been written but for that faith. It is not this or that in the New Testament--it is not the story of the empty tomb, or of the appearing of Jesus in Jerusalem or in Galilee--which is the primary evidence for the resurrection: it is the New Testament itself. The life that throbs in it from beginning to end, the life that always fills us again with wonder, as it beats upon us from its pages, is the life which the Risen Saviour has quickened in Christian souls. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the existence of the church in that extraordinary spiritual vitality which confronts us in the New Testament. This is its own explanation of its being."

5. Two Contrasted Estimates of our Lord's Person: The best Christian thought of our day has no more difficulty than had the apostles in holding and establishing what Principal Forsyth fitly calls "the superhistoric finality of Christ." In the very nature of the case, wherever the problem of our Lord's person has been seriously faced, there have always been two distinct estimates of His value, that of assured faith, based upon personal experience of His redemptive power, and that of mere externalism.

(1) The Non-Believing Estimate--not Truly Historical:

The latter or non-believing estimate has no more right now to call itself "historical" or "scientific," than it had, nearly nineteen hundred years ago, to crucify the Lord of glory. The priests doubtless thought that they understood Jesus better than the ignorant, deluded Galileans. Yet the boldest champion of "the religio-historic method" would scarcely claim that theirs was the correct judgment. As a matter of fact, the so-called critical school are no more free from presuppositions than is the most thoroughgoing traditionalist. Nor have they a monopoly either of historical knowledge or of critical acumen. No truths are accessible to them which are not equally available for the Christian believer. No proof exists, beyond their own unsupported assertions, that they are better interpreters of the common truth. On the other hand, that whole range of experience and conviction intop which the Christian believer finds the supreme assurance of the truth of his religion is to them a sealed book. Surel y, then, it is the height of absurdity to maintain that the external, non-believing, estimate of our Lord's person is likely to be the more correct one. From the standpoint of Christian faith, such an external estimate is necessarily inadequate, whether it finds expression in a mechanical acceptance of the whole ecclesiastical Christology, or in the denial that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth ever lived.

(2) The Believing Estimate--Relation to Experience:

The believing estimate of our Lord's person is the essence of Christianity as a historical religion. But according to the New Testament this estimate is itself Divinely-inwrought and Divinely attested (Matthew 16:17; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 4:2-3). It presupposes the perfect objective self-manifestation of God in Jesus Christ on the one hand, and the subjective appropriation of this revelation by faith on the other. No argument against the reality of the revelation can be built upon the fact, generally acknowle dged by Christian theologians nowadays, that the Deity of our Lord and the supernatural origin of our religion can neither be proved nor disproved independently of one's personal attitude to Christianity. This follows necessarily from the nature of the apprehension of Divine truth. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. There can be no impersonal knowledge of religious, any more than of ethical and aesthetic, truth. In these realms another's knowledge has no real meaning for anyone till he has felt its power and tested it in his own experience. Evangelical Christians do not accept the Deity of the Lord as the cardinal article of their religious faith on any merely external authority whether of Scripture or of tradition, or even of His own recorded words apart from experience of Christ. They accept it precisely as they accept the authority of Scripture itself, because of the witness of the Spirit with their spirits. The combined testimony of Scripture and tradition is confirmed in their religious life, when by receiving Jesus as our Lord and Saviour they experience the Christian power. This power is the great experienced reality in the light of which alone the other realities become intelligible. "One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see" (John 9:25). "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life" (John 6:68).

6. Christianity an Experience of Salvation: The true church of Christ consists of all who have experienced the power of Christ, delivering them from the guilt, the stain, and the dominion of sin and bringing the peace of God into their souls. Nothing less than this is either the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, or the historic faith of Christendom, or a religion adequate to human need. The Christian doctrine is partly the assertion of the reality of this power, partly its interpretation. Facts of history and theological propositions are vital to our faith, just in proportion as they are vitally related to this power. The Christian essentials are those elements, historical and dogmatic, without which Christianity would lose in whole or in part its living power to reconcile sinful man to the all-righteous, loving God.

7. Jesus and the Gospel: Thus Jesus Himself belongs to His gospel. He is the heart and core of it. Christianity is both a rule of life and a doctrine. But in its inmost nature and being it is neither an ethic, nor a theology, but a religion--a new relation to God and man, Divinely mediated through Jesus Christ in His life, death and resurrection. As many as receive Him, to them gives He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name, who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12). He brings man to God by bringing God to man, and the power of God into man's sin-stained life.

8. New Testament Types of Doctrines: It can scarcely be claimed that New Testament Christianity was in a theological point of view absolutely homogeneous. Various types can be distinguished with more or less clearness; even the ordinary reader feels a difference of theological atmosphere between e.g. Romans and James. This is inevitable, and need occasion no perplexity to Christian faith. All theology is partly interpretation--the relation of universal and eternal reality to personal thought. Hofmann rightly says that genuine Christian faith is one and the same for all, but that everyone must have his own theology, if he is to have any at all. In all genuine serious thought there is a personal element not precisely the same for any two individuals. It is possible to find in the New Testament foreshadowings of all the great distinctive types of historic Christianity. But the essential purpose of the New Testament is to make Christ real to us, to proclaim reconciliation to God through Him, and to convey the Christian power to our lives. The New Testa ment everywhere exhibits the same Christ, and bears witness to the same redeeming, life-transforming power.

9. Naturalistic Interpretations--the Religio-Historic School:

The attempt has often been made to explain Christianity as the natural product of contemporary forces intellectual and religious--most recently by the so-called "religio-historic school." But at most they have only shown that the form in which the religious concepts of primitive Christianity found articulate expression was to some extent influenced ab extra, and that the earliest Christians were in their general intellectual outlook the children of their own time. They have not proved that the distinctive content of Christianity was derived from any external source. They have not even realized what they have to prove, in order to make good their contention. They have done nothing to account for the Christian power on their principles.

LITERATURE.

See the New Testament Theologies, especially that of Feine (1910); Seeberg, Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion (English translation very incorrect, 1908); Seeberg's Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, 2nd edition I, 1908; Brown, Essence of Christianity, New York, 1902; W. N. Clarke, What Shall We Think of Christianity? New York, 1899; above all Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (1909), and Forsyth, Person and Place of Jesus Christ (1909).

John Dickie

II. Historical and Doctrinal. In its historical and doctrinal relations, developments, and influence, and its connection with the successive phases of human thought, Christianity presents many points of interest, only the more prominent of which can here briefly be touched upon.

1. "Religion of Christ" and "The Christian Religion":

A convenient starting-point is the well-known distinction of Lessing (Fragment in Works, XI, 242 ff) between "the religion of Christ" and "the Christian religion"--a distinction which still exactly marks the attitude to Christianity of the modern so-called "historical" school. By "the religion of Christ" is meant the religion which Christ Himself acknowledged and practiced as man; by "the Christian religion" is meant the view which regards Christ as more than man, and exalts Him as an object of worship. From this standpoint the problem for the historian is to show how the religion of Christ came to develop into the Christian religion--in modern speech, how the "Jesus of history" became the "Christ of faith."

(1) The Historical Jesus Is Supernatural.

It has already been pointed out (under I above) that the view of Jesus on which the assumed contrast rests is not one truly historical. The fallacy lies in regarding the Jesus of history as simply a man among men--holier, diviner in insight, but not essentially distinguished from the race of which He was a member. This is not the Christ of apostolic faith, but as little is it the picture of the historical Jesus as the Gospels actually present it. There, in His relations alike to God and to man, in His sinlessness, in His origin, claims, relation to Old Testament revelation, judgeship of the world, in His resurrection, exaltation, and sending of the Spirit, Jesus appears in a light which it is impossible to confine within natural or purely human limits. He is the Saviour who stands over against the race He came to save. It is the same fallacy which under-lies the contrast frequently sought to be drawn between the religious standpoints of Christ and Paul. Pau l never for an instant dreamed of putting himself on the same plane with Christ. Paul was sinner; Christ was Saviour. Paul was disciple; Christ was Lord. Paul was weak, struggling man; Christ was Son of God. Jesus achieved redemption; Paul appropriated it. These things involved the widest contrasts in attitude and speech.

(2) Essence of Christianity in Redemption.

Though, therefore, Christ, in His relations of love and trust to the Father, and perfection of holy character, necessarily ever remains the Great Exemplar to whose image His people are to be conformed (Romans 8:29), in whose steps they are to follow (1 Peter 2:21), it is not correct to describe Christianity simply as the religion which Christ practiced. Christianity takes into account also the work which Christ came to do, the redemption He achieved, the blessings which, through Him, are bestowed on those who accept Him as their Saviour, and acknowledge Him as their Lord. Essentially Christianity is a religion of redemption; not, therefore, a religion practiced by Jesus for Himself, but one based on a work He has accomplished for others. Experimentally, it may be described as consisting, above all, in the joyful consciousness of redemption from sin and reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ, and in the possession of a new life of sonship and holiness through Christ's Spirit. Everything in the way of holy obedience is included here. This, at least, reduced to its simplest terms, is undeniably what Christianity meant for its first preachers and teachers, and what historically it has meant for the church ever since.

2. Modern Definitions: Definitions of Christianity are as numerous as the writers who treat of the subject; but one or two definitions may be glanced at as illustrative of the positions above assumed. As modern types, Schleiermacher and Ritschl may be selected in preference to writers of more conspicuous orthodoxy.

(1) Schleiermacher: Schleiermacher, in his Der Christliche Glaube, has an interesting definition of Christianity. Christianity he speaks of as "a form of monotheistic faith, of the teleological order of religion (i.e. in which the natural is subordinated to the moral), the peculiarity of which, in distinction from other religions of this type, essentially is, that in it everything is referred to the redemption accomplished through Jesus of Nazareth" (section 11). As, in general, Schleiermacher's merit is recognized to lie in his bringing back, in a time of religious decay, the person of Christ to a central place in His religion, so here his true religious feeling is manifested in his fixing on the reference to redemption by Christ as the distinctive thing in Christianity.

(2) Ritschl: Ritschl's definition is more complicated, and need not here be cited in full (compare his Justif. and Recon., III; English translation, 13). The important point is that, like Schleiermacher, Ritschl gives, together with the idea of the kingdom of God, an essential place to the idea of redemption in the conception of Christianity. "Christianity," he says, "so to speak, resembles not a circle described from a single center, but an ellipse which is determined by two foci" (Jb., 11). The idea of the kingdom of God furnishes the teleological, the idea of redemption the religious, element in Christianity. There is truth in this; only it is to be remembered that the kingdom of God, as representing the end, can only, in a world of sin, be into existence through a redemption. Redemption, therefore, still remains the basal conception.

3. Place in Historical Religions: In the enlarged view of modern knowledge, Christianity can be no longer regarded in isolation, but is seen to take its place in the long series of historical religions. It appears, like these other religions, in a historical context; has, like some of them, a personal founder; claims, as they also do, or did, the allegiance of multitudes of the population of the world; presents in externals (e.g. the possession of Scriptures), sometimes in ideas, analogies to features in these religions. For this reason, an influential modern school is disposed to treat Christianity, as before it, the religion of Israel, as simply one of these historical religions--"nothing less, but also nothing more"--explaining it from the inherent laws of religious development, and rejecting the idea of any special, authoritative revelation. Sacred books are pitted against sacred books; moral codes against moral codes; Jesus against founders of other religions; gospel stories against legends of the Buddha; ideas like those of the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, against seeming parallels on other soils. For examination of the principal of these alleged resemblances, see COMPARATIVE RELIGION.

(1) This Place Unique. Here it is desirable to look at the place of Christianity in the series of historical religions in certain of its wider aspects. The uniqueness of Christ's religion, and justification of its claim to a special, Divine origin, will only appear the more clearly from the comparison. In general, it need only be remarked that no other religion in the world has ever even professed to present a plain, historically developed, progressive revelation, advancing through successive stages in the unfolding of a Divine purpose of grace, till it culminates in the appearance of a person, life, character and work, like that of Jesus Christ; not in one single instance.

(2) Universality of Christianity. A distinction is commonly made between national and universal religions, and Christianity is classed as one of the three universal religions--the other two being Buddhism and Mohammedanism (compare e.g. Kuenen's Hibbert Lectures on National Religions and Universal Religions). There is certainly agreement in the fact that the two religions named with Christianity are not "national" religions; that they are "universal," in the sense in which Christianity is, may be denied. Neither Buddhism nor Mohammedanism has any fitness to become a religion for the world, nor, with all their remarkable extension, have they succeeded in establishing themselves, as Christianity has done, in East and West, in Old World and in New. Mohammed boasted that he would plant his religion wherever the palm tree grew (Palgrave), and this still marks very nearly the range of its conquests. It is not a revivifying influence, but a blight on all higher civilization. It degrades woman, perpetuates slavery, fosters intolerance, and brings no real healing for the spiritual woes of mankind. Buddhism, again, notwithstanding its wide spread in China and neighboring lands, has in it no real spring of moral progress, and is today withering up at the root. Its system of "salvation"--attainment of Nirvana--is not for the many but the few. It has not a message for all men alike. Buddha does not profess that all can accept his method, or ought to be asked to do so. For the multitude it is impossible of attainment. In practice, therefore, instead of one, he has three codes of duty--one for the laity, who continue to live in the world; one for the monks, who do not aspire to Arahatship or sainthood: and one for those who would reach the goal of Nirvana. These last are very few; only two cases are specified, besides Buddha himself, of success in this endeavor. In contrast with these Christianity approves itself as a strictly universal religion--the only religion of its kind in the world. In its doctrines of the one God and Father, and of the brotherhood of all mankind; its teaching on universal need through sin, and universal provision for salvation in Christ; its gospel of reconciliation addressed to all; its pure spirituality in worship and morality; its elevating and emancipating tendency in all the relations of human life, it approves itself as a religion for all sections and races of mankind, for all grades of civilization and stages of culture, appealing to that which is deepest in man, capable of being understood and received by all, and renewing and blessing each one who accepts and obeys it. The history of missions, even among the most degraded races, in all parts of the globe, is the demonstration of this truth. (On the universalism of Christianity, compare Baur, Church History of the First Three Centuries, I, Pt 1.)

(3) The Absolute Religion. It is the custom, even in circles where the full supernatural claims of Christianity are not admitted, to speak of Christ's religion as, in comparison with others, "the absolute religion," meaning by this that in Christianity the true idea of religion, which in other faiths is only striven after, attains to complete and final expression. Hegel, e.g. speaks of Christianity as the "Absolute or Revealed Religion" in the sense that in it the idea is discovered of the essential unity of God and man (thus also T. H. Green, E. Caird, etc.); others (e.g. Pfleiderer) in the meaning that it expresses the absolute "principle" of religion--a Divine sonship. Christianity also claims for itself, though in a more positive way, to be the absolute religion. It is the final and perfect revelation of God for which not only revelation in Israel, but the whole providential history of the race, was a Divinely ordained preparation (Galatians 4:4). It is absolute in the sense that a larger and fulle r revelation than Christ has given is not needed, and is not to be looked for. Not only in this religion is all truth of Nature about God's being, attributes and character, with all truth of Old Testament revelation, purely gathered up and preserved, but in the person and work of the incarnate Son a higher and more complete disclosure is made of God's Fatherly love and gracious purposes to mankind, and a redemption is presented as actually accomplished adequate to all the needs of a sinful world. Mankind can never hope to attain to a higher idea of God, a truer idea of man, a profounder conception of the end of life, of sin, of duty, a Diviner provision for salvation, a more perfect satisfaction in fellowship with God, a grander hope of eternal life, than is opened to it in the gospel. In this respect again, Christianity stands alone (compare W. Douglas Mackenzie, The Final Faith, a Statement of the Nature and Authority of Christianity as the Religion of the World).

(4) Religion of Redemption. A third aspect in which Christianity as a historical religion is sometimes regarded is as a religion of redemption. In this light a comparison is frequently instituted between it and Buddhism, which also in some sort is a religion of redemption. But the comparison brings out only the more conspicuously the unique and original character of the Christian system. Buddhism starts from the conception of the inherent evil and misery of existence, and the salvation it promises as the result of indefinitely prolonged striving through many successive lives is the eternal rest and peace of non-being; Christianity, on the other hand, starts from the conception that everything in its original nature and in the intent of its Creator is good, and that the evil of the world is the result of wrong and perverted development--holds, therefore, that redemption from it is possible by use of appropriate means. And redemption here includes, not merely deliverance from existing evils, but restoration of the Divine likeness which has been lost by man, and ultimate blessedness of the life everlasting. Dr. Boyd Carpenter sums up the contrast thus: "In Buddhism redemption comes from below; in Christianity it is from above; in Buddhism it comes from man; in Christianity it comes from God" (Permanent Elements in Religion, Introduction, 34).

4. Development and Influence: Christianity, as an external magnitude, has a long and chequered history, into the details of which it is not the purpose of this article to enter. Ecclesiastical developments are left untouched. But a little may be said of its outward expansion, of the influences that helped to mould its doctrinal forms, and of the influence which it in turn has exercised on the thought and life of the peoples into whose midst it came.

(1) Expansion of Christianity. From the first Christianity aimed at being a world-conquering principle. The task it set before itself was stupendous. Its message was not one likely to commend it to either Jew or Greek (1 Corinthians 1:23). It renounced temporal weapons (in this a contrast with Mohammedanism); had nothing to rely on but the naked truth. Yet from the beginning (Acts 2:1-47) it had a remarkable reception. Its universal principle was still partially veiled in the Jewish-Christian communities, but with Paul it freed itself from all limitations, and entered on a period of rapid and wide diffusion.

(a) Apostolic Age: It is the peculiarity of the Pauline mission, as Professor W. M. Ramsay points out, that it followed the great lines of Roman communication, and aimed at establishing itself in the large cities--the centers of civilization (Church in Roman Empire, 147, etc.). The Book of Acts and the Epistles show how striking were the results. Churches were planted in all the great cities of Asia Minor and Macedonia. In Rome Tacitus testifies that by the time of Nero's persecution (64 AD) the Christians were a "great multitude" ("ingens multitudo" (Annals xv.44)).

(b) Succeeding Period: Our materials for estimating the progress of Christianity in the post-apostolic age are scanty, but they suffice to show us the church pursuing its way, and casting its spell alike on East and West, in centers of civilization and dim regions of barbarism. In the last quarter of the 2nd century great churches like those of Carthage and Alexandria burst into visibility, and reveal how firm a hold the new religion was taking of the empire. Deadly persecution could not stop this march of the church to victory. From the middle of the 3rd century there is no question that it was progressing by leaps and bounds. This is the period in which Harnack puts its great expansion (Expansion, II, 455, English Translation). On the back of the most relentless persecution it had yet endured, the Diocletian, it suddenly found itself raised by the arms of Constantine to a position of acknowledged supremacy. By this time it had penetrated into all ranks of society, and reckoned among its adherents many of noblest birth.

(c) Modern Missions: It is unnecessary to trace the subsequent course of Christianity in its conquest of the northern nations. For a time the zeal for expansion slumbered, but, with the revival of the missionary spirit at the close of the 18th century, a new forward movement began, the effects of which in the various regions of the heathen world are only now beginning to be realized. It is impossible to read without a thrill what was accomplished by the pioneers of Christian missions in the South Seas a nd other early fields; now the tidings of what is being done in India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa and elsewhere, by Christian preaching and education, awaken even more astonishment. Countries long closed against the gospel are now opened, and the standard of the cross is being carried into all. The church is arousing to its missionary obligations as never before. Still, with all this progress, immense obstacles remain to be overcome. Including all the populations of nominally Christian lands, the adherents of the Christian religion are reckoned to amount only to some 560,000,000, out of a total of over 1,600,000,000 of the population of the world (Hickmann). This looks discouraging, but it is to be remembered that it is the Christian peoples that represent the really progressive portion of the human race.

(2) Doctrinal Shaping: The doctrinal shaping of Christianity has taken place largely as the result of conflict with opposing errors. First, as was inevitable, its conflict was waged with that narrowest section of the Jewish-Christian community--the Ebionites of early church history--who, cleaving to circumcision, disowned Paul, and insisted that the Gentiles should observe the law (Galatians 5:13-14; see EBIONITES). These, as a party of reaction, were soon left behind, and themselves fell under heretical (Essenian) influences.

(a) Gnosticism: A more formidable conflict was that with Gnosticism--the distinctive heresy of the 2nd century, though its beginnings are already within the apostolic age (compare Lightfoot, Colossians). This strange compound of oriental theosophy and ideas borrowed from Christianity (see GNOSTICISM) would have dissolved Christ's religion into a tissue of fantasies, and all the strength and learning of the Church were needed to combat its influence. Its opposition was overruled for good in leading t o a fixing of the earliest creed (see APOSTLES' CREED), the formation of an authoritative New Testament canon (see BIBLE; CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT), and the firm assertion of the reality of Christ's humanity.

(b) Monarchianism: Christianity had now entered the world of Greek thought, and ere long had contests to sustain within its own borders. First came assaults (3rd century) on the idea of the Trinity in what are known as the Monarchian heresies--the assertion that the Father Himself was incarnate and suffered in Christ (Patripassianism), or that the Trinity consisted only in "modes" of the Divine self-revelation (Sabellianism).

(c) Arianism: These were hardly repelled when a yet greater danger overtook the church in the outbreak (318 AD) of the violent Arian controversy, the Son Himself being now declared to be a creature, exalted, before all worlds, but not truly of the nature of God. The commotion produced by this controversy led to the summoning of the first ecumenical council--that of Nicea (325 AD), and the framing of the Nicene Creed, affirming the full deity of the Son. A like controversy about the Spirit (the Macedonian, 4th century), led to the confirming of this creed, and adoption of additional clauses, at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD).

(d) Sin and Grace: The doctrine of the Trinity was now settled, but new controversies speedily sprang up--in the West on sin and grace (Pelagius and Augustine) (411-18 AD), and in the East in the long series of controversies known as the Christological, bearing on the right apprehension of the person of Christ (4th to 7th centuries): as against Pelagius, who denied original sin, and affirmed man's natural ability to keep the whole law of God, Augustine vindicated the complete dependence of man on the grace of God for his salvation.

(e) Person of Christ: And as against errors successively denying the reality of a human soul in Jesus (Appollinarianism), dissolving the unity of His person (Nestorianism, condemned at Ephesus, 431 AD), or conversely, fusing together the Divine and human into one nature (Eutychianism, Monophysitism), the church maintained, and embodied in a Creed at Chalcedon (451 AD), the integrity of the two natures, Divine and human, in the one Divine person of the Lord. These decisions are upheld by all branches of the church--Greek, Latin, Protestant.

(f) The Atonement: The medieval scholastic period made one great advance in the attempt of Anselm in his Cur Deus Homo (1089) to lay deep the foundations of a doctrine of atonement in the idea of the necessity of a satisfaction for human sin: Abelard, on the other hand, denied the need of satisfaction, and became the representative of what are known as moral theories of the atonement. It was reserved for the Protestant Reformers, however, to bring this doctrine to its true bearing, as furnishing the ground for man's free justification before God in his union with Christ, who had made full satisfaction for his guilt. There have been many theories of atonement, but the idea that Christ has "satisfied Divine justice" is too firmly imbedded in all the Reformation creeds, and has too profound a Scriptural support, to be removed.

(g) The Reformation: The 16th century Reformation, on its outward side, was a revolt against the errors and corruptions of the papacy, but in its positive aspect it may be described as the reassertion of the sole mediatorship of Christ (as against priestly intervention), the sole authority of Scripture (as against tradition), and justification by faith alone (as against salvation by works of merit). The schism meant a separation of the great Protestant communities and nations from the church of Rome, which, by its claim o f papal supremacy, had already separated from itself the great Greek communion.

(h) Lutheran and Reformed: Within Protestantism itself a difference of genius between the Swiss and German Reformers, with divergences of view on the sacraments, led to the formation of two main types--the Lutheran (German) and the Reformed (Swiss)--and between these two, as respects theology and church order, later Protestantism has mostly been divided. Luther represented the one; Calvin for long was the chief name in the other. With the rise of Arminianism and other forms of dissent from the peculiarities of Calvinism, the aspect of Protestantism became more variegated. Of the later divisions, producing the numerous modern sects which yet own allegiance to the common head (Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, etc.), it is not necessary here to speak. The unity of spirit revealed in creed, worship and combined endeavors in Christ's service goes deeper than all outward differences.

(3) Its Influence. Christianity preaches a kingdom of God, or supremacy of God's will in human hearts and human affairs, by which is meant, on its earthly side, nothing less than a complete reconstruction of society on the two great bases of love to God and love to man--"Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth" (Matthew 6:10). The influence of Christianity is paramount in all the great advances that have been made in the moral and social amelioration of the state of mankind.

(a) The Ancient World: It was so undoubtedly in the ancient world. The world into which Christianity came was one fast sinking into dissolution through the weight of its own corruptions. Into that world Christianity brought a totally new idea of man as being of infinite dignity and immortal worth. It restored the well-nigh lost sense of responsibility and accountability to God; breathed into the world a new spirit of love and charity, and created that wealth of charitable and beneficent institutions with which Christian lands are now full (Lecky speaks of it as "covering the globe with countless institutions of mercy, absolutely unknown in the whole pagan world," History of Morals, II, 91); set up a new moral ideal and standard of integrity which has acted as an elevating force on moral conceptions till the present hour; restored woman to her rightful place as man's helpmeet and equal; created the Christian home; gave the slave an equal place with his master in the kingdom of God, and struck at the foundations of slavery by its doctrines of the natural brotherhood and dignity of man; created self-respect, and a sense of duty in the use of one's powers for self-support and the benefit of others; urged to honest labors; and in a myriad other ways, by direct teaching, by the protest of holy lives, and by its general spirit, struck at the evils, the malpractices, the cruelties of the time.

(b) The Modern World: Despite many failures, and gross backslidings in the church itself, these ideas, implanted in the world, and liberating other forces, have operated ever since in advancing the progress of the race. They exist and operate far beyond the limits of the church. They have been taken up and contended for by men outside the church--by unbelievers even--when the church itself had become unfaithful to them. None the less they are of Christian parentage. They lie at the basis of our modern assertion of equal rights, of justice to the individual in social and state arrangements, of the desire for brotherhood, peace and amity among classes and nations. It is Christian love which is sustaining the best, purest and most self-sacrificing efforts for the raising of the fallen, the rescue of the drunkard, the promotion of enlightenment, virtues, social order and happiness. It is proving itself the grand civilizing agency in other regions of the world. Christian missions, with their benign effects in the spread of education, the checking of social evils and barbarities, the creation of trade and industry, the change in the status of women, the advance in social and civilized life, generally, is the demonstration of it (see Dennis, Christian Missions and Social Progress).

(c) Testimony of Professor Huxley: Professor Huxley will not be regarded as a biased witness on behalf of Christianity. Yet this is what he writes on the influence of the Christian Scriptures, and his words may be a fitting close to this article: "Throughout the history of the western world," he says, "the Scriptures, Jewish, and Christian, have been the great instigators of revolt against the worst forms of clerical and political despotism. The Bible has been the Magna Charta of the poor, and of the oppressed; down to modern times no state has had a constitution in which the interests of the people are so largely taken into account, in which the duties, so much more than the privileges, of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up for Israel in Dt and Lev; nowhere is the fundamental truth that the welfare of the State, in the long run, depends upon the uprightness of the citizen so strongly laid down. Assuredly the Bible talks no trash about the rights of man; but it insists upon the equality of duties, on the liberty to bring about that righteousness which is somewhat different from struggling for `rights'; on the fraternity of taking thought for one's neighbor as for one's self."

LITERATURE.

See works cited in PartI above; also Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures for 1882, National Religions and Universal Religions; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire; M. Dods, Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ; on early expansion of Christianity, Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, and Orr, Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of Christianity; on the essence of Christianity, W. Douglas Mackenzie, The Final Faith; on the influence of Christianity, C. L. Brace, Gesta Christi; Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Ancient Church; C. Schmidt, Social Results of Early Christianity; Lecky, History of European Morals; Dennis, Christian Missions and Social Progress; Reports of World Miss. Conference, 1910.

James Orr

Christology

Christology - kris-tol'-o-ji.

See PERSON OF CHRIST.

Christs

Christs - krists.

See CHRISTS, FALSE; MESSIAH.

Christs, False

Christs, False - fols (pseudo-christoi).

1. Christ's Warnings: In His discourse on the last things, uttered by Him on the Tuesday of the week of His Passion, Jesus solemnly forewarned His disciples that many would come in His name, saying "I am the Christ," who would deceive many; that there would arise false Christs and false prophets, who would show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect; that, therefore, if any man said to them, "Lo, here is the Christ," or "Lo, there," they were not to believe it (Matthew 24:5, 11, 23-25; Mark 13:6, 21-23; Luke 21:8).

2. Early Notices: The warning was needed. De Wette, Meyer, and others have, indeed, pointed out that there is no historical record of anyone expressly claiming to be the Christ prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. This, however, is probably only in appearance (compare Lange, Commentary on Matthew 24:3). Edersheim remarks: "Though in the multitude of impostors, who, in the troubled time between the rule of Pilate and the destruction of Jerusalem, promised Messianic deliverance to Israel, few names and claims of this kind have be en specially recorded, yet the hints in the New Testament, and the references, however guarded, in the Jewish historian, imply the appearance of many such seducers" (Jesus the Messiah, V, chapter vi; in 1906 edition, II, 446). The revolts in this period were generally connected with religious pretensions in the leaders (Josephus, BJ, II, xiii, 4--"deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration"), and, in the fevered state of Messianic expectation, can hardly have lacked, in some instances, a Mes sianic character. Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, i, Acts 1:1-26, Acts 6:1-15; BJ, II, viii, Acts 1:1-26) founded a numerous sect (the Gaulonites) by many of whom, according to Origen (Hom on Lk, 25), he was regarded as the Messiah (compare DB , under the word). The Theudas of Acts 5:36, "giving himself out to be somebody," may or may not be the same as the Theudas of Josephus (Ant., XX, v, 1), but the latter, at least, made prophetic claims and deluded many. He promised to divide the river Jordan by a word. Another instance is the "Egyptian" for whom Paul was mistaken, who had made an "uproar" (Acts 21:38; the Revised Version (British and American) "sedition")--one of a multitude of "impostors and deceivers," Josephus tells us, who persuaded multitudes to follow them into the wilderness, pretending that they would exhibit wonders and signs (Ant., XX, viii, 6). This Egyptian was to show them that, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down (BJ, II, xiii, 5). Of another class was the Samaritan Dositheus, with whom Simon Magus was said to be connected (see refs to Eusebius, Origen, Hippolytus, Clementine writings, etc., in DB, under the word). He is alleged to have been regarded as "the prophet like unto Moses," whom God was to raise up.

3. Bar-Cochba: The most celebrated case of a false Christ is that of Bar-Cochba (to give the name its usual form), the leader of the great insurrection under Hadrian in 132 AD (Eus., HE, IV, 6; for Jewish and other authorities, see the full account in Schurer,HJP , I, 2, pp. 297 ff, English Translation). The insurrection was on a scale which it required the whole force of the Roman empire to put down (compare Schurer). The leader's own name was Simon, but the title, "Bar-Cochba" ("son of a star"), was given him with reference to the pr ophecy in Numbers 24:17 of the star that should come out of Jacob. Rabbi Akiba, the most celebrated doctor of his time, applied this prophecy, with that in Haggai 2:6-7, to Simon, and announced him as the Messiah. He is commonly known in Jewish literature as Barcosiba, probably from his birthplace. Immense multitudes flocked to his standard, and the Christians in Palestine were severely persecuted. Coins were issued in his name. After tremendous efforts the rebellion was crushed, and Jerusalem was converted into a Roman colony (Aelia Capitolina), which Jews were forbidden to enter.

4. Jewish Pseudo-Messiahs: Among the Jews themselves, in later times, many pseudo-Messiahs have arisen. An interesting account of some of these is given by Mr. Elkan Adler in his Introduction to the volume, Aspects of the Hebrew Genius (London, Routledge, 1910). "Such there had been," this writer says, "from time to time ever since the destruction of the Temple." In the 16th and 17th centuries, however, the belief in pseudo-Messiahs took new and remarkable shapes. Among the names mentioned is that of David Reubeni, or David of the tribe of Reuben (1524), who ultimately fell a sacrifice to the Inquisition. Under his influence a Portuguese royal secretary, Diego Pires, adopted the Jewish faith, changed his name to Solomon Molko, and finally proclaimed himself the Messiah. In 1529 he published some of his addresses under the title of The Book of Wonder. He was burned at the stake at Mantua. "Other Kabbalists, such as Isaac Luria and Chajim Vital and Abraham Shalom, proclaimed themselves to be Messiahs or forerunners of the Messiah, and their works and manuscripts are still piously studied by many oriental Jews." The chief of all these false Messiahs was Sabbatai Zevi, born at Smyrna in 1626. "His adventures," it is said, "created a tremendous stir in western Europe." He ultimately became an apostate to Islam; notwithstanding which fact he had a line of successors, in whom the sect of Donmeh, in Salonica, continue to believe. Another mentioned is Jacob Frank, of Podolia, who revealed himself in 1755 as the Holy Lord, in whom there dwelt the same Messiah-soul that had dwelt in David, Elijah, Jesus, Mohammed, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers. Jewish literature in the 18th century is full of controversial writing connected with Sabbatianism. As a special source of information on modern false Messiahs among the Jews, Lange mentions the serial Dibhre 'emeth, or Words of Truth (Breslau, 1853-54).

James Orr

Chronicles, Books of

Chronicles, Books of - kron'-i-k'-ls (dibhere ha-yamim, "The Words of the Days"; Septuagint paraleipomenon:

1. The Name

2. The Position of Chronicles in the Old Testament

3. Two Books, or One?

4. The Contents

5. Sources Biblical and Extra-Biblical

6. Nehemiah's Library

7. The Way of Using the Biblical Sources

8. Additions by the Chronicler

9. Omissions by the Chronicler

10. The Extra-Biblical Sources

11. The Object in Writing the Books of Chronicles

12. The Text

13. Critical Estimates

14. Date and Authorship

15. Evidence as to Date and Authorship

Arguments for a Later Date

16. Truthfulness and Historicity

(1) Alleged Proofs of Untruthfulness

(2) Truthfulness in the Various Parts

17. The Values of the Chronicles

LITERATURE

1. The Name: The analogy of this title to such English words as diary, journal, chronicle, is obvious. The title is one which frequently appears in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. It is used to denote the records of the Medo-Persian monarchy (Esther 2:23; 6:1; 10:2), and to denote public records, either Persian or Jewish, made in late postexilian times (Nehemiah 12:23), and to denote public records of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24). But its most common use is to denote the Judahite and Israelite records referred to in the Books o f Kings as sources (1 Kings 14:19; 15:7 and about 30 other places). The references in Kings are not to our present Books of Chronicles, for a large proportion of them are to matters not mentioned in these. Either directly or indirectly they refer the reader to public archives.

As applied to our present Books of Chronicles this title was certainly not intended to indicate that they are strictly copies of public documents, though it may indicate that they have a certain official character distinguishing them from other contemporary or future writings. The Greek title is Paraleipomenon, "Of Things that have been Left Untold." Some copies add "concerning the kings of Judah," and this is perhaps the original form of the title. That is, the Greek translators thought of Chronicles as a supplement to the other narrative Scriptural books. Jerome accepted the Greek title, but suggested that the Hebrew title would be better represented by a derivative from the Greek word chronos, and that this would fit the character of the book, which is a chronicle of the whole sacred history. Jerome's suggestion is followed in the title given to the book in the English and other languages.

2. The Position of Chronicles in the Old Testament:

In most of the VSS, as in the English, the Books of Chronicles are placed after the Books of Kings, as being a later account of the matters narrated in Kings; and Ezra and Nehemiah follow Chronicles as being continuations of the narrative. In the Hebrew Bibles the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Chronicles are placed last. By common opinion, based on proof that is entirely sufficient, the three books constitute a single literary work or group of works, by one author or school of authors. It is co nvenient to use the term "the Chronicler" to designate the author, or the authors if there were more than one.

3. Two Books, or One?: It is the regulation thing to say that 1 and 2 Chronicles were originally one book, which has been divided into two. The fact is that Chronicles is counted as one book in the count which regards the Old Testament as 22 or 24 books, and as two books in the count which regards the whole number of books as 39; and that both ways of counting have been in use as far back as the matter can be traced. Both ways of counting appear in the earliest Christian lists, those of Origen and Melito, for example. 1 Chronicles closes with a summary which may naturally be regarded as the closing of a book.

4. The Contents: With respect to their contents the Books of Chronicles are naturally divided into three parts. The first part is preliminary, consisting mostly of genealogical matters with accompanying facts and incidents (1 Chronicles 1:1-54 through 1 Chronicles 9:1-44). The second part is an account of the accession and reign of David (1 Chronicles 10:1-14 through 1 Chronicles 29:1-30). The third part is an account of the events under David's successors in the dynasty (2 Ch).

The genealogies begin with Adam (1 Chronicles 1:1) and extend to the latest Old Testament times (1 Chronicles 9:1-44; compare Nehemiah 11:1-36, and the latest names in the genealogical lines, e.g. 1 Chronicles 3:19 ff). The events incidentally mentioned in connection with them are more numerous and of more importance than the casual reader would imagine. They are some dozens in number. Some of them are repeated from the parts of the Old Testament from which the Chronicler draws as sources--for example, such statements as that Nimrod was a mighty one, or that in the time of Peleg the earth was divided, or the details concerning the kings of Edom (1 Chronicles 1:10, 19, 43 ff; compare Genesis 10:8, 25; 36:31 ff). Others are instances which the Chronicler has taken from other sources than the Old Testament--for instance, the story of Jabez, or the accounts of the Simeonite conquests of the Meunim and of Amalek (1 Chronicles 4:9-10, 38-43).

The account in Chronicles of the reign of David divides itself into three parts. The first part (1 Chronicles 10:1-14 through 1 Chronicles 21:1-30) is a series of sections giving a general view, including the death of Saul, the crowning of David over the twelve tribes, his associates, his wars, the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, the great Davidic promise, the plague that led to the purchase of the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. The second part (1 Chronicles 22:1-19 through 1 Chronicles 299:22a) deals with one particular event and the preparations for it. The event is the making Solomon king, at a great public assembly (1 Chronicles 23:1; 28:1 ff). The preparations for it include arrangements for the site and materials and labor for the temple that is to be built, and the organizing of Levites, priests, singers, doorkeepers, captains, for the service of the temple and the kingdom. The third part (1 Chronicles 299:21Ch 2:1-55b-30) is a brief account of Solomon's being made king "a second time" (compare 1 Kings 1:1-53), with a summary and references for the reign of David.

The history of the successors of David, as given in 2 Chronicles, need not here be commented upon.

5. Sources Biblical and Extra-Biblical: The sources of the Books of Chronicles classify themselves as Biblical and extra-Biblical. Considerably more than half the contents come from the other Old Testament books, especially from Sam and Ki. Other sources mentioned in the Books of Chronicles are the following:

(1) The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 28:26; 32:32).

(2) The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 27:7; 35:27; 36:8).

(3) The Book of the Kings of Israel (2 Chronicles 20:34). (4) The Book of the Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27). It is possible that these may be four variant forms of the same title. It is also possible that they may be references to our present Books of Ki, though in that case we must regard the formulas of reference as conventional rather than exact.

(5) The Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1), a genealogical work.

(6) The Midrash of the Book of the Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27).

(7) The Words of the Kings of Israel (2 Chronicles 33:18), referred to for details concerning Manasseh.

Observe that these seven are books of Kings, and that the contents of the last three do not at all correspond with those of our Biblical books. In the seventh title and in several of the titles that are yet to be mentioned it is commonly understood that "Words" is the equivalent of "acts" or "history"; but it is here preferred to retain the form "Words," as lending itself better than the others to the syntactical adjustments.

(8) The Words of Samuel the Man of Vision and the Words of Nathan the Prophet and the Words of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) are perhaps to be counted as one work, and identified with our Books of Judges and Samuel.

(9) The Words of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chronicles 9:29; compare 1 Kings 11:41-43). Source concerning Solomon.

(10) The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29; compare 1 Kings 11:29 ff; 1 Kings 14:2 ff, etc.). Solomon.

(11) The Visions of Jedo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29; compare 1 Kings 13:1-34). Solomon.

(12) The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15; compare 1 Kings 12:22 ff). Rehoboam.

(13) "Shemaiah wrote" (1 Chronicles 24:6). David. (14) Iddo the Seer in Reckoning Genealogies (2 Chronicles 12:15). Rehoboam.

(15) "The Words (The History) of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel" (2 Chronicles 20:34; compare 1 Kings 16:1, 7, 12). Jehoshaphat.

(16) "The rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz, write" (2 Chronicles 26:22; compare Isaiah 1:1; Isaiah 6:1-13).

(17) "The Vision of Isaiah .... in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel" (2 Chronicles 32:32; compare 2 Kings 18:1-37 through 2 Kings 20:1-21; Isaiah 36:1-22 through Isaiah 39:1-8, etc.). Hezekiah.

(18) The Words of the Seers (2 Chronicles 33:19 margin). Manasseh.

(19) References to "Lamentations," and to "Jeremiah" etc. (2 Chronicles 35:25). Josiah.

(20) The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22). Abijah.

These numbers, from 12 to 20, are referred to as works of prophets. At first thought there is plausibility in the idea that the references may be to the sections in Samuel and Kings where these several prophets are mentioned; but in nearly all the cases this explanation fades out on examination. The Chronicler had access to prophetic writings not now known to be in existence.

(21) Liturgical writings of David and Solomon (2 Chronicles 35:4; compare Ezra 3:10). Josiah.

(22) Commandments of David and Gad and Nathan (2 Chronicles 29:25). Hezekiah.

(23) The Commandment of David and Asaph and Heman and Jeduthun (2 Chronicles 35:15). Josiah.

(24) Chronicles of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24). (25) Last Words of David (1 Chronicles 23:27). Add to these many mentions of genealogical works, connected with particular times, those for example of David, Jotham, Jeroboam II (1 Chronicles 9:22; 5:17), and mentions of matters that imply record-keeping, from Samuel and onward (e.g. 1 Chronicles 26:26-28). Add also the fact that the Chronicler had a habit, exhibited in Ezra and Nehemiah, of using and quoting what he represents to be public documents, for example, letters to and from Cyrus and Artaxerxes and Darius and Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra 1:1; 6:3; 7, 17; 5:6 ; Ezra 6:6; 7:11; Nehemiah 2:7). It is no exaggeration to say that the Chronicler claims to have had a considerable library at his command.

6. Nehemiah's Library: If such a library as this existed we should perhaps expect to find some mention of it somewhere. Such a mention I think there is in the much discussed passage in 2 Maccabees 2:13-15. It occurs in what purports to be a letter written after 164 BC by the Maccabean leaders in Jerusalem to Aristobulus in Egypt. The letter has a good deal to say concerning Nehemiah, and among other things this: "And how he, founding a library, gathered together the books about the kings and prophets, and the (books) of David, and letters of kings about sacred gifts." It says that these writings have been scattered by reason of the war, but that Judas has now gathered them again, and that they may be at the service of Aristobulus and his friends.

This alleged letter contains statements that seem fabulous to most modern readers, though they may not have seemed so to Judas and his compatriots. Leaving out of view, however, the intrinsic credibility of the witness, the fitting of the statement into certain other traditions and into the phenomena presented in Chronicles is a thing too remarkable to neglect. In the past, men have cited this passage as an account of the framing of a canon of Scripture--the canon of the Prophets, or of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. But it purports to be an account of a library, not of a body of Scripture; and its list of contents does not appear to be that of either the Prophets or the Hagiographa or both. But it is an exact list of the sources to which the author (or authors) of Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah claim to have access--"books about the kings" (see above, Numbers 1:1-54 through Numbers 7:1-89), "and prophets" (Numbers 8:1-26 through Numbers 20:1-29), "and of David" (Numbers 21:1-35 through Numbers 25:1-18 ff), "and letters of kings about sacred gifts" (those cited in Ezra and Nehemiah). The library attributed to Nehemiah corresponds to the one which the Chronicler claims to have used; and the two independent pieces of evidence strongly confirm each the other.

7. The Way of Using the Biblical Sources: The method in which the Biblical sources are used in Chronicles presents certain remarkable features. As a typical instance study 1 Chronicles 10:1-14 in comparison with 1 Samuel 31:1-13. 1 Chronicles 10:1-12 is just a transcription, with slight changes, of the passage in Samuel. A large part of Chronicles is thus made up of passages transcribed from Samuel and Kings. The alternative is that the Chronicler transcribed from sources which had earlier been transcribed in Samuel and Kings, and this alternative may in some cases be the true one.

This phenomenon is interesting for many reasons. It has its bearings on the trustworthiness of the information given; a copy of an ancient document is of higher character as evidence than a mere report of the contents of the document. It has a bearing on questions concerning the text; are the texts in Kings and Chronicles to be regarded as two recensions? It is especially interesting as illustrating the literary processes in use among the writers of our Scriptures.

It is sometimes said that they used their sources not by restating the contents as a modern compiler would do, but by just copying. It would be more correct to say that they do this part of the time. In 1 Chronicles 10 the copying process ceases with 10:12. In 10:13 and 14 the Chronicler condenses into a sentence a large part of the contents of 1 Samuel; one clause in particular is a condensation of 1 Samuel 28:1-25. So it is with other parts. 1 Chronicles 1:1-4 is abridged from Genesis 5:1-32 at the rate of a name for a section; so is 1 Chronicles 1:24-27 from Genesis 11:10-26. In the various parts of Chronicles we find all the methods that are used by any compiler; the differentiating fact is simply that the method of transcribing is more used than it would be by a modern compiler.

In the transcribed passages, almost without exception, there has been a systematic editorial revision. Words and clauses have been pruned out, and grammatical roughness smoothed away. Regularly the text in Chronicles is somewhat briefer, and is more fluent than in Samuel or Kings. If we give the matter careful attention we will be sure that this revisional process took place, and that it accounts for most of the textual differences between Chronicles and the earlier writings, not leaving many to be accounted for as corruptions.

8. Additions by the Chronicler: Of course the most significant changes made by the Chronicler are those which consist in additions and omissions. It is a familiar fact that the added passages in Chronicles which bulk largest are those which deal with the temple and its Worship and its attendants--its priests, Levites, musicians, singers, doorkeepers. Witness for example the added matter in connection with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, the preparations for the temple, the priests' joining Rehoboam, the war between Abijah and Jeroboam, the reforms under Asa and Jehoshaphat, details concerning Uzziah, Hezekiah's passover, the reform of Manasseh, the passover of Josiah (1 Chronicles 15:1-29 through 1 Chronicles 16:1-43; 1 Chronicles 22:1-19 through 1 Chronicles 29:1-30; 2 Chronicles 11:13-17; 2 Chronicles 13:1-22; 2 Chronicles 14:1-15; 2 Chronicles 15:1-19; 2 Chronicles 17:1-19; 2 Chronicles 19:1-11; 2 Chronicles 20:1-37; 2 Chronicles 26:16-21; 2 Chronicles 29:1-36 through 2 Chronicles 31:1-21; 2 Chronicles 33:10-20; 2 Chronicles 35:1-27). It has been less noticed than it should be that while the Chronicler in these passages magnifies the ceremonial laws of Moses, he magnifies those of David yet more.

Next in bulk comes the added genealogical and statistical matter, for example, the larger part of the preliminary genealogies, details as to David's followers, Rehoboam's fortified cities and family affairs with details concerning the Shishak invasion, Asa's military preparations and the invasion by Zerah, with numbers and dates, Jehoshaphat's military arrangements, with numbers, Jehoram's brothers and other details concerning him, Uzziah's army and his business enterprises (1 Chronicles 2:1-55 through 1 Chronicles 9:1-44; 1 Chronicles 12:1-40; 1 Chronicles 27:1-34; 2 Chronicles 11:5-12, 18-23; 2 Chronicles 12:3-9; 2 Chronicles 14:3-15; 2 Chronicles 17:1-5, 10-19; 2 Chronicles 21:1-20; 2 Chronicles 26:6-15).

The Chronicler is sometimes spoken of as interested in priestly affairs, and not in the prophets. That is a mistake. He takes particular pains to magnify the prophets (e.g. 2 Chronicles 20:20; 12, 16). He uses the word "prophet" 30 times, and the two words for "seer" (chozeh and ro'eh) respectively 5 and 11 times. He gives us additional information concerning many of the prophets--for example, Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Hanani, Jehu, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah. He has taken pains to preserve for us a record of many prophets concerning whom we should otherwise be ignorant--Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, Jedo (2 Chronicles 9:29), Iddo, the Oded of Asa's time, Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, Eliezer the son of Dodavah, two Zechariahs (2 Chronicles 24:20; 26:5), unnamed prophets of the time of Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25:5-10, 15-16), Oded of the time of Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:9).

In addition, however, to the materials that can be thus classified, it is the method of the Chronicler to preserve interesting incidents of all kinds by working them into his narrative. When he reaches Jair in his genealogical list, he finds himself in possession of a bit of information not contained in the older writings, and he inserts it (1 Chronicles 2:21 ff). He is interested to keep alive the memory of the "families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez" (1 Chronicles 2:55). He has found items concerning craftsmen, and concerning a linen industry, and a potters' industry, and he connects these with names in his list (1 Chronicles 4:14, 21, 23). He has come across a bit of a hymn in the name of Jabez, and he attaches the hymn to his list of names as an annotation (1 Chronicles 4:9-10). There are matters concerning the sickness and the burial of Asa, and concerning the bad conduct of Joash after the death of Jehoiada, and concerning constructions by Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 16:12-13; 2 Chronicles 24:15-27; 2 Chronicles 32:27-30), that seem to the Chronicler worth preserving, though they are not recorded in the earlier writings. The fruits of the habit appear, in many scores of instances, in all parts of the Books of Chronicles.

9. Omissions by the Chronicler: As the Books of Chronicles thus add matters not found in the older books, so they leave out much that is contained in the Books of Samuel and Kings. Here, however, the question should rather be as to what the Chronicler has retained from his sources than as to what he has omitted. He writes for readers whom he assumes to be familiar with the earlier books, and he retains so much of the older narrative as seems to him necessary for defining the relations of his new statements of fact to that narrative. From the point where the history of David begins he has omitted everything that is not strictly connected with David or his dynasty--the history of northern Israel as such, the long narratives concerning the prophets, such distressing affairs as those of Amnon and Absalom and Adonijah and the faithlessness of Solomon, and a multitude of minor particulars. We have already noticed his systematic shortening of the passages which he transcribes.

10. The Extra-Biblical Sources: There are two marked phenomena in the parts of Chronicles which were not taken from the other canonical books. They are written in later Hebrew of a pretty uniform type; many parts of them are fragmentary. The Hebrew of the parts that were copied from Samuel and Kings is of course the classical Hebrew of those books, generally made more classical by the revision to which it has been subjected. The Hebrew of the other parts is presumably that of the Chronicler himself. The difference is unmistakable. An obvious way of accounting for it is by supposing that the Chronicler treated his Scriptural sources with especial respect, and his other sources with more freedom. We will presently consider whether this is the true account.

There are indications that some of the non-Biblical sources were in a mutilated or otherwise fragmentary condition when the Chronicler used them. Broken sentences and passages and constructions abound. In the translations these are largely concealed, the translators having guessed the meanings into shape, but the roughnesses are palpable in the Hebrew. They appear less in the long narratives than in the genealogies and descriptive passages. They are sometimes spoken of as if they were characteristic of the later Hebrew, but there is no sense in that.

For example, most of the genealogies are incomplete. The priestly genealogies omit some of the names that are most distinguished in the history, such names as those of Jehoiada and two Azariahs (2 Kings 11:9, etc.; 2 Chronicles 26:17; 31:10). Many of the genealogies are given more than once, and in variant forms, but with their incompleteness still palpable. There are many breaks in the lists. We read the names of one group, and we suddenly find ourselves in the midst of names that belong to another group, and with nothing to call attention to the transition. The same phenomena appear in the sections in 1 Chronicles 23:2-27. These contain a succession of matters arranged in absolutely systematic order in classes and subclasses, while many of the statements thus arranged are so fragmentary as to be hardly intelligible. The most natural explanation of these phenomena assumes that the writer had a quantity of fragments in writing--clay tablets, perhaps, or pottery or papyrus, or what not, more or less mutilated, and that he copied them as best he could, one after another. A modern writer, doing such work, would indicate the lacunae by dots or dashes or other devices. The ancient copyist simply wrote the bits of text one after another, without such indications. In regard to many of the supposable lacunae in Chronicles scholars would differ, but there are a large number in regard to which all would agree. If someone would print a text of Chronicles in which these should be indicated, he would make an important contribution to the intelligibility of the books.

11. The Object in Writing the Books of Chronicles:

On the basis of these phenomena what judgment can we form as to the purposes for which the books of Chronicles were written? There are those who find the answer to this question a very simple one. They say that the interests of the writer were those of the temple priesthood, that it seemed to him that the older histories did not emphasize these interests as they ought, and that he therefore wrote a new history, putting into it the views and facts which he thought should be there. If this statement were modified so as not to impugn the good faith of the Chronicler, it would be nearly correct as a statement of part of his purpose. His purpose was to preserve what he regarded as historical materials that were in danger of being lost, materials concerning the temple-worship, but also concerning a large variety of other matters. He had the historian's instinct for laying hold of all sorts of details, and putting them into permanent form. His respiration from God (we do not here discuss the nature of that inspiration) led him this way. He wanted to save for the future that which he regarded as historical fact. The contents of the book, determined in part by his enthusiasm for the temple, were also determined in part by the nature of the materials that were providentially at his disposal. There seems also to have been present in his consciousness the idea of bringing to completion the body of sacred writings which had then been accumulating for centuries.

As we have seen, the Greek translators gave to the Books of Chronicles a title which expressed the idea they had of the work. They regarded it as the presentation of matters which had been omitted in the earlier Scriptures, as written not to supersede the older books, but to supplement them, as being, along with Ezra and Nehemiah, a work that brought the Scriptures up to date, and made them complete.

12. The Text: The text of the Books of Chronicles has been less carefully preserved than that of some other parts of the Old Testament. Witness for example the numbers 42 and 8 for the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 22:2; compare 2 Kings 8:26; 2 Chronicles 36:9; compare 2 Kings 24:8). There is no proof, however, of important textual corruption. As we have seen, the fragmentary character of certain parts is probably in the main due to exactness in following fragmentary sources, and not to bad text; and the differences between Samuel or Kings and Chronicles, in the transcribed passages, are mostly due to intended revision rather than to text variations.

13. Critical Estimates: In critical discussions less semblance of fair play has been accorded to Chronicles than even to most of the other Scriptures. It is not unusual to assume that the Chronicler's reference to sources is mere make-believe, that he "has cited sources simply to produce the impression that he is writing with authority." Others hurry to the generalization that the Books of Kings mentioned in Chronicles (see Numbers 1:1-54 through 7 above) are all one work, which must therefore have been an extensive Midrash (commentary, exe getical and anecdotal) on the canonical Books of Kings; and that the references to prophetic writings are to sections in this Midrash; so that practically the Chronicler had only two sources, the canonical books and this midrashic history of Israel; and that "it is impossible to determine" whether he gathered any bits of information from any other sources.

Into the critical theories concerning Chronicles enters a hypothesis of an earlier Book of Ki that was more extensive than our present canonical books. And in recent publications of such men as Buchler, Benzinger and Kittel are theories of an analysis of Chronicles into documents--for example, an earlier writing that made no distinction between priests and Levites, or an earlier writing which dealt freely with the canonical books; and the later writing of the Chronicler proper.

What we know in the matter is that three sets of authors combined in producing the Books of Chronicles--first, the men who produced the canonical sources, second, the men who produced the other sources, and third, the man or men who directly or indirectly put the contents of these sources together into the book which we have. We have no means of knowing what most of the intermediate processes were, and it is superlatively useless to guess. It is gratuitous to say that the mention of sources in Chronicl es is not made in good faith. It is probable that among the sources were Midrashim that were nearly contemporaneous. It is exceedingly improbable that none of the sources mentioned were genuine and ancient. All probabilities agree to the effect that the returned exiles and their near descendants were likely to study the ancient history of their race, and to gather materials for that purpose. As we have seen, the phenomena of the book indicate the presence of an antiquarian motive which was sure to be interested in genuine items of evidence from the remote past.

14. Date and Authorship: The current opinion sixty years ago was that the Books of Chronicles and the whole Old Testament were completed about 404 BC, near the time when Artaxerxes Mnemon succeeded Darius Nothus. The statement now fashionable is that the Books of Chronicles were completed not later than about 250 BC, and this constantly degenerates into the statement that they were written about 250 BC or later. In fact, they were completed within the lifetime of Nehemiah, not later or not much later than 400 BC.

In discussing this we cannot ignore the fact that Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah are one work, or, if you prefer, one series. The closing verses of 2 Chronicles duplicate the opening verses of Ezr. This is not, probably, an inadvertent repetition. The Books of Chronicles were written later than the other parts of the series. The closing verses are the Chronicler's notification to his readers that he has brought up the earlier history to the point at which he had previously begun the narrative in Ezr. The testimony concerning Ezra and the "men of the Great Synagogue" and Nehemiah and their work on the Scriptures does not deserve the contempt with which some persons treat it. We know nothing concerning the Great Synagogue as an organization, but we know much concerning the succession of men, from Daniel to Simon the Just, who are called the men of the Great Synagogue. The old traditions do not say that Ezra was the founder of the succession, but they make him the typical person in it. Two bits of tradition are not necessarily inconsistent if one attributes work to Ezra which the other attributes to the men of the Great Synagogue. The regulation remark that tradition attributes Biblical work to Ezra and not to Nehemiah is untrue. Nehemiah was one of the men of the Great Synagogue, and prominent as such. He is introduced to us as a handsome boy, a king's favorite, coming to Jerusalem in 444 BC. In 433 BC he returned to the king. After an unknown interval of time he came back to Judea, and presumably spent the remainder of his long life there, dying some years or sortie decades after 400 BC.

15. Evidence as to Date and Authorship: The placing of the work of the Chronicles at the close of the Hebrew Scriptures is in itself of the nature of testimony. The men who placed it there testify thereby to their belief that these are the latest writings of the Old Testament aggregate. We are familiar with the testimony of Babha' Bathra' to the effect that most of the later books of the Old Testament were due to the men of the Great Synagogue and to Ezra, but that Nehemiah completed the Books of Chronicles. We cannot avoid including the Chronicles among the 22 books which Josephus says were written before the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Apion, I, 8). Of course the limit of time here really intended by Josephus is not the death of Artaxerxes, but the lifetime of men who were contemporary with him--that of Nehemiah, for example. We have already noted the testimony concerning Nehemiah's library (2 Maccabees 2:13-15). The time when the library was being gathered was the most likely time for it to be used as the Chronicler has used it. Add the recapitulation in Ecclesiasticus (44 through 49), which m entions Nehemiah latest in its list of Old Testament worthies.

Internal marks, also, justify the conclusion that the work of the Chronicler was complete before Nehemiah died. The abundant presence of Persian words and facts, with the absence of Greek words and facts, seems conclusive to the effect that the work was done before the conquests of Alexander rendered the Greek influence paramount. In some of the sections (e.g. Ezra 7:28 ff; Nehemiah passim) Ezra and Nehemiah speak in the first person. The whole work makes the impression of being written up to date. The latest situation in Chronicles is the same with that in Neh (1 Chronicles 9:1-44; compare Nehemiah 11:3 through Nehemiah 12:26). The latest event mentioned is the differentiating of the Samaritan schism. A certain enrollment was made (Nehemiah 12:22-26) in the reign of Darius, up to the high-priesthood of Johanan (elsewhere called Jonathan and John), but including Jaddua the son of Johanan in the high-priestly succession. Ezra and Nehemiah were still in office (Nehemiah 12:26). This enrollment naturally connects itself with the expulsion of Jaddua's bro ther Manasseh for marrying into the family of Sanballat (Nehemiah 13:28; Josephus, Ant, XI, Nehemiah 7:1-73-Nehemiah 8:1-18). Jaddua belongs to the fifth generation from Jeshua, who was high priest 538 BC. Josephus says that Sanballat held a commission from Darius. He mentions a certain Bagoas, "general of another Artaxerxes' army," as in relations with the high priest John.

Arguments for a Later Date.

Josephus, however, apparently regards the Darius who commissioned Sanballat as the last of the kings of that name, and says that Jaddua was contemporary with Alexander the Great, thus dating the Samaritan schism a little before 331 BC. All scholars reject these statements when they are used for dating the Samaritan schism, but some scholars eagerly accept them for the purpose of proving the late date of the last books of the Hebrew Bible. The argument never was valid, and it is completely exploded by the Aramaic papyri recently discovered in Egypt, which show that Bagoas and the high priest Johanan and the sons of Sanballat were contemporaries in 407 BC, the 17th year of Darius Nothus, and for some years earlier.

Dr. Driver (LOT, edition 1897, 518) expresses an opinion very commonly held concerning the Chronicles: "The only positive clue which the book contains as to the date at which it was composed is the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:17-24, .... carried down to the sixth generation after Zerubbabel. This would imply a date not earlier than about 350 BC." Turn to the passage and do your own arithmetic on it. Jeconiah was born 614 BC (2 Kings 24:8). If as an average each of the sons in the succession was born when his fat her was about 25 years old, that would bring the first birth in the 6th generation from Zerubbabel to about 414 BC, and not 350 BC. This is not an improbable showing.

Dr. Driver suggests, however, that in 1 Chronicles 3:21 we should follow the Greek reading instead of the Hebrew. This would give us: "And the sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah, and Jeshaiah his son, Rephaiah his son, Arnan his son, Obadiah his son, Shecaniah his son." The meaning here is ambiguous. It may be understood to be that each of the six men named after Hananiah was the son of the man named before him (compare 1 Chronicles 3:10-14, or 1 Chronicles 6:20-30, 50-53); or as counting the six as the sons of Hananiah (compare 1 Chronicles 3:16; 1 Chronicles 7:20-21, etc.). Understanding it in the first of these two ways the number of generations after Zerubbabel would be increased to eleven. So many generations before the early decades of the 4th century BC would be exceptional, though not impossible. But the statement that there were 11 generations is weak, being based on a conjectural interpretation of an unproved text emendation, and standing unconfirmed in opposition to credible proof.

16. Truthfulness and Historicity: "The Books of Chronicles are a tendency writing of little historical value"; "a distorted picture in the interest of the later institutions of postexilic Judaism"; "some ancient facts, having trickled down through oral or written tradition, are doubtless preserved. .... They are few indeed compared with the products of the imagination, and must be sifted like kernels of wheat from a mass of chaff." These statements, taken at random from the book that happens to be handiest, fairly represent the opinion held by many. They regard the Chronicles as a fabrication made in the interest of a religious party, a fabrication in which the history has been intentionally falsified.

A principal motive for this opinion is to discredit the testimony of Chronicles against certain critical theories, the said testimony being more full and detailed than that in Samuel and Kings and the prophets. But on the whole question the testimony of Chronicles is to the same effect with that of the other books. The testimony of the other books supports that of the Chronicles. The discrediting of Chronicles is part of a theory which denies the historical trustworthiness of practically all parts of the Old Testament and New Testament.

(1) Alleged Proofs of Untruthfulness. Against the Chronicles it is alleged that they sometimes contradict the older books; but nearly all the instances are capable of satisfactory solution. The large numerals in Chronicles, for example those concerning the armies of David, Abijah, Jeroboam, Asa, Zerah, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, Uzziah, are adduced as extravagant and incredible. Most of the difficulty in connection with such numbers, whether in Chronicles or Exodus or Numbers or Judges or Samuel, disappears when we observe that they clearly belong to an artificial way of counting. These numbers are given in even thousands or even hundreds (even fifties or tens in a very few instances), which would not be the case if the hundreds and thousands were merely numerical. It is alleged that the Chronicler views the glories of the past as on a larger scale than that in which they are presented in the earlier books, but this is not uniformly the case. On the basis of these allegations the Chronicler is charged with an extravagance that is inconsistent with sober truthfulness, but this charge follows the fate of the others. It is said that the Chronicler lacked trustworthy sources, but that is a thing to be proved, not taken for granted, and we have seen that it is improbable. It is alleged that the text is in such bad shape as to render the contents unreliable. This may be balanced against the counter conjecture that, since the Books of Chronicles have not been so often copied as the Books of Ki, their text is in the transcribed passages to be preferred to that of Ki. In fine, the reasons alleged against the historicity of Chronicles dwindle on examination, though there remain some problems that cannot be so easily disposed of.

(2) Truthfulness in the Various Parts. Different parts of the Chronicles have their own separate problems of historicity. Take the genealogies, for example. If anyone had fabricated them, he would not have put them into their present fragmentary form, in which they have no story interest, and are of no direct use to anybody. On the other hand it is reasonable to account for their present form by the hypothesis that the writer used such materials as he had. This hypothesis is not derogatory to the inspiration of the writer. Deity saw fit to have these materials placed in the Scriptures, and to this end He influenced men of different generations through providential leadings and through impulses of the Spirit. No one thinks that the Spirit-guided man who put the genealogies in their final form received them as miraculous revelations. He received them as the product of effort in study--his own efforts and those of his predecessors. He is entitled to be counted as truthful if he used good judgment and fidelity in selecting and recording his materials.

Similar statements would be true in regard to the other statistical matter, and in regard to the many incidents that are mentioned in connection with the genealogies and other matters. To think of them as inventions by the Chronicler is not congruous with human experience. They are too brief and broken to have interest by themselves as stories. You can assign no possible reason that one could have for inventing them. They bear the marks of being genuine antiquarian discoveries. The final writer believed that he had come across facts which would be of interest if put into connection with the history as currently narrated. These matters are much more reasonably accounted for as facts than as inventions. And furthermore, a good many of them, first and last, have been corroborated by exploration. Take, for example, Manasseh's being carried to Babylon by the captains of the king of Assyria, or the account of Uzziah's military greatness (2 Chronicles 33:11; 26:6 ff), or the references to industries in 1 Chronicles 4:14-23 (compare PEFS , 1905, 243, 328; or Bible Sidelights from Gezer, 150 ff).

Possibly on a different footing is such a passage as the account of Abijah and Jeroboam (2 Chronicles 13:3-18). It says that Abijah had 400,000 men and Jeroboam 800,000, of whom 500,000 were slain in the battle. One might plausibly argue that these numbers were intended as a notice to the reader that he is to understand the story, not as fact, but as a work of the imagination, a religious parable, a midrashic narrative sermon, taken from the Midrash of Iddo (verse 22). Whether or no one finds this argument convincing, anyone can see that it does not accuse the Books of Chronicles of being untruthful. If the passage is a parable it is true in the sense in which it was intended to be understood. A similar case is the account of Jehoshaphat's peril from the invading nations and his wonderful rescue (2 Chronicles 20:1-37).

On still a different footing are such narratives as those concerning the bringing up of the ark, the first making of Solomon king, the reforms under Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah. These are sober narratives, with nothing in them to suggest flights of the imagination. Probably no one doubts that the Chronicler intended them to be understood as historical fact. If one is under bondage to the modern tradition which dates Dt from the time of Josiah and the priestly laws from after the exile, he must needs count these parts of Chronicles as falsified history; but if he is free from that bondage he will see no strong reason for counting them so.

17. The Values of the Chronicles: In fine men are correct when they say that the greatest values of the Books of Chronicles lie in their availability for vividly illustrating the great truths of religion. They are correct when they assign great value to these books as depicting the ideas of the time when they were written. But they are none the less of great value as repeating from the other Scriptures the outline of the history of the religion of Yahweh, and presenting additional material for the filling in of that outline.

LITERATURE.

Among the older commentaries on Chronicles see that of Keil in the Keil-Delitzsch series, published in English in 1872; that of Zockler in the Lange series, 1876; that of Barker in the Pulpit Commentary, after 1880. Among more recent works, from the point of view which denies the historicity of Chronicles, see R. Kittel in the Polychrome Bible, 1895, and Curtis and Masden in the International Critical Commentary, 1910. A brilliant characterization from that point of view is that by Torrey, "The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator" in AJSL, January, 1909, and subsequent numbers. On the other side see Beecher, Reasonable Biblical Criticism, 1911, chapters xviii and xxii; "Is the Chronicler a Veracious Historian?" in Bible Student (October, 1899 and subsequent numbers), is a defense of the historicity. All works on Old Testament Introduction discuss the questions concerning Chronicles. In view of the many proper names in Chronicles, such a book as Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, has its uses. For the chronological facts, especially in connection with the closing of the Old Testament history, see Beecher, Dated Events of the Old Testament, 1907. For the Egyptian papyri see Drei Aramaische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, Sachau, Berlin, 1907, or the Appendix to Toffteen, Historic Exodus. Also Sprengling's article in AJSL, April, 1911. As to light on the Chronicles from explorations, see "The Excavations of Gezer, 1902-5, and 1907-9,"PEF ; or Bible Sidelights from the Mounds of Gezer, 1906. For other books see the lists in Encyclopedia Biblica andHDB .

Willis J. Beecher

Chronology of the New Testament

Chronology of the New Testament - I. CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS

1. Birth of Jesus

(1) Death of Herod

(2) Census of Quirinius

(3) Star of the Magi

(4) Course of Abijah

(5) Day and Month

(6) Summary

2. Baptism of Jesus

3. First Passover

4. Death of John the Baptist

5. Length of Jesus' Ministry

6. Death of Jesus

7. Summary of Dates

LITERATURE

II. CHRONOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE

1. Paul's Conversion

2. Death of Herod Agrippa I

3. Famine under Claudius

4. Sergius Paulus

5. Edict of Claudius

6. Gallio

7. Festus

8. Relative Chronology of Acts

9. Pauline Epistles

10. Release and Death of Paul

11. Death of Peter

12. Death of James the Just

13. The Synoptic Gospels, etc.

14. Death of John

15. Summary of Dates

LITERATURE

The current Christian era is reckoned from the birth of Jesus and is based upon the calculations of Dionysius (6th century). Subsequent investigation has shown that the Dionysian date is at least four years too late. Several eras were in use in the time of Jesus; but of these only the Varronian will be used coordinately with the Dionysian in the discussion of the chronology of the life of Jesus, 753 A.U.C. being synchronous with 1 BC and 754 A.U.C. with 1 AD.

I. Chronology of the Life of Jesus. 1. Birth of Jesus: Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1 ff) at the time of a census or enrollment made in the territory of Herod in accordance with a decree of Augustus when Quirinius (Revised Version; Cyrenius, the King James Version) was exercising authority in the Roman province of Syria (Luke 2:1 f). At the time of Jesus' birth a star led the Magi of the East to seek in Jerusalem the infant whom they subsequently found in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1 ff). John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:36) and he was born in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; compare Luke 2:1) after his father, Zacharias, of the priestly course of Abijah, had been performing the functions of his office in the temple.

(1) Death of Herod. The death of Herod the Great occurred in the spring of 750/4. (NOTE: The alternative numbers are BC or AD, i.e, 750 A.U.C. = 4 BC, etc.) He ruled from his appointment in Rome 714/40 (Ant., XIV, xiv, 4-5, in the consulship of Caius Domitius Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio) 37 years, and from his accession in Jerusalem after the capture of the city 717/37 (Ant.,. XIV, xvi, 1-3; BJ, I, xvii, 9; I, xviii, 1-3; Dio Cassius xlix.22; compare Schurer,GJV 3, I, 358, note 11) 34 years (Ant ,XVII , xviii, 1;BJ , I, xxxiii, 7-8; compare Schurer, op. cit., I, 415, note 167 where it is shown that Josephus reckons a year too much, probably counting from Nisan 1 and including partial years). Just before Herod's death there was an eclipse of the moon (Ant., XVII, vi, 4). According to astronomical calculations an eclipse was visible in Palestine on March 23 and September 15, 749/5, March 12, 750/4 and January 9, 753/1. Of these the most probable is that of March 12, 750/4. Soon after the eclipse Herod put to death his son Antipater and died five days later (Ant., XVII, vii; BJ, I, xxxiii, 7). Shortly after Herod's death the Passover was near at hand. (Ant., XVII, vi, 4 through ix, 3). In this year Passover (Nisan 15) fell on April 11; and as Archelaus had observed seven days of mourning for his father before this, Herod's death would fall between March 17 and April 4. But as the 37th (34th) year of his reign was probably reckoned from Nisan 1 or March 28, his death may be dated between March 28 and April 4, 750/4.

This date for Herod's death is confirmed by the evidence for the duration of the reigns of his three sons. Archelaus was deposed in 759/6 (Dio Cassius Leviticus 27 in the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius) in the 10th year of his reign (Ant., XVII, xiii, 2; compare BJ ,II , vii, 3 which gives the year as the 9th). Antipas was deposed most probably in the summer of 792/39 (Ant., XVIII, vii, 1-2; compare XVIII , vi, 11;XIX , viii, 2;BJ ,II , ix, 6; Schurer, op. cit., I, 448, note 46 and 416, note 167). There are coins of Antipas from his 43rd year (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 121 ff). The genuineness of a coin from the 44th year is questioned by Schurer but accepted by Madden. The coin from the 45th year is most probably spurious (Schurer, op. cit., I, 417, note 167). Philip died after reigning 37 years, in the 20th year of Tiberius--August 19, 786/33-787/34 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 6). There is also a coin of Philip from his 37th year (Madden, op. cit., 126). Thus Archelaus, Antipas and Philip began to reign in 750/4.

(2) Census of Quirinius. The census or enrollment, which, according to Luke 2:1 f, was the occasion of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born, is connected with a decree of Augustus embracing the Greek-Roman world. This decree must have been carried out in Palestine by Herod and probably in accordance with the Jewish method--each going to his own city--rather than the Roman (Dig. 15, 4, 2; Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 195; Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, III, 124 f; Schurer, Theol. Ztg, 1907, 683 f; and on the other hand, Ramsay, Expositor, 1908, I, 19, note). Certainly there is no intimation of an insurrection such as characterized a later census (Acts 5:37; Ant, XVIII, i, 1; BJ, II, xvii, 7; compare Tac. Ann. vi.41; Livy Epit. cxxxvi, cxxxvii; Dessau, Inscrip. lat. Sel. number 212, col. ii, 36) and this may have been due in no small measure to a difference in method. Both Josephus and Luke mention the later census which was made by Quirinius on the deposition of A rchelaus, together with the insurrection of Judas which accompanied it. But while Josephus does not mention the Herodian census--although there may be some intimation of it in Ant, XVI, ix, 3; XVII, ii, 4; compare Sanclemente, De vulg. aerae emend., 438 f; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Beth.1, 178 ff--Luke carefully distinguishes the two, characterizing the census at the time of Jesus' birth as "first," i.e. first in a series of enrollments connected either with Quirinius or with the imperial policy inaugurated by t he decree of Augustus. The Greek-Roman writers of the time do not mention this decree and later writers (Cassiodor, Isidor and Suidas) cannot be relied upon with certainty as independent witnesses (Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, 148 ff). Yet the geographical work of Agrippa and the preparation of a breviarium totius imperil by Augustus (Tac. Ann. i.11; Suet. Aug. 28 and 101; Dio Cassius liii.30; lvi.33; compare Mommsen, Staatsrecht,II , 1025, note 3), together with the interest of the emperor in the organization and finances of the empire and the attention which he gave to the provinces (Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung, II, 211 f; compare 217), are indirectly corroborative of Luke's statement. Augustus himself conducted a census in Italy in 726/28, 746/8, 767/14 (Mommsen, Res Ges., 34 ff) and in Gaul in 727/27 (Dio Cassius liii.22, 5; Livy Epit. cxxxiv) and had a census taken in other provinces (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyc., under the word "Census," 1918 f; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 213). For Egypt there is evidence of a regular p eriodic census every 14 years extending back to 773/20 (Ramsay, op. cit., 131 if; Grenfell and Hunt, Oxy. Papyri, II, 207 ff; Wilcken, Griech. Ostraka, I, 444 ff) and it is not improbable that this procedure was introduced by Augustus (Schurer, op. cit., I, 515). The inference from Egyptian to similar conditions in other provinces must indeed be made cautiously (Wilcken, op. cit., 449; Marquardt, op. cit., 441); yet in Syria the regular tributum capitis seems to imply some such preliminary work (Dig, 1. 15, 3; Appian, Syriac., 50; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 200, note 2; Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., 1921; Ramsay, op. cit., 154). The time of the decree is stated only in general terms by Luke, and it may have been as early as 727/27 (Zumpt, op. cit., 159; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 212) or later in 746-8 (Huschke, Census, 34; Ramsay, op. cit., 158 ff), its execution in different provinces and subject kingdoms being carried out at different times. Hence, Luke dates the census in the kingdom of Herod specifically by connecting it with the administrative functions of Quirinius in Syria. But as P. Quintilius Varus was the legate of Syria just before and after the death of Herod from 748/6-750/4 (Ant., XVII, v, 2; XVII, ix., 3; XVII, x, 1 and 9; XVII, xi, 1; Tac. Hist. v.9; and coins in Eckhel, Doctr. num. vet., III, 275) and his predecessor Was C. Sentius Saturninus from 745/9-748/6 (Ant; XVI, ix, 1; x, 8; xi, 3; XVII, i, 1; ii, 1; iii, 2), there seems to be no place for Quirinius during the closing years of Herod's reign. Tertullian indeed speaks of Saturninus as legate at the time of Jesus' birth (Adv. Marc., iv.9). The interpretation of Luke's statement as indicating a date for the census before Quirinius was legate (Wieseler, Chron. Syn., 116; Lagrange, Revue Biblique, 1911, 80 ff) is inadmissible. It is possible that the connection of the census with Quirinius may be due to his having brought to completion what was begun by one of his predecessors; or Quirinius may have been commissioned especially by the emperor as legatus ad census accipiendos to conduct a census in Syria and this commission may have been connected temporally with his campaign against the Homonadenses in Cilicia (Tac. Ann. iii.48; compare Noris, Cenotaph. Pis., 320 ff; Sanclemente, op. cit., 426 passim; Ramsay, op. cit., 238). It has also been suggested by Bour (L'Inscription de Quirinius, 48 ff) that Quirinius may have been an imperial procurator specially charged with authority in the matter of the Herodian census. The titulus Tiburtinus (CIL, XIV, 3613; Dessau, Inscr. Latin Sel., 918)--if rightly assigned to him--and there seems to be no sufficient reason for questioning the conclusiveness of Mommsen's defense of this attribution (compare Liebenam, Verwaltungsgesch., 365)--proves that he was twice legate of Syria, and the titulus Venetus (CIL, III, 6687; Dessau, op. cit., 2683) gives evidence of a census conducted by him in Syria. His administration is dated by Ramsay (op. cit., 243) in 747/7; by Mommsen in the end of 750/4 or the beginning of 751/3 (op. cit., 172 ff). Zahn (Neue kirch. Zeitschr., 1893, IV, 633 ff), followed by Spitta (Zeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., 1906, VII, 293 ff), rejects the historicity of the later census connected by Josephus with the deposition of Archelaus, basing his view on internal grounds, and assigns the Lucan census to a time shortly after the death of Herod. This view however is rendered improbable by the evidence upon which the birth of Jesus is assigned to a time before the death of Herod (Matthew 2:1 ff; Luke 1:5; 2:1 f); by the differentiation of the census in Luke 2:1 f and Acts 5:37; by the definite connection of the census in Josephus with Syria and the territory of Archelaus (compare also the tit. Venet.); and by the general imperial policy in the formation of a new province (Marquardt, op. cit., II, 213). Moreover there seems to be no adequate ground for identifying the Sabinus of Josephus with Quirinius as urged by Weber, who regards the two accounts (Ant., XVII, viii, 1 ff and XVII, iv, 5; XVIII, i, 2; ii, 1 ff) as due to the separation by Josephus of parallel accounts of the same events in his sources (Zeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., 1909, X, 307 ff)--the census of Sabinus-Quirinius being assigned to 4 BC, just after the death of Herod the Great. The synchronism of the second census of Quirinius with the periodic year of the Egyptian census is probably only a coincidence, for it was occasioned by the deposition of Archelaus; but its extension to Syria may be indicative of its connection with the imperial policy inaugurated by Augustus (Tac. Ann. vi.41; Ramsay, op. cit., 161 f).

(3) Star of the Magi. The identification of the star of the Magi (Matthew 2:2; compare Matthew 2:7, 9, 16; Macrobius, Sat., II, 4; Sanclemente, op. cit., 456; Ramsay, op. cit., 215 ff) and the determination of the time of its appearance cannot be made with certainty, although it has been associated with a conjunction in 747/7 and 748/6 of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign of Pisces--a constellation which was thought to stand in close relation with the Jewish nation (Ideler, Handbuch d. math. u. tech. Chron., II, 400 ff). When the Magi came to Jerusalem, however, Herod was present in the city; and this must have been at least several months before his death, for during that time he was sick and absent from Jerusalem (Ant., XVII, vi, 1 ff; BJ, I, xxxiii, 1 ff).

(4) Course of Abijah. The chronological calculations of the time of the service of the priestly course of Abijah in the temple, which are made by reckoning back from the time of the course of Jehoiarib which, according to Jewish tradition, was serving at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, are uncertain (Schurer, op. cit., II, 337, note 3; compare Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 836).

(5) Day and month. The day and month of Jesus' birth are also uncertain. December 25 was celebrated by the church in the West as early as the 2nd century--if the date in Hippolytus on Dan., IV, 23, be genuine (compare Ehrhardt, Altchr. Lit., 1880-1900, 383); but January 6 was celebrated in the East as the anniversary both of the birth and of the baptism. The fact that shepherds were feeding their flocks at night when Jesus was born (Luke 2:8) makes it improbable that the season of the year was winte r.

(6) Summary. The birth of Jesus may therefore be assigned to the period 747/7 to 751/5, before the death of Herod, at the time of a census made by Herod in accordance with a decree of Augustus and when Quirinius was exercising extraordinary authority in Syria--Varus being the regular legate of the province, i.e. probably in 748/6.

See JESUS CHRIST.

2. Baptism of Jesus: The Synoptic Gospels begin their description of the public ministry of Jesus with an account of the ministry of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1 ff; Mark 1:1 ff; Luke 3:1 ff; compare John 1:19 ff; 4:24; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 3) and Luke definitely dates the baptism of Jesus by John in the 15th year of Tiberius. Luke also designates this event as the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and by stating Jesus' age approximately brings it into connection with the date of His birth. If Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberius fro m the death of Augustus, August 19, 767/14, the 15th year would extend from August 19, 781/28 to August 18, 782/29; and if Jesus was about thirty years old at this time, His birth would fall in 751/3 to 752/2--or sometime after the death of Herod, which is inconsistent with Luke's own and Matthew's representation. This indeed was one of the common modes of reckoning the imperial reigns. The mode of reckoning from the assumption of the tribunician power or from the designation as imperator is altogether unlikely in Luke's case and intrinsically improbable, since for Tiberius the one began in 748/6 and the other in 743/11 (Dio Cassius Iv.9; liv.33; Vell. ii.99; Suet. Tib. ix.11). But if, as seems likely, the method of reckoning by imperial years rather than by the yearly consuls was not definitely fixed when Luke wrote, it is possible that he may have counted the years of Tiberius from his appointment in 764/11 or 765/12 to equal authority with Augustus in the provinces (Veil. ii 121; Suet. Tib. xx.21; Tac. Ann. i.3). This method seems not to have been employed elsewhere (Lewin, op. cit., 1143 f; compare Ramsay, op. cit., 202 f). The coins of Antioch in which it is found are regarded as spurious (Eckhel, op. cit., III, 276), the genuine coins reckoning the reign of Tiberins from the death of Augustus (ibid., III, 278). If Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberins from 764/11 or 765/12, the 15th year would fall in 778/25 or 779/26, probably the latter, and Jesus' birth about thirty years earlier, i.e. about 748/6 or 749/5.

3. First Passover: At the time of the first Passover in Jesus' ministry the Herodian temple had been building 46 years (John 2:20). Herod began the temple in the 18th year of his reign (Ant., XV, xi, 1, which probably corrects the statement in BJ, I, xxi, I that it was the 15th year; compare Schurer, op. cit., I, 369 f, note 12). As Josephus reckons from the accession of Herod in 717/37, the 18th year would be 734/20 to 735/21 and 46 years later would be 780/27 to 781/28. The interval implied in John between this Passover an d the beginning of Jesus' ministry agrees well with the Lucan dating of the baptism in 779/26.

4. Death of John the Baptist: The imprisonment of John the Baptist, which preceded the beginning of Jesus' Galilean work, was continued for a time (Matthew 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35) but was finally terminated by beheading at the order of Herod Antipas. Announcement of the death was made to Jesus while in the midst of His Galilean ministry (Matthew 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9). Josephus reports that the defeat of Antipas by Aretas, in the summer of 789/36, was popularly regarded as a Divine punishment for the murder of John (Ant., XVIII, v, 2); But although Josephus mentions the divorce of Aretas daughter by Antipas as one of the causes of hostilities, no inference can be drawn from this or from the popular interpretation of Antipas' defeat, by which the int erval between John s death and this defeat can be fixed (Schurer, op. cit., I, 443 f).

5. Length of Jesus' Ministry: The Synoptic Gospels mention the Passion Passover at which Jesus' ministry was terminated, but they contain no data by which the interval between the imprisonment of John the Baptist and this Passover can be fixed with certainty. Yet indications are not wanting that the interval consisted of at least two years. The Sabbath controversy broke out in Galilee when the grain was still standing in the fields (Matthew 12:1; Mark 2:23; Luke 6:1) and the condition of the grass when the Five Thousand were fed (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:39; Luke 9:12) points to the springtime, the Passion Passover marking the return of still another springtime (compare also Luke 13:7; Matthew 23:37). But the Gospel of John mentions explicitly three Passovers (Matthew 2:23; 6:4; 11:30) and probably implies a fourth (Matthew 5:1), thus necessitating a ministry of at least two years and making probable a ministry of three years after the first Passover. The Passover of Matthew 6:4 cannot be eliminated on textual grounds, for the documentary evidence is conclusive in its favor and the argument against it based on the statements of certain patristic writers is unconvincing (compare Turner,HDB , I, 407 f; Zahn, Kom., IV, 708 ff). The indications of time from 6:4--the Passover when the Five Thousand were fed in Galilee--to 11:55--the Passion Passover--are definite and clear (7:2; 10:22). But the interval between the first Passover (2:23) and the Galilean Passover (6:4) must have been one and may have been two years. The following considerations favor the latter view: Jesus was present in Jerusalem at a feast (5:1) which is not named but is called simply "a" or "the" feast of the Jews. The best authorities for the text are divided, some supporting the insertion, others the omission of the definite article before "feast." If the article formed part of the original text, the feast may have been either Tabernacles--from the Jewish point of view--or Passover--from the Christian point of view. If the article was wanting in the original text, the identification of the feast must be made on contextual and other grounds. But the note of time in 4:35 indicates the lapse of about nine months since the Passover of 2:23 and it is not likely that the Galilean ministry which preceded the feeding of the Five Thousand lasted only about three months. In fact this is rendered impossible by the condition of the grain in the fields at the time of the Sabbath controversy. The identification of the feast of John 5:1 with Purim, even if the article be not genuine, is extremely improbable; and if so, a Passover must have intervened between John 2:23 and John 6:4, making the ministry of Jesus extend over a period of three years and the months which preceded the Passover of John 2:23. While the identification cannot be made with certainty, if the feast was Passover the subject of the controversy with the Jews in Jerusalem as well as the season of the year would harmonize with the Synoptic account of the Sabbath controversy in Galilee which probably followed this Passover (compare the variant reading in Luke 6:1).

6. Death of Jesus: Jesus was put to death in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea (Matthew 27:2 ff; Mark 15:1 ff; Luke 23:1 ff; John 18:29 ff; John 19:1 ff; Acts 3:13; 4:27; 13:28; 1 Timothy 6:13; Tac. Ann. xv.44), Caiaphas being the high priest (Matthew 26:3, 17; John 11:49; 18:13 ff) and Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Luke 23:7 ff). Pilate was procurator from 779/26 to 789/36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3; v, 3; compare Schurer, op. cit., I, 487, note 141); Caiaphas was high priest from 771/18 to 789/36 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2; iv, 3; compare Schurer, op. cit., II, 271) and Antipas was tetrarch from 750/4 to 792/39. If the first Passover of Jesus' ministry was in 780/27, the fourth would fall in 783/30. The gospels name Friday as the day of the crucifixion (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42) and the Synoptic Gospels represent this Friday as Nisan 15--the day following (or according to Jewish reckoning from sunset to sunset, the same day as) the day on which the paschal supper was eaten (Matthew 26:17 ff; Mark 14:12 ff; Luke 22:7 ff). But the Fourth Gospel is thought by many to represent the paschal meal as still uneaten when Jesus suffered (Luke 18:28; compare Luke 13:29); and it is held that the Synoptic Gospels also contain traces of this view (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2; 15:21; Luke 23:26). Astronomical calculations show that Friday could have fallen on Nisan 14 or 15 in 783/30 according to different methods of reckoning (von Soden, EB, I, 806; compare Bacon, Journal of Biblical Literature,XXVIII , 2, 1910, 130 ff; Fotheringham, Jour. of Theol. Studies, October, 1910, 120 ff), but the empirical character of the Jewish calendar renders the result of such calculations uncertain (Schurer, op. cit., I, 749 f). In the year 783/30 Friday, Nican 15, would fall on April 7. There is an early patristic tradition which dates the death of Jesus in the year 782/29, in the consulship of the Gemini (Turner, HDB, I, 413 f), but its origin and trustworthy character are problematical.

7. Summary of Dates: 1. Birth of Jesus, 748/6. 2. Death of Herod the Great, 750/4. 3. Baptism of Jesus, 779/26. 4. First Passover of Jesus' ministry, 780/27. 5. Death of Jesus, 783/30.

LITERATURE.

Schurer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3. und 4. Aufl., 1901-9, 3 volumes, English translation of the 2nd edition, in 5 volumes, 1885-94; Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, 1825-26, 2 volumes; Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der Evangelien, 1843, English translation; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1865; Turner, article "Chronology of the NT" in HDB, 1900, I. 403-25; von Soden, article "Chronology" in Cheyne and Black, EB, 1899, I, 799-819; Ramsay, Wa s Christ Born at Bethlehem? 1898; F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, article "Dates" in Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels; Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Augusti2.

II. Chronology of the Apostolic Age. The chronology of the apostolic age must be based on the data in Acts and the epistolary literature of the New Testament which afford contacts with persons or events of the Greek-Roman world. From the fixed points thus secured a general outline of the relative chronology may be established with reasonable probability.

1. Paul's Conversion: Paul was converted near Damascus (Acts 9:3 ff; Acts 22:5 ff; Acts 26:12 ff; Galatians 1:17). After a brief stay in that city (Acts 9:19 ff) he went to Arabia and then came again to Damascus (Galatians 1:17). When he left Damascus the second time, he returned to Jerusalem after an absence of three years (Galatians 1:18). The flight of Paul from Damascus (Acts 9:24) probably terminated his second visit to the city. At that time the ethnarch of Aretas, the king of the Nabateans, acting with the resident Jews (Acts 9:23 f), guarded t he city to seize him (2 Corinthians 11:32). Aretas IV succeeded Obodas about 9 BC, and reigned until about 40 AD Damascus was taken by the Romans in 62 BC and probably continued under their control until the death of Tiberius (March 37 AD). Roman coins of Damascus exist from the time of Augustus, Tiberius and Nero, but there are no such coins from the time of Caligula and Claudius (Schurer, op. cit., I, 737; II, 153). Moreover the relations of Aretas to Augustus and Tiberius make it extremely improbable that he held Damascus during their reign as part of his kingdom or acquired it by conquest. The statement of Paul however seems to imply Nabatean control of the city, and this is best explained on the supposition that Damascus was given to Aretas by Caligula, the change in the imperial attitude being due perhaps to the influence primarily of Agrippa and possibly also of Vitellius (Steinmann, Aretas IV, 1909, 34 ff). But if Paul's escape from Damascus was not earlier than 37 AD, his conversion cannot be placed earlier than 34 or 35 AD, and the journey to Jeremiah 14:1-22 years later (Galatians 2:1) not earlier than 50 or 51 AD.

2. Death of Herod Agrippa I: Herod Agrippa I died in Caesarea shortly after a Passover season (Acts 12:23; compare Acts 12:3, 19). Caligula had given him the tetrarchy of Philip and of Lysanias in 37 AD--the latter either at this time or later--with the title of king (Ant., XVIII, vi, 10; BJ, II, ix, 6) and this was increased in 40 AD by the tetrarchy of Antipas (Ant., XVIII, vii, 1 f; BJ, II, ix, 6). Claudius gave him also Judea and Samaria (Ant., XIX, v, 1; BJ, II, xi, 5) thus making his territory even more extensive than that of his grandfather, Herod the Great. Agrippa reigned over "all Judea" for three years under Claudius (Ant., XIX, viii, 2; BJ, II, xi, 6), his death falling in the spring of 44 AD, in the 7th year of his reign. The games mentioned by Josephus in this connection are probably those that were celebrated in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain in 44 AD. There are coins of Agrippa from his 6th year, but the attribution to him of coins from other years is questioned (Schurer, op. cit., 560, note 40; Madden, op . cit., 132).

3. Famine under Claudius: The prophecy of a famine and its fulfillment under Claudius (Acts 11:28) are associated in Acts with the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 11:30; 12:23). Famines in Rome during the reign of Claudius are mentioned by Suetonius (Claud. xviii), Dio Cassius (lx.11), Tacitus (Annals xii.43), and Orosius (vii.6). Josephus narrates in the time of Fadus the generosity of Helena during a famine in Palestine (Ant., XX, ii, 5), but subsequently dates the famine generally in the time of Fadus and Alexander. The famine in P alestine would fall therefore at some time between 44 and 48 (Schurer, op. cit., I, 567, note 8).

4. Sergius Paulus: When Paul visited Cyprus with Barnabas the island was administered by Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7 ff), a proprietor with the title proconsul (Marquardt, op. cit., I, 391). There is an inscription from Cyprus (Cagnat, Inscr. graec. ad res rom. pertin., III; 930) dating from the 1st century, and probably from the year 53 (Zahn, Neue kirch. Zeitschr., 1904, XV, 194) in which an incident in the career of a certain Apollonius is dated in the proconsulship of Paulus (epi Palilou (anth)upatou). From another inscription (CIG, 2632), dated in the 12th year of Claudius, it appears that L. Annins Bassus was proconsul in 52. If the Julius Cordus mentioned by Bassus was his immediate predecessor, the proconsulship of Sergius Paulus may be dated at some time before 51.

5. Edict of Claudius: When Paul came to Corinth for the first time he met Aquila and Priscilla, who had left Rome because of an edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from the city (Acts 18:2). Suetonius mentions an expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius but gives no date (Claud. xxv; compare Dio Cassius lx.6). Orosius however dates the edict in the 9th year of Claudius or 49 AD (Hist. vii.6, 15); and though Josephus, from whom he quotes, does not mention this edict. but records the favor shown by Claudius to the Jews and to Herod Agrippa I (Ant., XIX, v, 1-3; compare Dio Cassius lx.6, 6, 9, 10; 8, 2), it is not improbable that the date is approximately accurate (Schurer, op. cit., III, 62, note 92).

6. Gallio: During Paul's first sojourn in Corinth the apostle was brought before the proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12). This could not have been earlier than the year 44 when Claudius gave Achaia back to the Senate and the province was administered by a proprietor with the title of proconsul (Dio Cassius lx.24; Marquardt, op. cit., I, 331 f; Ramsay, The Expositor., 1897, I, 207). Moreover the career of Seneca makes it improbable that his brother would be advanced to this position before 49 or 50 (Harnack, Chron., I, 237; Wieseler, Chron. d. apos. Zeitalters, 119). There is a fragmentary inscription from Delphi containing a letter from the emperor Claudius in which mention is made of Gallio. The inscription is dated by the title of the emperor which contains the number 26. This is referred naturally to the acclammatio as "imperator" and dated in the year 52 before August, after which time the number 27 occurs in the title of Claudian inscriptions. Gallio may therefore have been proconsul from the spring or summer of the year 51-52 or 52-53. The latter seems the more probable time (compare Aem. Bourguet, De rebus Delphicis, 1905, 63 f; Ramsay, The Expositor., 1909, I, 467 f; Princeton Theological Review, 1911, 290 f; 1912, 139 f; Deissmann, Paulus, 1911, 159-177; Lietzmann, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1911, 345-54).

7. Festus: When Paul had been for two years a prisoner in Caesarea Felix was succeeded by Festus as procurator of Judea (Acts 24:27). The accession of Festus, which is placed by Eusebius in the Church History in the reign of Nero (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 22, 1), is dated in the Chronicle in the version of Jerome in the 2nd year of Nero, 56 AD, and in the Armenian version in the 14th year of Claudius, 54 AD. The excerpts from the Chronicle in Syncellus apparently follow the text underlying the version of Jerome, but state simply that Festus was sent as successor of Felix by Nero (ed. Schoene, II, 154). After his removal from office Felix was tried in Rome, but escaped punishment through the influence of his brother Pallas, who, according to Josephus, was in favor with Nero at that time (Ant., XX, viii, 9). Pallas was removed from office before February 13, 55 AD (Tac. Ann. xiii.14, 1; compare 15, 1), but apparently continued to have influence with the emperor; for he fixed the terms of his removal and was permitted to enjoy his fortune for several years (Tac. Ann. xiii.14, 1 f; 23, 1-3). His death occurred in 62 AD (Tac. Ann. xiv.65, 1). The trial of Felix must therefore have occurred before 62; but it is impossible to place it before the removal of Pallas, for this would necessitate the removal of Felix in 54 AD, and this is excluded by the fact that the first summer of Nero's reign fell in 55 AD. But if Eusebius reckoned the imperial years from September 1st after the accession (Turner, Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1902, 120 f; HDB, I, 418 f), the summer of the second year of Nero would fall in 57. In any event the removal and trial of Felix must have fallen after the removal of Pallas. The date of the Eusebian Chronicle is thus without support from Tacitus or Josephus, and its value depends on the character of the source from which it was obtained--if there was such a source, for it is at least possible that the definite date owes its origin solely to the necessities imposed on Eusebius by the form of the Chronicle. It is not unlike ly that the error of 5 years made by Eusebius in the reign of Agrippa II may be the source of a similar error in regard to Festus in spite of the fact that the framework of the Chronicle is generally furnished not by the years of the Jewish kings but by the imperial years (Erbes in Gebhardt u. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F., IV, 1, 1899; Die Todestage d. Apos. Paulus u. Petrus; Turner, Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1902, III, 120 f; Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 350 ff). There is evidence however in Acts 21:38 that Paul's arrest could not have been earlier than the spring of 55 AD. For Paul was supposed by the chief captain to be the Egyptian who had led an insurrection that had been suppressed by Felix during the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 6; BJ, II, 13, 5). Thus the accession of Festus, two years later (Acts 24:27), could not have been earlier than 57 AD.

But if the summer of 57 AD is the earliest date possible for the accession of Festus, the summer of 60 AD is the latest date that is possible. Albinus, the successor of Festus, was present in Jerusalem in October, 62 AD (Ant., XX, ix, 1 ff), and while the administration of Festus was probably shorter than that of Felix (compare Ant,XX , viii, 9-11;BJ ,II , xiv, 1 with Ant,XX , vii, 1-8, 8;BJ ,II , 12-13), it is not likely that it lasted less than two years. But as between 57 AD and 60 AD, probability favo rs the latter. For greater justice is thus done to the words of Paul to Felix: "Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation," etc. (Acts 24:10). Felix was appointed by Claudius in 52 AD (Tac. Ann. xii. 54; Ant, XX, v, 2) and was continued in office by Nero. Most of the events of his administration are narrated by Josephus under Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 5 ff); and although Tacitus mentions an administration of Felix in Samaria when Cumanus was administering Galilee (Ann. xii.54) , the omission of any direct reference to Judea, the unusual character of such a double administration and the explicit statement of Josephus that Claudius sent Felix as successor of Cumanus, make it unlikely that Paul's statement is to be understood of an administration beginning earlier than 52 AD. If Festus succeeded in the summer of 60 AD, Paul's arrest would fall in 58 and the "many years" of Felix' administration would cover a period of 6 years, from 52 AD to 58 AD (compare Schurer, op. cit., I, 577 f, note 38). Ramsay argues in favor of 57 AD as the year of Paul's arrest and 59 AD as the year of the accession of Festus (Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 345 ff).

8. Relative Chronology of Acts: If Festus succeeded Felix in the summer of 60 AD, Paul would reach Rome in the spring of 61 AD, and the narrative in Acts would terminate in 63 AD (28:30). Paul's arrest in Jeremiah 2:1-37 years before the accession of Festus (Jeremiah 24:10) would fall in the spring of 58 AD. Previous to this Paul had spent 3 months in Corinth (20:3) and 3 years in Ephesus (20:31; compare 19:10), which would make the beginning of the third missionary journey fall about 54AD . There was an interval between the second and the third journeys (18:23), and as Paul spent 18 months at Corinth (18:11) the beginning of the second journey would fall about 51 AD. The Apostolic Council preceded the second journey and may be dated about 50 AD--14 years subsequent to Paul's first visit to Jerusalem (37 AD) in the third year after his conversion in 35 AD. The first missionary journey was made after the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem with the alms from the church at Antioch (11:30; 12:25), about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa I, and would fall between 44 AD and 50 AD. The growth of the early church in Jerusalem previous to Paul's conversion would thus extend over a period of about 5 years from 30 AD to 35 AD.

9. Pauline Epistles: Ten of the thirteen Pauline epistles were written during a period of about ten years between Paul's arrival in Corinth and the close of his first Roman imprisonment. These epistles fall into three groups, each possessing certain distinctive characteristics; and although each reflects the difference in time and occasion of its production, they all reveal an essential continuity of thought and a similarity of style which evidences unity of authorship. The earliest group consists of the Thessalonian epistles, both of which were written from Corinth on the second missionary journey about 52 or 53 AD, while Silas (Silvanus) was still in Paul's company and shortly after Paul's visit to Athens (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2, 6; 2 Thessalonians 1:1). The major epistles belong to the third missionary journey. 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus about 55 AD; Galatians probably from Ephesus, either before or after 1 Corinthians, for Paul had been twice in Galatia (Galatians 4:13); 2 Corinthians from Macedonia about 57 AD; and Romans from Cor inth about 57 or 58 AD. The imprisonment epistles were written from Rome: Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon about 62 AD, and Philippians about 63 AD.

10. Release and Death of Paul: When Paul wrote to Philemon (Philemon 1:22) and to the Philippians (Philippians 2:24; compare Philippians 1:25), he expected a favorable issue of his trial in Rome and was looking forward to another visit to the East. Before his arrest he had planned a journey to Spain by way of Rome (Romans 15:28), and when he bade farewell to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20:25) he must have had in mind not only the dangers of his journey to Jerusalem, but also his determination to enter another field of labor. 1 Clement 5, the Muratori Canon and the Apocryphal Acts of Peter (Zahn, Einltg.3, I, 444 f) witness to the Spanish journey, and the Pastoral Epistles to a journey to the East and to another imprisonment in Rome. The two lines of evidence for Paul's release are independent and neither can be explained as derived merely from the statement of Paul's intention in Romans and in Philemon and Philippians. The historical situation implied in the Pastoral Epistles can be charged with artificiality only on the hypothesis that Paul was not released from his first Roman imprisonment. The data of these epistles cannot be fitted into any period of Paul's life previous to his imprisonment. But these data are embodied in just those parts of the Pastoral Epistles which are admitted to be Pauline by those who regard the epistles as containing only genuine fragments from Paul but assign the epistles in their present form to a later writer. On any hypothesis of authorship, however, the tradition which these epistles contain cannot be much later than the first quarter of the 2nd century. It is highly probable therefore that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment; that he visited Spain and the East; and that he was imprisoned a second time in Rome where he met his death in the closing years of Nero's reign, i.e. in 67 or 68 AD. According to early tradition Paul suffered martyrdom by beheading with the sword (Tert., De praescr. haer., xxxvi), but there is nothing to connect his death with the persecution of the Christians in Rome by Nero in 64 AD.

Little is known of Peter beside what is recorded of him in the New Testament. The tradition of his bishopric of 20 or 25 years in Rome (compare Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit., II; Die Chronologie, I, 243 f) accords neither with the implications of Acts and Galatians nor with Paul's silence in Rom.

11. Death of Peter: But 1 Pet was probably written from Rome (5:13; compare Euseb., HE, ii.15, 2) and the testimony to Peter's martyrdom (implied in John 21:18 f) under Nero in Rome by crucifixion (Tert., De praes. haer., xxxvi; compare 1 Clem 5:1 ff) is early and probably trustworthy. Tradition also associates Peter and Paul in their Roman labors and martyrdom (Dionysius in Euseb., HE, ii.25, 8; Iren., Adv. haer., iii.1, 2; iii.3, 1). The mention of the Vatican as the place of Peter's interment (Caius in Euseb., HE, ii.25, 6 f) may indicate a connection of his martyrdom with the Neronian persecution in 64 AD; but this is not certain. Peter's death may therefore be dated with some probability in Rome between 64 and 67 AD. His two epistles were written at some time before his death, probably the First about 64 and the Second at some time afterward and subsequent to the Epistle of Jude which it apparently uses. (The arguments against the Roman sojourn and martyrdom of Peter are stated fully by Schmiedel in the Encyclopedia Biblica, u nder the word "Simon Peter," especially Colossians 458 ff; on the other hand compare Zahn, Einleitung3,II , 17 ff, English translation,II , 158 ff.)

12. Death of James the Just: James the Just, the brother of the Lord, was prominent in the church of Jerusalem at the time of the Apostolic Council (Acts 15:13 ff; Galatians 2:9; compare Galatians 1:19; 2:12) and later when Paul was arrested he seems still to have occupied this position (Acts 21:18 ff), laboring with impressive devotion for the Jewish people until his martyrdom about the year 66 AD (Ant., XX, ix, 1; Euseb., HE, ii.23, 3 ff; HRE3, VIII, 581; Zahn, Einltg.3, I, 76). The Epistle of Jas contains numerous indications of its early origin a nd equally clear evidence that it was not written during the period when the questions which are discussed in the major epistles of Paul were agitating the church. It is probably the earliest book of the New Testament, written before the Apostolic Council.

13. The Synoptic Gospels, etc.:

In the decade just preceding the fall of Jerusalem, the tradition of the life and teaching of Jesus was committed to writing in the Synoptic Gospels. Early tradition dates the composition of Matthew's Gospel in the lifetime of Peter and Paul (Iren., Adv. haer., ill.l, 1; Eusebius, HE, v.8, 2 ff), and that of the Gospel of Mark either just before or after Peter's death (Clement in Euseb., HE, vi.14, 7; compare ii.15; and Irenaeus, Adv. haer., iii.11, 1; Presbyter of Papias in Euseb., HE, iii. 39, 15; compare also 2 Peter 1:15). The Lucan writings--both the Gospel and Acts--probably fall also in this period, for the Gospel contains no intimation that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem had been fulfilled (compare Luke 21:21; Acts 11:28), and the silence of Acts about the issue of Paul's trial is best explained on the hypothesis of an early date (Jerome, De vir. illustr., vii; Harnack, Neue Untersuch. zur Apostelgesch., 1911; compare also Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18). To this period belong also the Epistle of Jude and the Epistle to the He (if addressed to Jewish Christians of Palestine; but later, about 80 AD, if addressed to Jewish Christians of Rome (Zahn, Einltg.3, II, 152)), the former being used in 2 Peter and the latter in 1 Clement.

14. Death of John: Early tradition connects John with Ephesus and mentions his continuing in life until the time of Trajan (Irenaeus, Adv. haer., ii.22, 5 (Eusebius, HE, v.24); iii.l, 1; v.30, 3; v.33, 4; Clement in Eusebius, HE, iii.23, 5-19; Polycrates in Eusebius, HE, iii.31, 3; v.24, 3; Justin, Dialogue, lxxxi; compare Revelation 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8; John 21:22-23, 14; 19:35). He died probably about the end of the 1st century. There is another but less well-attested tradition of martyrdom based chiefly on the De Boor fragment of Papias (Texte u. Unters., 1888), a Syriac Martyrology of the 4th century (Wright, Jour. of Sacred Lit., 1865-66, VIII, 56 ff, 423 ff), the Codex Coislinianus 305 of Georgius Hamartolus. This tradition, it is thought, finds confirmation in Mark 10:35-40; Matthew 20:20-23 (compare Bousset, Theologische Rundschau,. 1905, 225 ff, 277 ff). During the closing years of his life John wrote the Revelation, the Fourth Gospel and the three Epistles.

15. Summary of Dates:

LITERATURE.

In addition to the literature mentioned in section 8: Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione. 1833; Wieseler, Chronologie des apos. Zeitalters, 1848: Hoennicke, Die Chronologie des Lebens des Apostels Paulus, 1903; Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. bis Euseb., II, 1, Die Chronologie bis Iren., 1897; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 1893; Zahn, Einleitung, II, 1907 (Eng. translation, 1909).

W. P. Armstrong

Chronology of the Old Testament

Chronology of the Old Testament - kro-nol'-o-ji:

I. INTRODUCTORY

1. Difficulties of the Subject

2. Plan of Treatment

3. Bible to be Regarded as Highest Authority

II. THE AGES BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS

III. PERSIAN PERIOD

IV. BABYLONIAN PERIOD

V. ASSYRIAN PERIOD AND JUDAH AFTER FALL OF SAMARIA

VI. PERIOD OF DIVIDED KINGDOM

1. Causes of Variation in Systems

2. Some Important and Pivotal Dates

3. Difficulties to Be Removed

4. Overlappings

VII. FROM THE DISRUPTION TO THE EXODUS

Indications of Overlapping

VIII. FROM THE EXODUS TO BIRTH OF ABRAHAM

Main Points at Issue

IX. FROM ABRAHAM TO THE CREATION

A Suggested Interpretation

LITERATURE

I. Introductory. 1. Difficulties of the Subject: For evident reasons the student of Biblical chronology must meet many difficulties, and must always be severely handicapped. First of all, the Old Testament is not purely nor intentionally a book of history. Nor does it present a formulated system of chronology, its many numbers and dates being used principally with a view to the spiritual facts and truths with which the authors were concerned. We are not, therefore, to expect to find a perfectly arranged order of periods and dates, though happily for us in our investigation we shall indeed find many accurately dated events, frequent consecutions of events, and orderly success ions of officials; as, for example, the numerous genealogical tables, the succession of judges and the lists of kings.

Furthermore, there is not to be found in the Old Testament one particular and definitely fixed era, from which all of its events are dated, as is the case in Christian history. The points of departure, or reckoning, are found to vary in different periods of the advancing history; being at one stage the Creation, at another the migration of Abraham, or the Exodus, or again the disruption of the kingdom. Ordinarily dates and all time-allusions are comparative, i.e. they are related to the reign of some contemporary monarch, as the vision of Isaiah "in the year that king Uzziah died" (Isaiah 6:1), or to some unusual occurrence, historical or natural, as the great earthquake (Amos 1:1; Zechariah 14:5). Only occasional reference is found to some event, which marks an era-beginning; such as the Exodus (Judges 11:16, 26; 1 Kings 6:1).

The general lack of uniformity among writers on Biblical chronology contributes further toward increase of the already perplexing confusion. It is almost possible to say that no two writers agree; and proposed harmonies are with each other most inharmonious. The two articles on Old Testament chronology in a recent work (Murray, Illus. Bible Dictionary, 1908), for example, are several hundred years apart at certain points. Wide diversity of opinion exists about the most prominent events, such as the call of Abraham and the age of his famous contemporary Hammurabi, the year of the Exodus, and the beginning of Solomon's temple. Naturally there is less variance of opinion about later dates, some of which, e.g. the fall of Samaria and the destruction of Jerusalem, may be considered as fixed. A like wide range of opinion prevails among archaeologists with regard to events in contemporaneous history, the difference between Goodspeed and Hommel in the dates of early Babylonian history being five hundred years, and the beginning and extent of the Hyksos period in Egypt varying in different "authorities" by hundreds of years. Nor should the difference in the various and total numbers of the Hebrew, Samaritan and Septuagint texts of the pre-Abrahamic ages be left out of sight in any statement of the difficulties attending the discussion of this subject.

2. Plan of Treatment: These difficulties, and others as serious, have determined the plan of this article. The usual method of development has been to begin with the sources of Old Testament history, and to follow its course downward. While such a system may have its advantages, there is, however, this serious disadvantage connected with it: that the least certain dates are confessedly those at the beginning of the records, and the use of them at the foundation renders the whole structure of the discussion more or less uncertain. Archaeology and comparative history have done much to fix dates from the Exodus downward, bringing these later centuries by discovery and translation almost into the position of attested history. But the ages before the Exodus, and particularly before Abraham, still lie from the very nature of the ease in great obscurity. And thus any system beginning with the indistinct early past, with its compacted numbers and their uncertain interpretation, is much like a chain hung on thin air. The writer purposes, therefore, beginning with certain familiar, important and pivotal dates, to gather around and relate to these the events and persons of the Old Testament. Such accepted dates are: the completion of the Second Temple in 516, the fall of Jerusalem in 586, the fall of Samaria in 721, tribute to Shalmaneser II from Jehu in 842, and from a member of Omri's dynasty in 854. Such Old Testament events as mark the beginning of eras are the Disruption, Solomon's temple, the Exodus and Abraham's Call. The material and the plan, then, almost necessarily require that we begin at the end of the history and work logically backward to the earlier stages, at which we may hope to arrive with firm ground under our feet for the disposition of the more uncertain problems. It is hoped that on this plan the system of chronology will not be mere speculation, nor a personal theory, but of some certainty and affording some assurance in days of wild assertion and free manipulation.

3. Bible to be Regarded as Highest Authority: It should be remembered that this is a study of Bible chronology, and therefore full value will be given to the explicit and positive statements of the Bible. Surely the time has come, when all fair-minded men should recognize that a clear and straightforward declaration of the Sacred Scriptures is not to be summarily rejected because of its apparent contradiction by some unknown and irresponsible person, who could stamp clay or chisel stone. It has been all too common that archaeological and critical adventurers have doubted and required accurate proof of every Bible statement, but have been ready enough to give credence to any statement from ancient pagan sources. We assume, as we have every reason to do, the trustworthiness of the Bible records, which have been corroborated in countless instances; and we shall follow their guidance in preference to any other. The help of contemporaneous history and the witness of archaeology can be used to advantage, but should not be substituted for the plain facts of the Scriptures, which are full worthy of our trust and regard. The province of a chronology of the Bible is properly to present in system the dates therein given, with an honest effort to harmonize the difficulties, using the external helps, but ever regardful of Scripture authority and rights.

II. The Ages between the Testaments. Between the coming of Christ and the end of Old Testament history there lie in round numbers four hundred years. But while these were extra-Biblical ages, they were neither barren nor uneventful years; for in them will be found much of the highest value in the development of Jewish life, and in the preparation for the Messiah. And thus they have their proper place in Bible chronology (see BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS). The birth of Jesus could not have been later than 4 BC, since Herod the Great died in April of that year. Herod became king of Judea in 37 BC. Palestine had been conquered and Jerusalem entered by the Romans under Pompey in 56 BC, the Jews coming in this way under the power of Rome. The Roman age was preceded by the government of priest-kings, with which the Idumean Antipater became identified by marriage, so that Herod, whom Rome made king, was both Jew and alien.

The period of the Maccabees, which ended in 39 BC with the removal of Antigonus by the Romans in favor of Herod, began 168 BC with Judas. Antipater, who had been appointed procurator of Judea in 47, was assassinated in 43 BC. The period of the Seleucids stretches from its close with the regency of Antiochus VII in 128 back to its founder, Seleucus, 312 BC. The most notable of these monarchs from the Jewish point of view was Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned from 175 to 164, and in 168 gave occasion to the rise of the Maccabees by his many acts of impiety and oppression, particularly the desecration of the Jerusalem temple. In 203 BC Antiochus the Great, who had become king of Syria in 223, took Jerusalem, and later, in 198, annexed Judea to Syria. Previous to this Judea had been an Egyptian dependency, as after the death of Alexander the Great, 323 BC, and the division of his empire, it had been annexed by Ptolemy Soter to Egypt. Ptolemy Philadelphus, becoming king 280 BC, encouraged the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, the result being the Septuagint version, and all it meant by way of preparation for the spread of Christianity. Alexander's defeat of Darius III, or Codomannus, at Arbela in 331 brought the Persian empire to an end, fulfilling the long-cherished ambition of the Greeks for mastery of Asia. The long reign of the Biblical king of Persia, Artaxerxes Longimanus, extended from 465 to 424 BC, and in reaching his reign we find ourselves in the region of the Old Testament history. Reversing the order of this brief review and setting out from Old Testament point of view, we have the following table for the centuries between the Testaments:

III. Persian Period. Entering now the last period of Old Testament history, which may be called the Persian period, we find that the activities of Ezra, Nehemiah and other Jewish leaders are dated by the regnal years of the kings of Persia (e.g. Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1; Ezra 1:1; Nehemiah 2:1); and consequently the difficulties in the chronology of this period are not great. Recently a fanciful effort has been made to place the events narrated in Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah in the time of the Babylonian Captivity, claiming Scripture warrant from the occurrence of these names, with Mordecai, in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7; but altogether without success (see Prince of Judah, or Days of Nehemiah Redated). These names were doubtless of common occurrence, and their appearance among those returning with Zerubbabel is not sufficient to affect the historical evidence for the accepted dates of Ezra and Nehemiah. The attempt to move back these dates into the 6th century, to associate Nehemiah with Daniel and Mordecai and to place his work before Zerubbabel may be dismissed as pure fancy and impossible of reconciliation with the Old Testament narrative.

Artaxerxes I began his reign, which gives date to Ezra and Nehemiah, in 465 BC. In his 7th year, 458, Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem by the king's decree (Ezra 7:7), taking back with him the vessels of the Temple and much besides for the worship at Jerusalem, accompanied also by a great company of returning Jews. Nehemiah followed from Shushan in the 20th year of the king (Nehemiah 1:1), having heard of and being distressed by the partial failure of Ezra's efforts. Under his wise and courageous leadershi p, the city walls were speedily restored, and many reforms accomplished. He returned after twelve years (433) to the service of the king in Shushan (Nehemiah 13:6), but in a short time, hearing evil tidings from Jerusalem, went back to complete his reforms, and apparently spent the rest of his life in that work. Although the Bible is silent, such is the testimony of Josephus. The Book of Mal, reflecting the difficulties and evils of this time, is evidently to be placed here, but not with exactness, as it might hav e been written as early as 460 or as late as 420.

The period from the return under Ezra (458) back to the completion of the Temple in the reign of Darius I (516) is, with the exception of incidental references and the assignment of undated books and incidents, practically a blank. Here belong, we believe, the Book of Esther, possibly Mal, some of the Psalms, and those social and religious tendencies among the returned exiles, which made the vigorous reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah so necessary. But the Old Testament does not draw the curtain from the mystery of that half-century, that we may know the happenings and watch the development. Beyond this blank we come again to explicit dates. The second temple, begun with the Return under Zerubbabel, was completed in the 6th year of Darius, i.e. 516. The building of it, which had been early abandoned for selfish reasons, was resumed in the 2nd year of Darius under the exhortation of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1). Darius the Great began his reign in 521. Cambyses succeeded Cyrus in 527. Babyl on was taken by the Persians in 538, and shortly after the Jews, under the edict of Cyrus, began their return to Jerusalem, reaching their destination by 536 at the latest. Cyrus overthrew Lydia in 545, the Medes five years earlier, and must have come to the Persian throne not later than 555. His conquest of Asia Minor opened the contest between Persia and Greece for supremacy, to be continued by Darius and. Xerxes, resulting finally at Arbela (331) in Greek triumph under Alexander, and the inauguration of a new age.

The table for the Persian period of Old Testament history, following the stream upward, is therefore as follows:

IV. Babylonian Period. Just preceding the Persian is the Babylonian period of Old Testament chronology, overlapping, of course, the former, and finally superseded by it in Cyrus' conquest of Babylonia. This period may properly be said to begin with the death in 626 BC of Ashurbanipal, the last great ruler of Assyria. At this time Nabopolassar had been made governor of Babylonia, subject to the supremacy of Assyria. With Ashurbanipal's death Nabopolassar became independent sovereign of Babylonia , and shortly entered into league with the Medes to overthrow the rule of Assyria, and then to divide its empire between them. This was accomplished in the fall of Nineveh (606) which brought the end of the mighty Assyrian empire, the last king being Sinsharishkun (the historic Saracus), a son of Ashurbanipal. Some years before his death in 604 Nabopolassar associated with him on the throne of Babylonia his son Nebuchadnezzar, most illustrious ruler of the new Babylonian empire, and intimately connected with the history of Judah in the last years of that kingdom. His long reign came to an end in 562.

While the conflict, which brought Assyria to its end, and the attendant confusion, were absorbing the attention of Mesopotamian countries, Egypt under a new and virile dynasty was reviving her ambitions and intrigues for dominion in Asia. Pharaoh-necoh II taking advantage of the confusion and helplessness of Assyria invaded Palestine in 609, intending to march on through Palestine to attack Mesopotamia. King Josiah in loyalty to his Assyrian overlord opposed him, but was defeated and slain at the battle of Megiddo, after a reign of 31 years; apparently an unnecessary and foolish opposition on Josiah's part, as the plan of Necoh's march shows that Judah was not directly affected. After the victory at Megiddo, Necoh continued his march north-eastward, subduing Syria and hoping to have a hand in Mesopotamian affairs. But in 606 or 607 BC he was defeated at Carchemish and driven back to Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, fresh from victory over Nineveh. In the same year Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt, receiving the submission of Jerusalem as he passed through Palestine, and sending noble hostages back to Babylon, among whom were Daniel and his three friends. The death of his father and his endangered succession recalled Nebuchadnezzar suddenly to Babylon, where he became sole ruler in 604. It appears that Necoh must have returned to Egypt after Megiddo and before the battle of Carchemish, as he made Jehoiakim, king in place of Jehoahaz, whom he carried captive to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar's victory at Carchemish and his march southward brought Judah in close relations with Babylon, and opened up the dramatic chapter of Jerusalem's fall and exile. These historic events fix the dates of the last kings and the closing incidents of the kingdom of Judah, as shown in the following table:

V. Assyrian Period and Judah after Fall of Samaria.

This section, which may for convenience be treated as a division, is the chronology of Judah under Assyria after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 721. As the Scripture time-references are frequent and explicit, and the contemporaneous Assyrian records are full, and explicit also, the problems of this period are neither many nor insoluble. One difficulty is found in the fact that the aggregate years of the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon and Josiah fall one or two years short of the period between Hezekiah's accession in 726 and Josiah's death in 609. But there is evidence of anarchical conditions at the close of Amon's reign (2 Kings 21:23, 14), and it is probable that at least a year should be counted for the interregnum. The chief difficulty is with the invasions of Sennacherib in Hezekiah's reign. The confusion is caused by the apparent dating of Sennacherib's famous and disastrous invasion of 701 in the 14th year of Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:13). Various attempts reconciliation have been made; one attempt has been to place the beginning of Hezekiah's reign in 715, which is out of the question entirely, as it disregards the exact terms in which the beginning of his reign is placed before the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 18:10). Another suggestion has been that "24th" be read instead of "14th"; but this is pure conjecture. There is a simple and satisfactory solution: in the chapters which contain the record (2 Kings 18:1-37 and Isaiah 36:1-22) it is evident that two invasions are described. Frequently in the Scriptures records are topical rather than chronological, and just so in this instance the topic is Sennacherib's menace of Judah, and the ultimate deliverance by Yahweh. The story includes two invasions: the first in the 14th year of Hezekiah (713) when Sennacherib led the armies of his father Sargon, the end of which, so far as Jerusalem was concerned, was the payment of tribute by Hezekiah, as is accurately stated in 2 Kings 18:16. The second invasion, the description of which begins with the following verse (2 Kings 18:17), was the more serious, and is probably identified as that of 701, when Sennacherib had become king. The necessary insertion of a paragraph indicator between 18:16 and 17 satisfies every demand for harmony.

From 609 BC, the year of Josiah's death, we count back 31 years to the beginning Of his reign in 639; he attained his majority in the 8th year (632; 2 Chronicles 34:3); the reformation in his 12th year, at the time of the Scythian irruption, would fall in 628 (2 Chronicles 34:3); in the following year Jeremiah began to prophecy; and in Josiah's 18th year (621) the temple was cleansed and the Book of the Law found (2 Chronicles 34:8). Allowing a year of confusion, Amon began his short reign in 642, and Manasseh his long reign of 55 years in 697, Hezekiah's reign of 29 years dating back to 726. Some fixed important dates of contemporaneous history are: death of Ashurbanipal, Assyria's last great king, in 626, with the consequent independence of Babylon and beginning of the 2nd Babylonian empire. Ashurbanipal's long reign began in 668 on the death of his father Esarhaddon; who succeeded his father Sennacherib in 681. Sargon usurped the Assyrian throne in 722, and died in 705. Shalmaneser IV, successor of Tiglath-pileser III, r eigned for the brief space between 727 and 722. In Egypt the XXVth, or Ethiopian Dynasty, was in power from circa 720 to 667, two of its kings, So and Tirhakah, having mention in the Old Testament (2 Kings 17:4; 19:9; Isaiah 37:9), and after this the XXVIth (a native) Dynasty appeared, Pharaoh-necoh being one of its kings. The dates of this period we may summarize in the following table:

VI. Period of Divided Kingdom. The most complex, but most interesting, problems of Old Testament chronology are found in the period of the Divided Kingdom. In the literature of this period are found larger number of dates and historical references than in that of any other. We have the assistance of several important sources and factors in arranging these dates: (1) The parallel records of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah serve as checks to each other, since the accession and death of the kings in each nation are fixed by reference to reigns of those of the other. Many other events are similarly related. (2) The history of the two kingdoms, or parts of it, at least, is given in three parallel authorities: the Books of Kings, of Chronicles, and of the Prophets. (3) The Assyrian records are fullest and are practically continuous in this period, the limu lists extending unbroken from 893 to 650 BC.

1. Causes of Variation in Systems: But while this apparently should be the most satisfactory field for the chronologist, it has been found impossible to arrive at anything approaching certainty, and consequently there is considerable divergence among individuals and schools. One cause of variation is the difference between the Assyrian royal lists and the total of the Old Testament numbers for this period, the Old Testament aggregate being 51 years greater then the Assyrian lists. Two common methods of harmonizing this difference have bee n adopted: (1) to accept the Old Testament aggregate as correct and to assume that the 51 years have been omitted from the Assyrian lists (see W. J. Beecher, Dated Events of Old Testament, 18, 19); (2) to harmonize the Old Testament numbers with the Assyrian lists by taking into account the overlapping of reigns of kings who were, for brief periods, associated on the throne. Instances of such overlapping are the co-regency of Uzziah and Jotham in Judah (2 Kings 15:5), and possibly the reign of Pekah contemporaneously with Menahem and Pekahiah in Israel (2 Kings 23:1-37-28). The latter method yields the most satisfactory results, and will be adopted in this article. The chief point of difference will be the age of Solomon and the foundation-laying of the Temple. This may be found according to the former method by adding 51 years to the dates as given below. That the method of following the aggregate of the Old Testament numbers must assume arbitrarily that there have been omissions from the Assyrian lists, and that it also must resort to some overlapping and justment of the numb ers as they are given in the text, are sufficient reasons against its adoption. And in meeting the difficulties of this period it should always be borne in mind that the Old Testament is not a book of annals merely, and that dates are given not for any special interest in them, but to correlate and emphasize events. Ordinarily dates are given with reference to local situations and contemporary persons, and not as fixed by some great epoch-marking event; e.g. Uzziah's reign is fixed not with reference to the Disrupti on nor the Temple building, but by relation to his Israelite contemporary, Jeroboam II.

2. Some Important and Pivotal Dates: However, there are some fixed dates, which are so by reason of their international significance, and upon these we may rest with reasonable assurance. Such are the fall of Samaria (721 BC); the accession of Tiglath-pileser III (745); tribute paid to Shalmaneser II by Jehu in 842, and by Ahab, or one of his dynasty, in 854; and the invasion of Judah by Pharaoh-shishak in the fifth year of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25). There are also certain coincident dates, fixed with fair accuracy, in the parallel history of the two kingdoms, which serve both as starting-points and as checks upon each other. The most prominent of these are: the beginning of Hezekiah's reign, 5 years before the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 18:10); the synchronism of the reigns of Jeroboam II and Jotham (1 Chronicles 5:17), Jotham's accession being used as a basis of calculation for the reigns of Israelite kings (2 Kings 15:30); the coincidence of the end of the Omri Dynasty and the death of Ahaziah, king of Judah (2 Kings 9:1-37), Jehu and Athaliah therefore beginning their reigns at the same time; and, primarily, the division of the kingdom and the synchronous beginning of the reigns of Jeroboam I and Rehoboam. Using these fixed dates and coincidences, we must find the summaries of the reigns of Israelite and Jewish kings between 721, the 9th year of Hoshea and the 6th of Hezekiah, and 843, the beginning of the reigns of Jehu add Athaliah, to be 122 years each; and likewise the summaries from 843 back to the Disruption to be the same.

3. Difficulties to Be Removed: The most serious difficulties are found near the end of the period, when conditions in the Northern Kingdom were becoming anarchical, and, also evident co-regencies, the extent of which is not evident, occurred in the Southern Kingdom. Pekah is said to have reigned 20 years (2 Kings 15:27); and yet Menahem paid tribute to Assyria in 738, and he was succeeded for two years by his son Pekahiah, from whom Pekah seized the kingdom. This would allow Pekah only 6 years of sovereignty. The explanation lies in the context: in the confusion which followed the death of Jeroboam, Pekah established his authority over the section East of the Jordan, and to that year the numbers in 2 Kings 15:27, 32; 16:1 refer. Uzziah was leprous the last 16 years of his life, and Jotham his son was over the kingdom (2 Kings 15:5). The length of Jotham's reign was just 16 years, not additional to the 16 of the co-regency, as this would result in the absurdity of making him co-regent at the age of 9 years (2 Kings 15:33). Therefore nearly his whole reign is included in the 52 years of his father. For some reason Ahaz was associated with his father Jotham before the death of the latter, since the 16 years of his reign plus the 5 of Hezekiah before the fall of Samaria bring his accession before the death of Uzziah and Jotham, i.e. in 741. So that for approximately 6 years the three reigns were contemporaneous. That these 6 years may not be accounted for by a co-regency with Hezekiah at the other end of Ahaz' reign is evident from the age of Hezekiah at his accession (2 Kings 18:2), and from the radical difference in the policy of the two kings. 2 Kings 7:1 may suggest that Uzziah and Jotham died about the same time, and that Ahaz was regarded as succeeding both directly.

Another difficulty is found at the beginning of Uzziah's reign, where he is said to have succeeded his father Amaziah at the age of 16, but is also said to have accomplished certain notable things after his father's death (2 Kings 14:21-22). Evidently, then, he became king before the death of Amaziah. When did this co-regency begin? No better time is suggested than Amaziah's ignominious defeat by Jehoash of Israel in the 15th year of his reign, after which the people arose and put Uzziah in his place, Amaziah living on for 15 years (2 Kings 14:17), so that 15 of Amaziah's 29 years were contemporaneous with Uzziah. Further, in the last years of Joash of Judah there may have been a co-regency, since he was "very sick" in those years (2 Chronicles 24:25). Thus the totals of 146 years for the reigns of the kings of Israel and of 165 for the reigns of the kings of Judah between 721 and 842 are reduced to the actual 121 by the overlappings, which are suggested in the narrative itself.

4. Overlappings: For the first division of this period, from the rise of Jehu, circa 843, to the division of the kingdom, the totals of the reigns of the kings of Israel is 98 years, and of the kings of Judah is 95. But there must be some overlappings. The interval between Ahab and Jehu, as shown by mention of them in the Assyrian records, is 12 years; but the two sons of Ahab reigned 14 years, Ahaziah 2 and Jehoram 12. Evidently the last year of Ahab, in which came the defeat at Karkar, was the 1st of Ahaziah, and the 2nd of Ahaziah, who suffered in that year serious accident (2 Kings 1:2), was the first of Jehoram. It is probable that the long reign of Asa closed with Jehoshaphat as co-regent (1 Kings 15:23), so the above totals of both kingdoms must be reduced to some extent, probably to 90 years, and the disruption of the kingdom placed about 933 BC. Shishak, founder of the XXIId Dynasty, invaded Palestine in the 5th year of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25), and in, or shortly before, the 21st year of his own reign, so that he must have bec ome sovereign of Egypt about 950 BC. Jeroboam fled to Egypt after Solomon had reigned more than 20 years, as is shown by the connection of Jeroboam with the building of Millo; and so Jeroboam's flight must have been about the beginning of Shishak's reign. This is in accord with the Old Testament records, since the hostile Shishak Dynasty must have arisen in the reign of Solomon, the dynasty which was ruling at the beginning of his reign having been in alliance with him. So we place the accession of Shishak about 950, his invasion of Judah in 929, and the Disruption in 933 BC.

An interesting instance of co-regency in this period is that of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, for while Ahaziah of Israel began to reign in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:51) and died in the 2nd year of Jehoram (2 Kings 1:17), the year of his death was also the 18th of Jehoshaphat, so that the father and son reigned together about 5 years. It is evident also that Jehoshaphat ruled before his father's death, as the total of his reign is counted from the co-regency's beginning (1 Kings 22:41), but certain events are dated from his sole reign on the death of Asa (1 Kings 22:51; 2 Kings 3:1). It is probable that the 6 years of Athaliah were included in the 40 years of the reign of Joash, the legitimate king. The age of his son, Amaziah, at his accession (2 Chronicles 25:1) does not operate against this probability, since the precocious Jewish sovereigns attained their majority at 15 years of age (compare 2 Chronicles 34:3). The co-regency for 2 years of Joash and Amaziah (2 Chronicles 24:25) brings the aggregate years of the reigns of the kings of both kingdoms down to the accession of Jeroboam II, three years before Uzziah's accession, into exact accord. Finally, the difference of three years in the totals of reigns in the two kingdoms from Jehu' to the Disruption is explained by the fact that in Israel the first year of a king was coincident with the last of his predecessor, whereas in Judah, certainly at the beginning of this period, the first year of a king followed the death of his predecessor; e.g. while Asa began to reign in the 20th year of Jeroboam (1 Kings 15:9), Jeroboam, who reigned 22 years, died three years later in the second year of Asa (1 Kings 15:25). Observation of this principle in the accessions of the first three kings after Jeroboam removes the difference, the long numbers of the reign of Asa being found to corroborate. The preceding table will illustrate these facts of the records, as harmonizing the dates of the two contemporaneous kingdoms.

VII. From the Disruption to the Exodus. The period now to be considered extends from the disruption of the kingdom back to the Exodus. The reasons for combining the Biblical events within these widely separated dates into one period of such length are evident, namely, (1) the regular sequence of the history; (2) the occurrence of comprehensive numbers for the period as a whole, e.g. Judges 11:26 and 1 Kings 6:1; the chronological data of the Book of Judges, which lead directly up to the developments in the time of the united kingdom, e.g. the narrative of Ruth preparing the way for the reign of David. Characteristic of this period is the frequent occurrence of the general numbers 80, 40 and 20, which are not necessarily to be taken always as exact, but possibly at times indicating a round, or generation, number. In order to get the time limits of this period, it is necessary to count back 37 years from the end of Solomon's reign in 933 BC, and this brings us to that epoch-marking event, the laying of the foundations of the Temple in 969 or 970, the 4th year of his reign (1 Kings 6:1); and from this event we are brought by the addition of the comprehensive number 479, given in the same verse, back to the year of the Exodus, approximately 1448 BC, making the total length of the period about 516 years.

Indications of Overlapping:

But the addition of the numbers given for the various reigns and administrations of the period yields a total which is much greater than 516, and therefore one must seek in the text indications of overlapping, which will bring the narrative into harmony with itself. The reigns of Solomon (1 Kings 11:42), David (1 Kings 2:11) and Saul (Acts 13:21), are given as 40 years each; and here there may be some overlapping, Solomon, e.g. becoming king before David's death (1 Kings 1:43-48). We are rather surprised to find that there is no statement of the length of Samuel's ministry, such as its important place in the national life would lead us to expect. The probable reason for this is that his life was paralleled largely by the reign of Saul and the administration of Eli. A period of 40 years is assigned to Eli (1 Samuel 4:18); the aggregate of numbers given for the Judges is 410 years; Joshua ruled for 40 years (Judges 2:8); and finally the wilderness wanderings covered another 40-year period. The sum total of all these numbers is 670--far beyond the comprehensive reckonings of Judges 11:26; 1 Kings 6:1, and Acts 13:19. It is evident from Judges 10:7-8; 13:1 that the periods of Ammonite and Philistine oppression were either contemporaneous or very near together, and therefore that the comprehensive number, 300 years, of Judges 11:26, reaches from the entrance into Canaan under Joshua down to the age of Samson, as well as of Jephthah. The administrations of Ibzan, Elon and Abdon (Judges 12:8-13) should then be regarded as practically synchronous with Jephthah and Samson, and the number of their years should, in part at least, be left out of account. The numbers from Samson and Eli to Solomon are approximately fixed, 20 to Samson, 40 to Eli, 40 to Saul and 40 to David; and their total accords with the 300 before Jephthah, and the 40 of wilderness wanderings in making up the grand total (1 Kings 6:1) from Solomon to the Exodus. This proportion before and after Jephthah, or Samson, and the Philistine oppression, approximately 330 and 150 yea rs, is in agreement with the genealogies of Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Samuel 14:3; 22:9; 1 Chronicles 2:1-55; 1 Chronicles 6:1-81; 1 Chronicles 24:1-31. The shortening therefore of the excessive aggregate of 670 years must be sought in the records from Samson back to Joshua. Assuming that the oppressions may be synchronous with the administrations of preceding or succeeding judges, that Abimelech's abortive attempt to become king (Judges 9:1-57) should be included in Gideon's 40 years, and that parallelings are possible in the three judges just after Jephthah (Judges 12:8-13) and the two just before (Judges 10:1-5), it is possible to bring the detailed time-references of the Books of Jdg into satisfactory agreement with the comprehensive numbers. That the period of the Judges is shorter than the aggregate of the numbers assigned to each is further indicated by the manner in which the brief narratives at the end of the book--the migration of the Danites, the sin and punishment of Benjamin--and the Book of Ruth, bring the earlier generations into close touch with the later; compare the genealogy of David (Ruth 4:18-22).

The preceding table (p. 641) shows the dates of events according to the longer reckoning, and also according to the suggested shortening by taking into account the possible synchronisms. It should be remembered that these figures are not indisputable, but merely tentative and suggestive.

VIII. From the Exodus to Birth of Abraham. The period of Old Testament chronology now to receive our attention is that which extends from the Exodus in circa 1448 BC back to the call and migration of Abraham. This may be called the period of the patriarchal wanderings, the formative or infancy period of the nation, and therefore of the highest interest historically and religiously. But it is not possible to fix its dates with indisputable accuracy, since, with rare exceptions, the events of the Old Testament record are not related in their narration to eras or definite persons of the contemporary nations; and since also the chronology of these nations is much in dispute among historians and archaeologists, with variations of hundreds of years.

Main Points at Issue:

The chief points at issue here for determination of the chronological problems are the time of the Exodus, the duration of Israel's sojourn in Egypt and the date of Hammurabi. Considering these in their order: (1) As to the Exodus, opinions have been divided among the XVIIIth, XIXth and XXth dynasties as the time of the Oppression and Exodus of Israel, and there are plausible arguments for, and serious objections to, each of these periods. When all things have been considered it seems best to fix upon the XVIIIth Dynasty as the age of the Oppression and Exodus, Thothmes III as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and the years immediately following his death as the time of the Exodus, for the following reasons: (a) This is in harmony with the time-reckoning from the Temple of Solomon back to the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1), and fully satisfies the Biblical numbers for the intervening period, as shown above; while either later dynastic period would necessitate either unnatural cramping or ruthless rejection of the Biblical numbers. To place the Exodus so late as Ramses III, after 1200 BC, is in the light of the Biblical reckoning an evident absurdity. (b) In the XVIIIth Dynasty we can look best for the Pharaoh "that knew not Joseph," as it was the leader of this dynasty, Ahmes I, who conquered and drove out the Hyksos, and left to his followers as a legacy cordial hatred of the Asiatics. (c) Thothmes III was a great builder, and the heavy tasks of the Hebrews would fit well into his reign. He was also the champion of Amon, the god of Thebes, having been a priest of that god; therefore the religious significance of the Exodus and the struggle preceding it were most natural in his age. (d) An inscription of Menephthah, son of Ramses II, indicates that Israel was in Palestine in his time, therefore he could not have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, nor his father the oppressor. (e) The objection that Pharaohs of the XIXth and XXth dynasties invaded and claimed sovereignty over Palestine is of little consequenc e, since these invasions usually involved only the sea-plain, and any city or district might secure immunity and maintain its status quo by payment of tribute. In later centuries many foreign invasions swept through Israel without disturbing the national integrity. As for the objection that the cities Ramses and Pithom indicate the age of Ramses II, it is altogether probable that they were built long before his time, and only restored by him. For these reasons the earlier date is assigned to the Exodus. (2) Whether the duration of the sojourn in Egypt was 430 or 215 years will depend upon the interpretation of the comprehensive 430, or roundly 400, which is of frequent occurrence in the Bible as indicating the extent of the period of the Hebrews' wanderings among, and oppression by, the nations (Genesis 15:13; Exodus 12:40; Acts 7:6; Galatians 3:17). These passages have been, and may properly be, interpreted as indicating the time of the actual sojourn in Egypt, or the time from the entrance of Abraham into Canaan to the Exodus. Modern archaeological discoveries and the logical conclusions from them, our better knowledge of the history and conditions of contemporaneous Egypt, the shortening of the Hyksos period, as by Meyer, Mahler and Breasted, and the acceptance of a later date for Hammurabi, all seem to favor the shorter, or 215-year, view of the sojourn. The remaining 215 years cover the period from Jacob's descent into Egypt back to the migration of Abraham. The shorter period is adopted here for the reasons alread y given; but by the addition of 215 the dates from the death of Joseph backward may be conformed to theory of the longer period. (3) Accepting the almost universal and well-grounded judgment that the Amraphel of Genesis 14:1-24 is the famous Hammurabi of the Genesis 1:11-31st Babylonian Dynasty, we should have assistance in determining the date of his Biblical contemporary Abraham, if the opinions of scholars about the age of Hammurabi were not so divergent. Goodspeed (Hist Babylonian and Assyrian.) places his reign at Genesis 22:24 BC; Hommel (art. on "Babylonia," HDB) fixes the probable date at 1772-1717, an astonishing divergence of 500 years, and suggestive of the spend-thrift manner in which chronologists are accustomed to dispose of the past ages of man. The difference in this instance is caused by the disposition of the IId Babylonian Dynasty, Goodspeed making its more than 360 years follow the Hammurabi Dynasty, and adding the years of the two; Hommel on the other hand regarding the IId, or Southern, Dynasty as contemporaneous with the Ist, or Northern. But it is more probable that the truth lies between these extremes, since the IId Dynasty must have had some independent standing, and must have ruled alone for a time, in order to secure consideration as a dynasty. This moderate reckoning is now commonly adopted, Breasted placing Hammurabi at 1900 BC, Davis (in DB) about 1975, and Pinches (in Murray's Illus. B. Dict.) later than 2000 BC. It is in accord with the Bible numbers, as the following table shows, and does not vary materially from the reckoning of Ussher, which was based upon those numbers. Therefore the age of Hammurabi and Abraham may be considered as about 1900 BC, or 2100, if one estimates the sojourn in Egypt at 430 years. The former is more reasonable. The Tell el-Amarna Letters, preserving correspondence of the 14th and 15th centuries between the Pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty and Palestine and Babylon, by showing the contemporary sovereigns of the empires of the Nile and the Euphrates, contribute confirmation to the Biblical reckoning. It is possible that increased knowledge of the Hittite empire and its dealings with Egypt, Palestine and Babylonian may in the near future contribute further confirmation. The foregoing conclusions may be summarized in the following table:

IX. From Abraham to the Creation. One other general period of Old Testament chronology remains for consideration: from the age of Abraham back to the creation of the world, about which in the nature of the case there can be no absolute certainty, and in which there is neither reason nor need for inflexible accuracy. The system, or succession, of numbers in the early chapters of Gen (5 and 11:10-26) has given rise, in the effort to explain these numbers, to several theories.

(1) The literal interpretation, the best known advocate of which was Archbishop Ussher (died 1656), whose literal arrangement was introduced into the margin of the King James Version after his death. This theory takes the birth- and death-numbers just as they are, and by addition of the time intervals between the birth of the various patriarchs, together with Adam's age at the birth of Seth, shows that 1,656 years elapsed from the Creation to the Flood, and 290 years from the Flood to Abraham's birth, accor ding to the Massoretic Text. But it must be apparent at the very outset, that, on the most liberal arrangement of the numbers and the most conservative geological and anthropological estimate, this reckoning is not sufficiently long to satisfy the known facts of the age of the earth, of the life of man upon the earth, and of established historic dates. Even the conservative system of Professor Breasted (Ancient Egypt) places the first certain date of Egyptian history, namely, the introduction of the Sothic calendar, as early as 4241 BC, which is more than two centuries beyond Ussher's beginning of the world. Moreover, at that time an astronomical basis of reckoning time was in existence, implying an age of culture already gone before. This difficulty was appreciated by the earliest interpreters, as indicated by the variations of the Sam and Septuagint texts, the latter increasing the total of the age about 1,500 years and inserting a new name into the genealogical list of Genesis 11:1-32. An interesting commentary on the literal method is that it make s Noah live until Abraham was seventy years old, and prolongs the life of Shem to within the lifetime of Jacob.

(2) A second theory is the dynastic: that the long number of a patriarch's lifetime indicates the era during which his house or dynasty prevailed, to be followed by the long number of the next dynasty; e.g. the 930 years of Adam were followed by the 912 of Seth, and so on until the period is stretched to cover thousands of years. But there are evident objections to this view: it does not account for the invariable origin of each succeeding dynasty so near the beginning of its predecessor, and it disregards the manifest plan of the inspired author to narrate the descent of the human race through families and not by eras or empires.

(3) By others it has been conjectured that the units of time have been different in the ancient ages of man; that originally the time-unit was the lunar cycle, by which the 969 lunar cycles of Methuselah's life really should be reduced to a little more than 80 years of more recent times; and that in the days of Abraham a year measured from equinox to equinox had superseded the lunar time-measurement. It is possible that the Septuagint variations were based upon this idea, since it increased the age at which every father begat a son to at least 162 in the generations before the Flood. But even this expedient would not remove all difficulties from the physical side; nor have we the slightest indication of the points at which these radical changes of the time-units were made. On the contrary the decrease of man's years seems to have come by somewhat gradual process, and not by sharp and tremendous breaks.

(4) Others have thought to meet the difficulties by suggesting the omission of links in the chain of descent, in accordance with Hebrew custom of omitting inconsequential names from a genealogical list. The omission by Matthew of certain names from his genealogy of Jesus Christ, in order to preserve his symmetrical scheme of fourteens (Matthew 1:8), is an illustration in point. As corroborative of this it might be urged that the Septuagint does insert a name between Arpachshad and Shelah (Genesis 11:12). It may be said confidently that whatever theory of the genealogies before Abraham one may adopt, it is altogether reasonable to suppose that one name, or many, may have been omitted from the line of descent.

The dates resulting from the literal and exact interpretation of the genealogical lists of Genesis 5:1-32 and Genesis 11:1-32 may be tabulated as follows:

If the 130 years of Kainan, whom the Septuagint inserts between Shelah and Arpachshad, be added, the date for Adam's creation is increased to 4031 BC. The exhibit of this table is most interesting and suggestive. Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg were contemporaries of Abraham. Shem, Shelah and Eber were living after Jacob's birth. Adam, Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech were contemporary; and Methuselah's long life came to an end in the year of the Flood.

A Suggested Interpretation:

These genealogical lists of the early chapters of Gen appear therefore not to have been given as an exact and exclusive system of chronology; but it is more probable that they were written to present a general, compact, or mere outline statement of the origin, early experience and apostasy of the human race, given without the purpose of recording every possible link in the chain of descent, or every incident in the early racial experience. There are many indications, or suggestions at least, that this is the sensible and Divinely intended interpretation, some of which have been stated: the variant items and summaries of the Massoretic Text, Septuagint and Sam; the frequent omission in Hebrew genealogies of one or more generations, the third, or later, descendant being truly regarded as a son; the age of the world; the comparative antiquity of man; and the more ancient dates disclosed by archaeology. It should be noticed further that the inspired writer gives ten generations from Adam to the Flood, and ten also from the Flood to Abraham, as if by the use of the decimal, or representatively human, number he would indicate to us that he is dealing with comprehensively complete numbers and not with those that are minutely complete, arranging in symbolic form the account of man's descent.

See ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS.

But while the age of man may be greater than the mechanical and exact sum of the Genesis numbers, we should not be deluded into the belief that it is so great as some anthropologists and geologists, who are prodigal of their numbers, would have us think. The numbers of Gen are much nearer the facts than these dreary stretches and wastes of time. The formation of the Nile and the Euphrates valleys, which furnished historic man's first home, is quite recent, possibly not antedating 7000 BC; the account of the Flood is the record of a great cataclysm which came upon historic man within these millenniums; we have the records of the presence of intelligent man in these fertile and recently formed centers without traces of his origin and development in, and movement from, other homes. Archaeology and ancient history bring civilized man upon us with somewhat of suddenness, well established in homelands of recent formation. Whence came these peoples whose great works and thoughts are found near the beginning of an era so clearly limited by history and geography? If they came from elsewhere and developed tediously, why have they left no trail of their movement and no trace of the evolution? So late as the 3rd millennium BC Mesopotamia was sparsely settled, and Palestine in the first half of the 2nd millennium was still thinly settled. It is a legitimate conclusion, then, that intelligent man's life on the earth does not extend far beyond the total of the Bible numbers (see ANTEDILUVIANS; DELUGE OF NOAH). At the same t ime it is far from necessary to force a literal and exact interpretation on these numbers, which were given rather to trace lineage, keep relationships, show development under the Divine purpose, and fix responsibility, than to mark particular years.

LITERATURE.

Ussher, Chronologia Sacra; G. Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon; Maspero, The Dawn of Civilization; The Struggle of the Nations; The Passing of the Empires; Goodspeed, A History of the Babylonians and Assyrians; Breasted, Ancient Egypt; History of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Israel in Hist of World; Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition; L. W. King, Chronology of the Babylonian Kings; Beecher, Dated Events of Old Testament; Auchinloss, Chronology of the Holy Bible; various commentaries; Driver, Book of Genesis; Skinner, Genesis; Moore, Commentary on Judges; G. A. Smith, "Isaiah" in Expositor's Bible, etc. Magazines: James Orr, "Assyrian and Hebrew Chronology" in Presbyterian Review, 1889; "Israel and the Exodus" in Expositor, 1897; J. D. Davis. "Chronology of the Divided Kingdom" in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1891. Bible Dictionaries: J. D. Davis in Dict. of the Bible, Westminster Press; Hommel, articles on "Assyria" and "Babylonia" in HDB. Of interest also, Franke Parker, Chronology, 1858.

Edward Mack

Chrysolite

Chrysolite - kris'o-lit.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Chrysoprase; Chrysoprasus

Chrysoprase; Chrysoprasus - kris'-o-praz, kri-sop'ra-sus.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Chub

Chub - chub (kubh).

See CUB.

Chun

Chun - chun (kun, "founding").

See CUN.

Church

Church - church:

I. PRE-CHRISTIAN HISTORY OF THE TERM

II. ITS ADOPTION BY JESUS

III. ITS USE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. In the Gospels

2. In Acts

3. In the Pauline Epistles

IV. THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH

1. Faith

2. Fellowship

3. Unity

4. Consecration

5. Power

V. ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

1. The General and Prophetic Ministry

2. The Local and Practical Ministry

LITERATURE

The word "church," which is derived from kuriakos, "of or belonging to the Lord," represents in the English Versions of the Bible of the New Testament the Greek word ekklesia; Latin, ecclesia. It is with the signification of this word ekklesia as it meets us in the New Testament, and with the nature of the society which the word is there used to describe, that the present article is concerned.

I. Pre-Christian History of the Term. Although ekklesia soon became a distinctively Christian word, it has its own pre-Christian history; and to those, whether Jews or Greeks, who first heard it applied to the Christian society it would come with suggestions of familiar things. Throughout the Greek world and right down to New Testament times (compare Acts 19:39), ekklesia was the designation of the regular assembly of the whole body of citizens in a free city-state, "called out" (Greek ek, "out," and kalein, "to call") by the herald for the discussion and decision of public business. The Septuagint translators, again, had used the word to render the Hebrew qahal, which in the Old Testament denotes the "congregation" or community of Israel, especially in its religious aspect as the people of God. In this Old Testament sense we find ekklesia employed by Stephen in the Book of Acts, where he describes Moses as "he that was in the church (the Revised Version, margin "congregation") in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). The word thus came into Christian history with associations alike for the Greek and the Jew. To the Greek it would suggest a self-governing democratic society; to the Jew a theocratic society whose members were the subjects of the Heavenly King. The pre-Christian history of the word had a direct bearing upon its Christian meaning, for the ekklesia of the New Testament is a "theocratic democracy" (Lindsay, Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 4), a society of those who are free, but are always conscious that their freedom springs from obedience to their King.

II. Its Adoption by Jesus. According to Matthew 16:18 the name ekklesia was first applied to the Christian society by Jesus Himself, the occasion being that of His benediction of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. The authenticity of the utterance has been called in question by certain critics, but on grounds that have no textual support and are made up of quite arbitrary presuppositions as to the composition of the First Gospel. It is true that Jesus had hitherto described the society He came to found as the "kingdom of God" or the "kingdom of heaven," a designation which had its roots in Old Testament teaching and which the Messianic expectations of Israel had already made familiar. But now when it was clear that He was to be rejected by the Jewish people (compare Matthew 16:21), and that His society must move on independent lines of its own, it was natural that He should employ a new name for this new body which He was about to create, and thus should say to Peter, on the ground of the apostle's believing confession, "Upon this rock I will build my church." The adoption of this name, however, did not imply any abandonment of the ideas suggested by the conception of the kingdom. In this very passage (Matthew 16:19) "the kingdom of heaven" is employed in a manner which, if it does not make the two expressions church and kingdom perfectly synonymous, at least compels us to regard them as closely correlative and as capable of translation into each other's terms. And the comparative disuse by the apostolic writers of the name "kingdom," together with their emphasis on the church, so far from showing that Christ's disciples had failed to understand His doctrine of the kingdom, and had substituted for it the more formal notion of the church, only shows that they had followed their Master's guidance in substituting for a name and a conception that were peculiarly Jewish, another name whose associations would enable them to commend their message more readily to the world at large.

III. Its Use in the New Testament. 1. In the Gospels: Apart from the passage just referred to, the word ekklesia occurs in the Gospels on one other occasion only (Matthew 18:17). Here, moreover, it may be questioned whether Our Lord is referring to the Christian church, or to Jewish congregations commonly known as synagogues (see the Revised Version, margin) The latter view is more in keeping with the situation, but the promise immediately given to the disciples of a power to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18) and the assurance "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20) are evidently meant for the people of Christ. If, as is probable, the ekklesia of Matthew 18:17 is the Christian ekklesia of which Christ had already spoken to Peter, the words show that He conceived of the church as a society possessing powers of self-government, in which questions of discipline were to be decided by the collective judgment of the members.

2. In Acts: In Acts the ekklesia has come to be the regular designation for the society of Christian believers, but is employed in two distinct senses. First in a local sense, to denote the body of Christians in a particular place or district, as in Jerusalem (5:11; 8:1), in Antioch (13:1; 15:22), in Caesarea (18:22)--a usage which reappears in the Apocalypse in the letters to the Seven Churches. Then in a wider and what may be called a universal sense, to denote the sum total of existing local churches (9:31 the Revised Version (British and American)), which are thus regarded as forming one body.

3. In the Pauline Epistles: In the Pauline Epistles both of these usages are frequent. Thus the apostle writes of "the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thessalonians 1:1), "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1). Indeed he localizes and particularizes the word yet further by applying it to a single Christian household or to little groups of believers who were accustomed to assemble in private houses for worship and fellowship (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2)--an employment of the word which recalls the saying of Jesus in Matthew 18:20. The universal use, again, may be illustrated by the contrast he draws between Jews and Greeks on the one hand and the church of God on the other (1 Corinthians 10:32), and by the declaration that God has set in the church apostles, prophets, and teachers (1 Corinthians 12:28).

But Paul in his later epistles has another use of ekklesia peculiar to himself, which may be described as the ideal use. The church, now, is the body of which Christ is the head (Ephesians 1:22 f; Colossians 1:18, 24). It is the medium through which God's manifold wisdom and eternal purpose are to be made known not only to all men, but to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Ephesians 3:9-11). It is the bride of whom He is the heavenly Bridegroom, the bride for whom in His love He gave Himself up, that He might cleanse and sanctify her and might present her to Himself a glorious church, a church without blemish, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Ephesians 5:25 ff). This church clearly is not the actual church as we know it on earth, with its divisions, its blemishes, its shortcomings in faith and love and obedience. It is the holy and catholic church that is to be when the Bridegroom has completed the process of lustration, having fully "cleansed it by the washing of water with the word." It is the ideal which the actual church must keep before it and strive after, the ideal up to which it shall finally be guided by that Divine in-working power which is able to conform the body to the head, to make the bride worthy of the Bridegroom, so that God may receive in the church the glory that is His (Ephesians 3:21).

IV. The Notes of the Church. 1. Faith: Although a systematic doctrine of the church is neither to be found nor to be looked for in the New Testament, certain characteristic notes or features of the Christian society are brought before us from which we can form some conception as to its nature. The fundamental note is faith. It was to Peter confessing his faith in Christ that the promise came, "Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). Until Jesus found a man full of faith He could not begin to build His church; and unless Peter had been the prototype of others whose faith was like his own, the walls of the church would never have risen into the air. Primarily the church is a society not of thinkers or workers or even of worshippers, but of believers. Hence, we find that "believers" or "they that believed" is constantly used as a synonym for the members of the Christian society (e.g. Acts 2:44; 4:32; 5:14; 1 Timothy 4:12). Hence, too, the rite of baptism, which from the first was the condition of entrance into the apostolic church and the seal of membership in it, was recognized as preeminently the sacrament of faith and of confession (Acts 2:41; 12, 36; Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 12:13). This church-founding and church-building faith, of which baptism was the seal, was much more than an act of intellectual assent. It was a personal laying hold of the personal Saviour, the bond of a vital union between Christ and the believer which resulted in nothing less than a new creation (Romans 6:4; Romans 8:1-2; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

2. Fellowship: If faith in Christ is the fundamental note of the Christian society, the next is fellowship among the members. This follows from the very nature of faith as just described; for if each believer is vitally joined to Christ, all believers must stand in a living relation to one another. In Paul's favorite figure, Christians are members one of another because they are members in particular of the body of Christ (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:27). That the Christian society was recognized from the first as a fellowship appears from the name "the brethren," which is so commonly applied to those who belong to it. In Acts the name is of very frequent occurrence (1 Corinthians 9:27, etc.), and it is employed by Paul in the epistles of every period of his career (1 Thessalonians 4:10, etc.). Similar testimony lies in the fact that "the koinonia" (English Versions "fellowship") takes its place in the earliest meetings of the church side by side with the apostles' teaching and the breaking of bread and prayers (Acts 2:42). See COMMUNION. The koinonia at first carried with it a community of goods (Acts 2:44; 4:32), but afterward found expression in the fellowship of ministration (2 Corinthians 8:4) and in such acts of Christian charity as are inspired by Christian faith (Hebrews 13:16). In the Lord's Supper, the other sacrament of the primitive church, the fellowship of Christians received its most striking and most sacred expression. For if baptism was especially the sacrament of faith, the Supper was distinctively the sacrament of love and fellowship--a communion or common participation in Christ's death and its fruits which carried with it a communion of hearts and spirits between the participants themselves.

3. Unity: Although local congregations sprang up wherever the gospel was preached, and each of these enjoyed an independent life of its own, the unity of the church was clearly recognized from the first. The intercourse between Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 11:22; 15:2), the conference held in the former city (Acts 15:6 ff), the right hand of fellowship given by the elder apostles to Paul and Barnabas (Galatians 2:9), the untiring efforts made by Paul himself to forge strong links of love and mutual service between Gentileand Jewish Christians (2 Corinthians 8:1-24)--all these things serve to show how fully it was realized that though there were many churches, there was but one church. This truth comes to its complete expression in the epistles of Paul's imprisonment, with their vision of the church as a body of which Christ is the head, a body animated by one spirit, and having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Ephesians 4:4 ff; Colossians 1:18; 3:11). And this unity, it is to be noticed, is conceived of as a visible unity. Jesus Himself evidently conceived it so when He prayed for His disciples that they all might be one, so that the world might believe (John 17:21). And the unity of which Paul writes and for which he strove is a unity that finds visible expression. Not, it is true, in any uniformity of outward polity, but through the manifestation of a common faith in acts of mutual love (Ephesians 4:3, 13; 2 Corinthians 9:1-15).

4. Consecration: Another dominant note of the New Testament church lay in the consecration of its members. "Saints" is one of the most frequently recurring designations for them that we find. As thus employed, the word has in the first place an objective meaning; the sainthood of the Christian society consisted in its separation from the world by God's electing grace; in this respect it has succeeded to the prerogatives of Israel under the old covenant. The members of the church, as Peter said, are "an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession" (1 Peter 2:9). But side by side with this sense of an outward and priestly consecration, the flame "saints" carried within it the thought of an ethical holiness--a holiness consisting, not merely in a status determined by relation to Christ, but in an actual and practical saintliness, a consecration to God that finds expression in character and conduct. No doubt the members of the church are called saints even when the living evidences of sainthood are sadly lacking. Writing to the Corinthian church in which he found so much to blame, Paul addresses its members by this title (1 Corinthians 1:2; compare 1 Corinthians 6:11). But he does so for other than formal reasons--not only because consecration to God is their outward calling and status as believers; but also because he is assured that a work of real sanctification is going on, and must continue to go on, in their bodies and their spirits which are His. For those who are in Christ are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), and those to whom has come the separating and consecrating call (2 Corinthians 6:17) must cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Corinthians 7:1). Paul looks upon the members of the church, just as he looks upon the church itself, with a prophetic eye; he sees them not as they are, but as they are to be. And in his view it is "by the washing of water with the word," in other words by the progressive sanctification of its members, that the church itself is to be sanctified and cleansed, until Christ can present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Ephesians 5:26-27).

5. Power: Yet another note of the church was spiritual power. When the name ekklesia was given by Jesus to the society He came to found, His promise to Peter included the bestowal of the gift of power (Matthew 16:18-19). The apostle was to receive the "power of the keys," i.e. he was to exercise the privilege of opening the doors of the kingdom of heaven to the Jew (Acts 2:41) and to the Gentile (Acts 10:34-38; 15:7). He was further to have the power of binding and loosing, i.e. of forbidding and permitting; in other words he was to possess the functions of a legislator within the spiritual sphere of the church. The legislative powers then bestowed upon Peter personally as the reward of his believing confession were afterward conferred upon the disciples generally (Matthew 18:18; compare Matthew 18:1 and also Matthew 18:19-20), and at the conference in Jerusalem were exercised by the church as a whole (Acts 15:4, 22). The power to open the gates of the kingdom of heaven was expanded into the great missionary commission, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19)--a commission that was understood by the apostolic church to be addressed not to the eleven apostles only, but to all Christ's followers without distinction (Acts 8:4, etc.). To the Christian society there thus belonged the double power of legislating for its own members and of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers. But these double functions of teaching and government were clearly recognized as delegated gifts. The church taught the nations because Christ had bid her go and do it. She laid down laws for her own members because He had conferred upon her authority to bind and to loose. But in every exercise of her authority she relied upon Him from whom she derived it. She believed that Christ was with her alway, even unto the end of the world (Matthew 28:20), and that the power with which she was endued was power from on high (Luke 24:49).

V. Organization of the Church. It seems evident from the New Testament that Jesus gave His disciples no formal prescriptions for the organization of the church. In the first days after Pentecost they had no thought of separating themselves from the religious life of Israel, and would not realize the need of any distinct organization of their own. The temple-worship was still adhered to (Acts 2:46; 3:1), though it was supplemented by apostolic teaching, by prayer and fellowship, and by the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42, 46). Organization was a thing of gradual growth suggested by emerging needs, and the differentiation of function among those who were drawn into the service of the church was due to the difference in the gifts bestowed by God upon the church members (1 Corinthians 12:28). At first the Twelve themselves, as the immediate companions of Jesus throughout His ministry and the prime witnesses of the Christian facts and especially of the resurrection (compare Acts 1:21-22), were the natural leaders and teachers of the community. Apart from this, the earliest evidence of anything like organization is found in the distinction drawn by the Twelve themselves between the ministry of the word and the ministry of tables (Acts 6:2, 4)--a distinction which was fully recognized by Paul (Romans 12:6, 8; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 9:14; 12:28), though he enlarged the latter type of ministry so as to include much more than the care of the poor. The two kinds of ministry, as they meet us at the first, may broadly be distinguished as the general and prophetic on the one hand, the local and practical on the other.

1. The General and Prophetic Ministry: From Acts 6:1 ff we see that the Twelve recognized that they were Divinely called as apostles to proclaim the gospel; and Paul repeatedly makes the same claim for himself (1 Corinthians 1:17; 9:16; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 4:1; Colossians 1:23). But apostle ship was by no means confined to the Twelve (Acts 14:14; Romans 16:7; compare Didache 11 4 ff); and an itinerant ministry of the word was exercised in differing ways by prophets, evangelists, and teachers, as well as by apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:11). The fact that Paul himself is variously described as an apostle, a prophet, a teacher (Acts 13:1; 14:14; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11) appears to show that the prophetic ministry was not a ministry of stated office, but one of special gifts and functions. The apostle carried the good tidings of salvation to the ignorant and unbelieving (Galatians 2:7-8), the prophet (in the more specific sense of the word) was a messenger to the church (1 Corinthians 14:4, 22); and while the teacher explained and applied truth that was already possessed (Hebrews 5:12), the prophet was recognized by those who had spiritual discernment (1 Corinthians 2:15; 14:29; 1 John 4:1) as the Divinely employed medium of fresh revelations (1 Corinthians 14:25, 30-31; Ephesians 3:5; compare Didache 4 1).

2. The Local and Practical Ministry: The earliest examples of this are the Seven of Jerusalem who were entrusted with the care of the "daily ministration" (Acts 6:1 ff). With the growth of the church, however, other needs arose, and the local ministry is seen developing in two distinct directions. First there is the presbyter or elder, otherwise known as the bishop or overseer, whose duties, while still local, are chiefly of a spiritual kind (Acts 20:17, 28, 35; 1 Timothy 3:2, 5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:2). See BISHOP. Next there are the deacon and the deaconess (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13), whose work appears to have lain largely in house to house visitation and a practical ministry to the poor and needy (1 Timothy 5:8-11). The necessities of government, of discipline, and of regular and stated instruction had thus brought it to pass that within New Testament times some of the functions of the general ministry of apostles and prophets were discharged by a local ministry. The general ministry, however, was still recognized to be the higher of the two. Paul addresses the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus in a tone of lofty spiritual authority (Acts 20:17:ff). And according to the Didache, a true prophet when he visits a church is to take precedence over the resident bishops and deacons (Didache 10 7; 13 3).

See CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

LITERATURE.

Hort, The Christian Ecclesia; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Cents., lects I-V; Hatch, Bampton Lectures; Gwatkin, Early Church History to AD 313; Kostlin, article "Kirche" in See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche; Armitage Robinson, article "Church" in Encyclopedia Biblica; Fairbairn Christ in Modern Theology, 513-34; Dargan, Ecclesiology; Denney, Studies in Theology, Ch viii.

J. C. Lambert

Church Government

Church Government - guv'-ern-ment:

I. APPROACH TO SUBJECT

1. The General Sense

2. The Local Sense

II. INTERNAL ORDER

1. Subjects of Admission

2. Definite Organizations

3. Ministers

(1) General

(2) Local

4. Ecclesiastical Functions

(1) Control of Membership

(2) Selection of Officers, etc.

(3) Observations of Ordinances

5. Independent (Autonomous) Organizations

III. EXTERNAL AUTHORITY

IV. COOPERATIVE RELATIONS

LITERATURE

The object here sought is to discover what kind of church government is mirrored in the New Testament. To do this with perfect definiteness is, no doubt, quite impossible. Certain general features, however, may clearly be seen.

I. Approach to the Subject. The subject is best approached through the Greek word ekklesia, translated "church." Passing by the history of this word, and its connection with the Hebrew words `edhah and qahal (which the Septuagint sometimes renders by ekklesia), we come at once to the New Testament usage. Two perfectly distinct senses are found, namely, a general and a local.

1. The General Sense: Christ is "head over all things to the church, which is his body ...." (Ephesians 1:22); "the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven" (Hebrews 12:23). Here we have "church" in the broadest sense, including all the redeemed in earth and heaven, and in all ages (see also Ephesians 1:22; 3:10; Ephesians 5:22-27; Colossians 1:24; Hebrews 12:23).

2. The Local Sense: Here the Scripture passages are very numerous. In some cases, the word is used in the singular, and in others the plural; in some it is used with reference to a specified church, and in others without such specification. In all cases the sense is local.

In Acts 11:26, it is said that Paul and Barnabas were "gathered together with the church," where the church at Antioch is meant. In Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas are said to have "appointed elders in every church," that is, churches which they had planted. In Revelation 2:1-29 and 3 the seven churches of Asia Minor are addressed. In Acts 16:5 we are told that the churches "were strengthened in the faith." On the local sense see, further, Acts 8:1; 15:4; 16:5; 20:17; Romans 16:4; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 6:4; 11:16; Galatians 1:2, 22, and many other places.

There are a few passages that do not seem exactly to fit into either of the above categories. Such, for example, are Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 12:28, where it seems best to understand a generic sense. Such, also, are passages like Acts 9:31, and 1 Corinthians 10:32, where a collective sense best suits the cases.

Church government in the New Testament applies only to the local bodies.

II. Internal Order. With respect to the constitution and life of these New Testament churches, several points may be made out beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Subjects of Admission: They were composed of persons who professed faith in Christ, and who were believed to have been regenerated, and who had been baptized. See Acts 2:41, 44, 47 (the Revised Version (British and American) "added to them"); Acts 8:12; Romans 1:8; 6:4; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Colossians 1:2, 4; 1 Timothy 6:12, and others, where they are called "saints," "sons of God," "faithful brethren," "sanctified in Christ Jesus."

2. Definite Organizations: They are definitely and permanently organized bodies, and not temporary and loose aggregations of individuals. It is quite impossible, for example, to regard the church at Antioch as a loose aggregation of people for a passing purpose. The letters of Paul to the churches at Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, cannot be regarded as addressed to other than permanent and definitely organized bodies.

3. Ministers: They were served by two classes of ministers--one general, the other local.

(1) General. At the head of these is the "apostle" (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11). His official relation to the churches was general. He did not necessarily belong to the group of the original Eleven. Besides Matthias (Acts 1:26), Paul and Barnabas (1 Corinthians 9:5-6), James, the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7) are reckoned as "apostles." The one invariable and necessary qualification of an apostle was that he should have seen the Lord after the Resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Another qualification was to have wrought "the signs of an apostle" (2 Corinthians 12:12; compare 1 Corinthians 9:2). He was to bear witness to what he had seen and heard, to preach the gospel of the kingdom (Acts 1:8; 1 Corinthians 1:17), to found churches and have a general care of them (2 Corinthians 11:28). From the nature of his chief qualification, his office was temporary.

Next comes the "prophet." His relation to the churches, also, was general. It was not necessary that he should have seen the Lord, but it appertained to his spiritual function that he should have revelations (Ephesians 3:5). There is no indication that his office was in any sense administrative.

After the "prophet" come the "evangelist" and "teacher," the first, a traveling preacher, the second, one who had special aptitude for giving instruction.

After the "teacher" and "evangelist" follow a group of special gifts of "healing," "helps," "governments," "tongues." It may be that "helps" and "governments" are to be identified with "deacons" and "bishops," to be spoken of later. The other items in this part of Paul's list seem to refer to special charismata.

(2) Local. There were two clearly distinct offices of a local and permanent kind in the New Testament churches. Paul (Philippians 1:1) addresses "all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

See BISHOP; DEACON.

The most common designation of the first of these officers is "elder" (presbuteros). In one passage (Ephesians 4:11) he is called "pastor" (poimen). In Acts 20:17-28, it becomes clear that the office of elder, bishop, and pastor was one; for there the apostle charges the elders of the church at Ephesus to feed (pastor) the church in which the Holy Spirit has made them bishops (compare Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Peter 5:1-2).

The function of the elders was, in general, spiritual, but involved an oversight of all the affairs of the church (1 Timothy 3:2; 5:17).

As to the second of the local church officers, it has to be said that little is given us in the New Testament. That the office of deacon originated with the appointment of the Seven in Acts 6:1-15 is not certain. If we compare the qualifications there given by the apostles with those given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, it seems quite probable that the necessity which arose at Jerusalem, and which led to the appointment of the Seven was really the occasion for originating the office of deacon in the churches. The work assigned the Seven was secular, that is to say, the "service of tables." They were to relieve the apostles of that part of the work. A similar relation to the work of the elders seems to have been borne by that of the deacons.

Again, they exercised the highest ecclesiastical functions.

4. Ecclesiastical Functions: (1) Control of Membership. In Matthew 18:17, our Lord, by anticipation, lodges final action, in the sphere of church discipline, with the church. When the church has taken action, the matter is ended. There is no direction to take it to a higher court. In the church at Corinth, there was a man who was guilty of an infamous offense against purity. With regard to the case, Paul urged the most summary discipline (1 Corinthians 5:5). If the church should act upon the judgment which he communicated to them, they would act when "gathered together"; that is to say, action would be taken in conference of the church. In 2 Corinthians 2, a reference to the case shows that they had acted upon his advice, and that the action was taken by the majority ("the many," the more, 2 Corinthians 2:6). In 2 Corinthians 2 he counsels restoration of this excluded member now repentant. Exclusion and restoration of members were to be effected by a church. This, of course, carried with it the reception of members in the first instance.

(2) Selection of Officers, etc. This was true in case of the Seven (Acts 6:3-13; see other cases in Acts 15:22; 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:1 ff; Philippians 2:25). Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 seem, at first, to offset the passages just given. In one of these, Paul and Barnabas are said to have "appointed" (cheirotonesantes) elders in the churches which they had planted. But scholars of first quality, though themselves adhering to Presbyterial or Episcopal forms of church government, maintain that Paul and Barnabas ordained the elders whom the churches selected--that they "appointed" them in the usual way, by the suffrages of the members of the churches concerned. The word rendered "appoint" in Titus 1:5 (katasteses) is more easily understood as referring to ordination instead of selection.

(3) Observation of Ordinances. Paul gives direction (1 Corinthians 11:20-34) to the church at Corinth about the observance of the Lord's Supper. These directions are given, not to any officer or set of officers, but to the church. Ecclesiastically, of course, the two ordinances are on the same level; and, if one of them had been committed to the custody, so to say, of the churches, so must the other.

5. Independent (Autonomous) Organizations: The management of their business was in their own hands. Paul wrote the church at Corinth: "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40). In that comprehensive injunction, given to a church, is implied control of its affairs by the church.

III. External Authority. The investigation up to this point places us in position to see that there is in the New Testament no warrant for ecclesiastical grades in the ministry of the churches, by which there may be created an ascending series of rulers who shall govern the churches merged into one vast ecclesiastical organization called "the church." So, also, we are in position to see that there is no warrant for an ascending series of courts which may review any "case" that originates in a local church. We may see, on the contrary, that to each local church has been committed by Christ the management of its own affairs; and that He had endowed every such church with ecclesiastical competency to perform every function that any ecclesiastical body has a right to perform.

As the churches are not to be dominated by any external ecclesiastical authority, so they are not to be interfered with, in their church life, by civil government. Jesus taught that Christians should be good citizens (Matthew 22:15-22); so did the apostles (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-16). Jesus also taught the spirituality of His Kingdom: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). It follows that only where the life of a church touched the civic life of the community has the civil authority any right to interfere.

IV. Cooperative Relations. While each local church, according to the New Testament, is independent of every other in the sense that no other has jurisdiction over it, yet cooperative relations were entered into by New Testament churches. Examples and indications of that may be found in Romans 15:26-27; 2 Corinthians 8:1-24; 2 Corinthians 9:1-15; Galatians 2:10; Romans 15:1; 3 John 1:8. The principle of cooperation effective in those cases is susceptible of indefinite expansion. Churches may properly cooperate in matters of discipline, by seeking and giving counsel, and by respecting each other's disciplinary measures. In the great, paramount business of evangelizing and teaching the nations, they may cooperate in a multitude of ways. There is no sphere of general Christian activity in which the churches may not voluntarily and freely cooperate for the betterment of the world, the salvation of humanity.

For other standpoints see BISHOP; GOVERNMENT; MINISTRY, etc.

LITERATURE.

Hort, The Christian Ecclesia; Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches; Whitley, Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Cents.; French, Synonyms of New Testament; Vitringa, De Synagoga Vetere; Holzinger, ZAW; Schurer, Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II; Driver, Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament; Thayer, New Testament Lexicon, and Cremer, Biblical Theol. Lexicon, under the word, "ekklesia" and "sunagoge"; Neumann, Rom. Staat und die all-gemeine Kirche; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire.; Lightfoot, "The Christian Ministry," in Commentary on Philippians; Harvey, The Church; Dagg, Church Order; Hovey, Religion and the State; Owen, Church Government; Ladd, Principles of Church Polity; Dexter, Congregationalism; Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity; Abbey, Ecclesiastical Constitutions; Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity; Jacob, Ecclesiastical Polity; Bore, The Church and Its Ministry; Dollinger, The Church and The Churches; Stanley, Lectures on the Eastern Church; Dargan, Ecclesiology.

E. J. Forrester

Churches, Robbers of

Churches, Robbers of - church'-iz.

See ROBBERS OF TEMPLES.

Churches, Seven

Churches, Seven - See ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES.

Churl

Churl - churl (kilay or kelay): The Hebrew word occurs only in Isaiah 32:5, 7, in the latter verse in a form slightly modified so as to produce a pleasing assonance with the word immediately following. The word probably means "crafty" or "miserly," both ideas being suitable to the context, though "miserly" accords with the setting in Isa somewhat better.

In 1 Samuel 25:3 the Hebrew qasheh which means "hard," "severe," "rough," is rendered "churlish." In Saxon, churl, as the name for the lowest order of freemen, came to be used of persons boorish in manner. The rough and ill-mannered Nabal is aptly described as churlish.

John Richard Sampey

Chushan-rishathaim

Chushan-rishathaim - ku-shan-rish-a-tha'-im.

See CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM.

Chusi

Chusi - ku'-si, (Chous): A place only named in Judith 7:18, as near Ekrebel on the brook Mochmur. It was in central Palestine,and has with some probability been identified with Quzah, a village 5 1/2 miles South of Nablus and 5 miles West of Agrabeh (Ekrebel).

Chuzas

Chuzas - ku'-zas, chu'-zas (Chouzas; the King James Version Chuza): The steward of Herod Antipas. In Luke 8:3 we read that his wife Joanna, "and Susanna, and many others," ministered to Christ and His disciples.

See JOANNA (Luke 24:10).

Ciccar

Ciccar - sik'-ar (kikkar, "circle"): Used of the circle of the Jordan (Genesis 13:10, Hebrew).

See PLAIN; CITIES OF THE PLAIN.

Cieled; Cieling

Cieled; Cieling - seld, sel'-ing.

See CEILED;CEILING .

Cilicia

Cilicia - si-lish'-i-a (he Kilikia): An important province at the Southeast angle of Asia Minor, corresponding nearly with the modern Turkish vilayet of Adana; enfolded between the Taurus mountains and the Mediterranean Sea, with the Amanus range on the East and Pamphylia on the West; chief rivers, the Pyramus, Sarus, Cydnus and Calycadnus. The character of Cilician history has been largely determined by the physical features of the province. It is divided by nature into a mountainous part to the West, called Tracheia, and a broad, alluvial plain, hot and fertile, toward the East, termed Campestris or Pedias. Cilicia has always been isolated from its neighbors by land by its encircling mountains, save for its two famous mountain passes, the "Syrian Gates," which offer an easy road to Antioch and the South, and the wonderful "Cilician Gates," which open a road to central and western Asia Minor. Through these passes the armies and the pilgrims, the trade and the travel of the centuries have made their way. Alexander was one of the most renowned leaders of such expeditions, and at Issus he met and shattered the power of the Persian empire.

The early settlers of Cilicia are held to have been Semitic Syrians and Phoenicians, but in the still earlier days the inhabitants must have been Hittites. While few Hittite remains have been brought to light in Cilicia proper, the province was so surrounded by Hittites, and such important works of Hittite art and industry remain on the outskirts of the province, as at Ivriz, Marash, Sinjirli and Sakche Geuzi, that the intervening territory could hardly fail to be overspread with the same civilization and imperial power. See Professor John Garstang's The Land of the Hittites.

Cilicia appears as independent under Syennesis, a contemporary of Alyattes of Lydia, 610 BC. Later it passed under the Persian sway, but retained its separate line of kings. After Alexander the Seleucid rulers governed Cilicia from Antioch. The disturbances of the times enabled the pirates so to multiply and establish themselves in their home base, in Cilicia, Tracheia, that they became the scourge of the Mediterranean until their power was broken by Pompey (67-66 BC). Cilicia was by degrees incorporated in the Roman administration, and Cicero, the orator, was governor (51-50 BC).

The foremost citizen of the province was Saul of Tarsus (Acts 21:39; 22:3; 23:34). Students or pilgrims from Cilicia like himself disputed with Stephen (Acts 6:9). Some of the earliest labors of the great apostle were near his home, in Syria and Cilicia (Galatians 1:21; Acts 15:23, 11). On his voyage to Rome he sailed across the sea which is off Cilicia (Acts 27:5). Constantinople and Antioch may be regarded as the front and back door of Asia Minor, and as the former was not founded till the 4th century, Asia Minor may be regarded as fronting during apostolic days on Antioch. Cilicia was intimately connected with its neighbor province on the South. The first Christian apostles and evangelists followed the great highways, through the famous mountain passes, and carried the religion of Jesus to Asia Minor from Antioch as a base.

Armenians migrating from the North founded kingdom in Cilicia under Roupen which was terminated by the overthrow of King Levon, or Leo, by the conquering Turks in 1393. A remnant of this kingdom survives in the separate Armenian catholicate of Sis, which has jurisdiction over few bishoprics, and Armenians are among the most virile of the present inhabitants of the province.

G. E. White

Cinnamon

Cinnamon - sin'-a-mun (qinnamon; kinnamomon): Mentioned, like cassia, as a perfume. In Exodus 30:23 it is one of the ingredients of the "holy anointing oil"; in Proverbs 7:17 it is, along with myrrh and aloes, a perfume for a bed; in Song of Solomon 4:14 it is a very precious spice. Cinnamon is (Revelation 18:13) part of the merchandise of "Babylon the great."

Cinnamon is the product of Cinnamomum zeylanicum, a laurel-like plant widely cultivated in Ceylon and Java. It has a profuse white blossom, succeeded by a nut from which the fragrant oil is obtained. The wood is the inner bark from branches which have reached a diameter of from 2 to 3 inches; the epidermis and pulpy matter are carefully scraped off before drying. In commerce the cheaper Cassia ligra of China is sometimes substituted for true cinnamon, and it is thought by some authorities that this was the true cinnamon of the ancients.

See, however, CASSIA.

E. W. G. Masterman

Cinneroth

Cinneroth - sin'-e-roth (kinneroth).

See CHINNERETH .

Cirama

Cirama - si-ra'-ma, sir'-a-ma.

See KIRAMA.

Circle

Circle - sur'-k'-l: Is used with reference to the vault of the heavens (hugh) in Isaiah 40:22, and in a similar sense in Wisdom of Solomon 13:2 (Revised Version margin), "circle of stars" (kuklos astron). It is also used in the sense of surrounding territory, as in the expression "circle of Jordan" (Genesis 13:10 the Revised Version, margin).

See also CICCAR; ASTRONOMY, sec. III, 1.

Circuit

Circuit - sur'-kit, "a going around": Used to represent several Hebrew words in several senses, e.g. the sun's orbit (tequphah), Psalms 19:6; the vault of the heavens (chugh), Job 22:14 the King James Version; the circuit of the winds (cabhibh), Ecclesiastes 1:6 (see ASTRONOMY); Samuel's visiting of communities (cabhabh), 1 Samuel 7:16. In the Revised Version (British and American) the idea of encircling or "fetching a compass" (the King James Version) is expressed by the phrase "to make a circuit" (hacebh), 2 Samuel 5:23; 2 Kings 3:9; and in the Revised Version, margin it indicates a plain (ha-kikkar), Nehemiah 3:22. The Greek perielthontes is translated in the same way (Acts 28:13), but the Revised Version, margin reads "cast loose," following the Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek reading perielontes.

Nathan Isaacs

Circumcision

Circumcision - sur-kum-sizh'-un (mul, muloth; peritome): The removal of the foreskin is a custom that has prevailed, and prevails, among many races in different parts of the world--in America, Africa and Australia. It was in vogue among the western Semites--Hebrews, Arabians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Egyptians, but was unknown among the Semites of the Euphrates. In Canaan the Philistines were an exception, for the term "uncircumcised" is constantly used in connection with them. Generally speaking, the rite of circumcision was a precondition of the enjoyment of certain political and religious privileges (Exodus 12:48; Ezekiel 44:9); and in view of the fact that in the ancient world religion played such an important role in life, it may be assumed that circumcision, like many other strange customs whose original significance is no longer known, originated in connection with religion. Before enumerating the different theories which have been advanced with regard to the origin and original significance of circumcision, it may be of advantage to consider some of the principal references to the rite in the Old Testament.

1. Circumcision in the Old Testament: In the account of the institution of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham which Priestly Code (P) gives (Genesis 17:1-27), circumcision is looked upon as the ratification of the agreement. Yahweh undertook to be the God of Abraham and of his descendants. Abraham was to be the father of a multitude of nations and the founder of a line of kings. He and his descendants were to inherit Canaan. The agreement thus formed was permanent; Abraham's posterity should come within the scope of it. But it was necessary to inclusion in the covenant that every male child should be circumcised on the 8th day. A foreigner who had attached himself as a slave to a Hebrew household had to undergo the rite--the punishment for its non-fulfilment being death or perhaps excommunication. According to Exodus 12:48 (also P) no stranger could take part in the celebration of the Passover unless he had been circumcised. In the Book of Josh (Exodus 5:2-9) we read that the Israelites were circumcised at Gilgal ("Rolling"), and thus the "reproach of Egypt" was "rolled away." Apparently circumcision in the case of the Hebrews was prohibited during the Egyptian period--circumcision being a distinctive mark of the ruling race. It is noticeable that flint knives were used for the purpose. This use of an obsolete instrument is one of many proofs of conservatism in religion. According to the strange and obscure account of the circumcision by Zipporah of her eldest son (Exodus 4:25) the performance of the rite in the case of the son apparently possesses a vicarious value, for thereby Moses becomes a "bridegroom of blood." The marriage bond is ratified by the rite of blood (see 4 below). But it is possible that the author's meaning is that owing to the fact that Moses had not been circumcised (the "reproach of Egypt") he was not fit to enter the matrimonial estate (see 3 below).

2. Theories of Origin: The different theories with regard to the origin of circumcision may be arranged under four heads: (1) Herodotus (ii.37), in dealing with circumcision among the Egyptians, suggests that it was a sanitary operation. But all suggestions of a secular, i.e. non-religious, origin to the rite, fail to do justice to the place and importance of religion in the life of primitive man.

(2) It was a tribal mark. Tattooed marks frequently answered the purpose, although they may have been originally charms. The tribal mark enabled one member of the tribe to recognize another and thus avoid injuring or slaying a fellow-tribesman. It also enabled the tribal deity to recognize a member of the tribe which was under his special protection. A mark was placed on Cain to indicate that he was under the special protection of Yahweh (Genesis 4:15). It has been suggested, in the light of Isaiah 44:5 the Revised Version, margin, that the employer's mark was engraved (tattooed) on the slave's hand. The prophet represents Jews as inscribing on their hands that they belong to Yahweh. The walls of Jerusalem are engraved on Yahweh's palms (Isaiah 49:16). On the other hand "cuttings in the flesh" are prohibited in Leviticus 19:28 because they were common in the case of the non-Jewish religions. Such tattooed marks might be made in conspicuous places when it was necessary that they should be easily seen, but there might be reason for secrecy so that the marks might be known only to the members of the tribe in question.

(3) It was a rite which celebrated the coming of age of the person. It signified the attainment of puberty and of the right to marry and to enjoy full civic privileges.

(4) As human sacrifices began to be done away with, the sacrifice of the most easily removed portion of the anatomy provided a vicarious offering.

(5) It was a sacramental operation. "The shedding of blood" was necessary to the validity of any covenant between tribes or individuals. The rite of blood signifies the exchange of blood on the part of the contracting parties, and therefore the establishment of physical affinity between them. An alliance based on blood-relationship was inviolable. In the same way the tribal god was supposed to share in the blood of the sacrificed animal, and a sacred bond was established between him and the tribe. It is not quite obvious why circumcision should be necessary in connection with such a ceremony. But it may be pointed out that the process of generation excited the wonder and awe of primitive man. The prosperity of the tribe depended on the successful issue of the marriage bond, and a part of the body which had so much to do with the continuation and numerical strength of the tribe would naturally be fixed upon in connection with the covenant of blood. In confirmation of the last explanation it is urged that in the case of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham circumcision was the rite that ratified the agreement. In opposition to (3) it has been urged that among the Hebrews circumcision was performed in infancy--when the child was 8 days old. But this might have been an innovation among the Hebrews, due to ignorance of the original significance of the rite. If circumcision conferred upon the person circumcised the right to the enjoyment of the blessings connected with membership in the tribe it was natural that parents should be anxious that such an initiatory act should be performed early in life. The question of adult and infant baptism is capable of similar explanation. When we examine explanations (2), (3), (4), (5), we find that they are really different forms of the same theory. There can be no doubt that circumcision was originally a religions act. Membership in the tribe, entrance upon the rights of citizenship, participation in the religious practices of the tribe--these privileges are interdependent. Anyone who had experienced the rite of blood stood within the scope of the covenant which existed between the tribe and the tribal god, and enjoyed all the privileges of tribal society. It is easily understood why the historian carefully relates the circumcision of the Israelites by Joshua on their arrival in Canaan. It was necessary, in view of the possible intermingling of the conquerors and the conquered, that the distinctive marks of the Abrahamic covenant should be preserved (Joshua 5:3).

3. Spiritual Significance: In Jeremiah 9:25 and Deuteronomy 30:6 we find the spiritual significance of circumcision. A prophet like Jeremiah was not likely to attach much importance to an external act like circumcision. He bluntly tells his countrymen that they are no better than Egyptians, Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites. They are uncircumcised in heart. Paul uses the term concision for this outward circumcision unaccompanied by any spiritual change (Philippians 3:2). The question of circumcision occasioned a protracted strife among the early Christians. Judaizing Christians argued for the necessity of circumcision. It was a reminiscence of the unrelenting particularism which had sprung up during the prolonged oppression of the Greek and Roman period. According to their view salvation was of the Jews and for the Jews. It was necessary to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul consented to circumcision in the case of Timothy "because of the Jews" (Acts 16:3). But he saw that a principle was at stake and in most of his epistles he points out the sheer futility of the contention of the Judaizers. (See commentaries on Romans and Galatians.)

4. Figurative Uses: In a few suggestive passages we find a figurative application of the term. For three years after the settlement in Canaan the "fruit of the land" was to be considered as "uncircumcised" (Leviticus 19:23), i.e. it was the property of the Baalim, the gods of Palestine The fruit of the fourth year belonged to Yahweh. Moses with characteristic humility describes himself as a man of "uncircumcised lips" (Exodus 6:30). Jeremiah charges his contemporaries with having their ear uncircumcised (Jeremiah 6:10) and their heart (Jeremiah 9:26). "An uncircumcised heart is one which is, as it were, closed in, and so impervious to good influences and good impressions, just as an uncircumcised ear (Jeremiah 6:10) is an ear which, from the same cause, hears imperfectly; and uncircumcised lips (compare Exodus 6:12, 30) are lips which open and speak with difficulty (Driver on Deuteronomy 10:16).

T. Lewis

Cis

Cis - sis (Keis): The form given in Acts 13:21 the King James Version for Kish, the father of Saul the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 9:1 f).

Cisai

Cisai - si'-sa-i.

See KISEUS.

Cistern; Well; Pool; Aqueduct

Cistern; Well; Pool; Aqueduct - sis'-tern:

Use of Terms

1. General

2. Wells or Cylindrical Cisterns

3. Private Cisterns

4. Public Cisterns

5. Pools and Aqueducts

6. Figurative Uses

LITERATURE

Several words are rendered by "cistern," "well," "pool," the relations of which in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) are as follows:

Use of Terms:

"Cistern," bo'r (Jeremiah 2:13, etc.), or bor (2 Kings 18:31). The latter word is frequently in the King James Version translated "well." the Revised Version (British and American) in these cases changes to "cistern" in text (Deuteronomy 6:11; 2 Chronicles 26:10; Nehemiah 9:25) margin (Jeremiah 14:3), rendered "pit" in the King James Version are changed to "cistern" the Revised Version (British and American) (the latter in the American Standard Revised Version only).

The proper Hebrew word for "well" is be'er (seen in Beer-sheba, "well of the oath," Genesis 21:31), but other terms are thus rendered in the King James Version, as `ayin (Genesis 24:13, 16, etc., and frequently), ma`yan (Joshua 18:15), maqor (Proverbs 10:11). ally changes to "fountain"; in Exodus 15:27, however, it renders `ayin by "springs," and in Psalms 84:6, ma`yan by, "place of springs."

"Pool," 'agham (Isaiah 14:23, etc.; in the King James Version, Exodus 7:19; 8:5, rendered "ponds"); more frequently berekhah (2 Samuel 2:13; 4:12, etc.). In Psalms 84:6 the cognate berakhah, is changed to "blessing."

In the New Testament "well" represents the two words: pege (John 4:6, 14; in the Revised Version, margin "spring"; 2 Peter 2:17; the Revised Version (British and American) renders "springs"), and phrear (John 4:11-12). "Pool" is kolumbethra, in John 5:2, 4, 7; 7, 11.

1. General: The efforts made to supplement the natural water supply, both in agricultural and in populated areas, before as well as after the Conquest, are clearly seen in the innumerable cisterns, wells and pools which abound throughout Palestine The rainy season, upon which the various storage systems depend, commences at the end of October and ends in the beginning of May. In Jerusalem, the mean rainfall in 41 years up to 1901 was 25,81 inches, falling in a mean number of 56 days (see Glaisher, Meteorological Observations, 24). Toward the end of summer, springs and wells, where they have not actually dried up, diminish very considerably, and cisterns and open reservoirs become at times the only sources of supply. Cisterns are fed from surface and roof drainage. Except in the rare instances where springs occur, wells depend upon percolation. The' great open reservoirs or pools are fed from surface drainage and, in some cases, by aqueducts from springs or from more distant collecting pools. In the case of private cisterns, it is the custom of the country today to close up the inlets during the early days of the rain, so as to permit of a general wash down of gathering surfaces, before admitting the water. Cisterns, belonging to the common natives, are rarely cleansed, and the inevitable scum which collects is dispersed by plunging the pitcher several times before drawing water. When the water is considered to be bad, a somewhat primitive cure is applied by dropping earth into the cistern, so as to sink all impurities with it, to the bottom. The accumulation often found in ancient cisterns probably owes some of its presence to this same habit.

2. Wells or Cylindrical Cisterns: It is necessary to include wells under the head of cisterns, as there appears to be some confusion in the use of the two terms. Wells, so called, were more often deep cylindrical reservoirs, the lower part of which was sunk in the rock and cemented, the upper part being built with open joints, to receive the surface percolation. They were often of great depth. Job's well at Jerusalem, which is certainly of great antiquity, is 125 ft. deep (see Palestine Exploration Fund, "Jerus," 371).

The discovery of "living water" when digging a well, recorded in Genesis 26:19 margin, appears to have been an unusual incident. Uzziah hewed out many cisterns in the valley for his cattle (2 Chronicles 26:9-10 the Revised Version (British and American)), and he built towers, presumably to keep watch over both cattle and cisterns. Isaac "digged again the wells" which had been filled in by the Philistines (Genesis 26:18). Wells were frequently dug in the plain, far from villages, for flocks and herds, and rude stone troughs were provided nearby. The well was usually covered with a stone, through which a hole was pierced sufficiently large to allow of free access for the pitchers. A stone was placed over this hole (Genesis 29:10) when the well was not in use. The great amount of pottery found in ancient cisterns suggests that clay pots were used for drawing water (see Bible Sidelights, 88). Josephus (Ant., IV, viii, 37) elucidates the passage in Exodus 21:33 requiring the mouth of a "pit" or "well" to be covered with planks against accidents. This would seem to apply to wide-mouthed wells which had not been narrowed over to receive a stone cover. It may have been a well or cistern similar to these into which Joseph was cast (Genesis 37:24). In fact, dry-wells and cisterns formed such effective dungeons, that it is very probable they were often used for purposes of detention. From earliest times, wells have been the cause of much strife. The covenant between Abimelech and Abraham at Beersheba (Genesis 32:1-32) was a necessity, no less pressing then than it is now. The well, today, is a center of life in the East. Women gather around it in pursuit of their daily duties, and travelers, man and beast, divert their course thereto, if needs be, for refreshment; and news of the outer world is carried to and from the well. It is, in fact, an all-important center, and daily presents a series of characteristic Bible scenes. The scene between Rebekah and the servant of Abraham (Genesis 24:11 ff) is one with frequent parallels. The well lies usually at some little distance from the village or city. Abraham's servant made his "camels to kneel down without the city by the well of water at the time of the evening, the time that women go out to draw water." Saul and his servant found young maidens going out of the city to draw water (1 Samuel 9:11). Moses helped the daughters of the priest of Midian at the well, which was evidently at some distance from habitation (Exodus 2:16 ff).

3. Private Cisterns: Private cisterns must be distinguished from public cisterns or wells. They were smaller and were sunk in the rocks within private boundaries, each owner having his own cistern (2 Kings 18:31; Proverbs 5:15). Ancient sites are honeycombed with these cisterns. A common type in Jerusalem seems to have been bottle-shaped in section, the extended bottom part being in the softer rock, and the narrow neck in the hard upper stratum. Many irregularly shaped cisterns occur with rock vaults supported by rock or masonry piers. Macalister tells of the discovery at Gezer of a small silt catchpit attached to a private cistern, and provided with an overflow channel leading to the cistern. It is an early instance of a now well-known method of purification. The universal use of cement rendering to the walls of the cisterns was most necessary to seal up the fissures of the rock. The "broken cisterns" (Jeremiah 2:13) probably refer to insufficiently sealed cisterns.

4. Public Cisterns: Besides private cisterns there were huge public rock-cut cisterns within the city walls. The great water caverns under the Temple area at Jerusalem show a most extensive system of water storage (see Recovery of Jerusalem, chapter vii). There are 37 of these described in Palestine Exploration Fund, "Jerus," 217 ff, and the greatest is an immense rock-cut cavern the roof of which is partly rock and partly stone, supported by rock piers (see Fig. 1, Palestine Exploration Fund). It is 43 ft. deep with a storage capacity of over two million gallons and there are numerous access manholes. This cistern is fed by an aqueduct from Solomon's Pools about 10 miles distant by road, and is locally known as Bahar el Kebir, the "Great Sea." One of the most recent and one of the most interesting rock-cut reservoirs yet discovered is that at Gezer. (See Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1908, 96 ff.) In this example, the pool of spring water is reached by a great rock-tunnel staircase which descends 94 ft. 6 inches from the surface. The staircase diminishes in size as it descends, and at its greatest, it is 23 ft. high and 12 ft. 10 inches wide. These proportions may seem unnecessarily large, but may be accounted for by the necessity for providing light at the water level. As a matter of fact, the brink of the pool receives the light from above. The work dates back to pre-Israelite times.

5. Pools and Aqueducts: Open pools were common in every city. They were cut out of the rock and were built and cemented at points where occasion demanded. They were often of great size. The pool outside Jerusalem known as Birket es Sultan measures 555 ft. x 220 ft. x 36 ft. deep, and the so-called Hezekiah's Pool within the walls, is 240 ft. x 144 ft. x about 20 ft. deep. The latter probably owes its origin to the rock-cut fosse of early Jewish date. The Birket es Sultan, on the other hand, probably dates from the time of the Turkish occupation. They may, however, be taken as examples, which, if somewhat larger, are still in accord with the pool system of earlier history. Pools were usually fed by surface drainage, and in some cases by aqueducts from springs at some distance away. They seem to have been at the public service, freely accessible to both man and beast. Pools situated outside the city walls were sometimes connected by aqueducts with pools within the city, so that the water could be drawn within the walls in time of siege. The so-called Pools of Solomon, three in number (see Fig. 3), situated about 10 miles by road from Jerusalem, are of large proportions and are fed by surface water and by aqueducts from springs. The water from these pools is conveyed in a wonderfully engineered course, known as the lower-level aqueduct, which searches the winding contours of the Judean hills for a distance of about 15 miles, before reaching its destination in "the great sea" under the Temple area. This aqueduct is still in use, but its date is uncertain (see G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, 131, where the author finds reason for ascribing it to the period of Herod). The course and destination of another aqueduct known as the high-level aqueduct is less definite. These aqueducts are of varying dimensions. The low-level aqueduct at a point just before it enters the Temple area was found to measure 3 ft. high x 2 ft. 3 inches wide, partly rock-cut and partly built, and rendered in smooth-troweled cement, with well-squared stone covers (see Palestine Exploration Fund, Excavations at Jerusalem, 53 ff). There are many remains of rock-cut aqueducts throughout Palestine (see Fig. 4) which seem to indicate their use in early Hebrew times, but the lack of Old Testament references to these works is difficult to account for, unless it is argued that in some cases they date back to pre-Israelite times. The great tunnel and pool at Gezer lends a measure of support to this hypothesis. On the other hand, a plea for a Hebrew origin is also in a measure strengthened by the very slight reference in the Old Testament to such a great engineering feat as the cutting of the Siloam tunnel, which is doubtless the work of Hezekiah. The pool of Siloam was originally a simple rock-cut reservoir within the walls, and was constructed by Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 32:30). It measures 75 ft. x 71 ft. It is the upper pool of Isaiah 7:3. A lower overflow pool existed immediately beyond, contained by the city wall across the Tyropoeon valley. The aqueduct which supplies the upper pool takes a tortuous course of about 1,700 ft. through the solid rock from the Virgin's fountain, an intermittent spring on the East slope of the hill. The water reaches the pool on the Southwest of the spur of Ophel, and it was in the rock walls of this aqueduct that the famous Siloam inscription recording the completion of the work was discovered.

Herod embellished the upper pool, lining it with stone and building arches around its four sides (see Palestine Exploration Fund, Excavations at Jerusalem, 154 ff), and the pool was most likely in this condition in the time of Christ (John 9:6-7). There are numerous other pools, cisterns and aqueducts in and around Jerusalem, which provide abundant evidence of the continual struggle after water, made by its occupants of all times (see G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, chapter v, volume I).

Citadel

Citadel - sit'-a-del (1 Maccabees 1:33; 3:45).

See FORTIFICATION.

Cithern

Cithern - sith'-ern (kithara; 1 Maccabees 4:54 the King James Version, kitharais kai kinurais is translated "citherns and harps"; the Revised Version (British and American) "harps and lutes"; compare guitar, zither): As 1macc was originally written in Hebrew, it is natural to suppose that these two Greek words stand for Hebrew nebhalim and kinnoroth; but to this it may be objected that kithara and kinura are not used elsewhere together to represent two different instruments. On the contrary we have either kinura kai nabla or kithara kai psalterion. The most probable explanation of the unusual collocation of these two words in 1 Maccabees is that kithara was a gloss meant to explain the obsolescent kinura.

See Music.

James Millar

Cities of Refuge

Cities of Refuge - See REFUGE, CITIES OF.

Cities of the Plain; Ciccar

Cities of the Plain; Ciccar - sit'-iz, plan, (kikkar ha-yarden): Included Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar. The locality is first referred to in Genesis 13:10, where it is said that Lot "lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the Plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of Yahweh, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest unto Zoar." The word translated plain is kikkar, "circle." In this ver, and in the 11th, as well as in 1 Kings 7:46 and Matthew 3:5, we have the full phrase "circle of the Jordan." Elsewhere (Genesis 13:12; 17, 29; Deuteronomy 34:3; 2 Samuel 18:23) the word for "circle" is used alone with the article. Until recently the traditional view that this circle of the Jordan was at the south end of the Dead Sea was universally maintained. The arguments in favor of this view are: (1) The name of Sodom is preserved in Jebel Usdum--Usdum having the same consonants with Sodom; moreover, the name is known to have referred to a place in that region as early as the days of Galen (De Simpl. medic. Facult., 4,19) who describes certain "salts of Sodom" from the mountains surrounding the lake which are called Sodom. (2) Zoar seems to have been represented in the Middle Ages by a place which the Crusaders called Segore, and Arabic writers Zoghar. Under the name Zughar or Sughar the place is often referred to by medieval Arabian geographers as situated 1ø South of Jericho "at the end of the Dead Sea" and as a station on the route between the Gulf of Akabah and Jericho, two days' journey from Jericho. Ptolemy (v.17,5) reckons Zoar as belonging to Arabia Petrea. Eusebius (Onom., 261) describes the Dead Sea as lying between Jericho and Zoar. Josephus (Ant., I, xi, 4) makes the Dead Sea extend 580 stadia "as far as Zoar of Arabia" (Wars, IV, viii, 4). These references would locate Zoar at the base of the mountains just Southeast of the Dead Sea, and, as it was within easy reach of Sodom, from which Lot fled, would fix the Cities of the Plain in that locality. Jerome (Comm. on Isaiah 15:5) says that Zoar was in the borders of Moab.

On the other hand, it is maintained that the "kikkar of the Jordan" lay North of the Dead Sea for the following reasons: (1) That is the region which is visible from the heights of Bethel whence Abraham and Lot looked down upon it (Genesis 13:10), while the south end of the lake is not visible. But it may be answered that the phrase need not be limited to the actual region in sight, but may have included the whole known extension of the valley. (2) Zoar was said to be in range of Moses' vision from the top of Pisgah (Deuteronomy 34:1-3) whereas the south end of the Dead Sea is invisible from that point, on account of intervening mountains. But this description in Dt evidently is not intended to be limited to the points which are actually visible, but should be understood as describing the extreme limits of the land some points of which are visible in their near vicinity. Certainly the vision did not comprehend all portions of Dan or Judah "unto the hinder sea." The phrase from Jericho to. Zoar is like "from Dan to Beersheba." The mountain heights overlooking Zoar were certainly visible. (3) In Genesis 14:1-24 the four kings coming up from Kadesh attacked the Amorites "that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar" before reaching Sodom, and Hazezon-tamar is to be identified with Engedi. On the other hand, it is possible that it is to be identified with the Tamar of Ezekiel 47:19; 48:28, and that this place lay Southwest of the Dead Sea. Or, if that explanation is not accepted, it is proper to note that the course of this expedition led at first a considerable distance South of the Dead Sea through Mt. Seir to El-paran, when "they smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites." In accomplishing this they would naturally be led along the highland to Hebron from which they could easily descend to Engedi, whence they could proceed without difficulty to the south end of the end Sea. Besides, it is by no means certain that there was not an easy passage along the whole western shore of the Dead Sea at that time. See DEAD SEA. (4) It is argued that the region at the south end of the Dead Sea could not be described "as the garden of the Lord," etc. Neither, for that matter, could the region around the north end be so described in its present condition. But, on the other hand, the region South of the sea is by no means as devoid of vegetation as is sometimes represented, while there are convincing arguments to prove that formerly it was much more extensive and fertile than now. To the fertility of this area there is no more capable witness than Professor Hull, though he is an ardent advocate of the location of these cities at the north end of the lake. This appears both in his original diary, and in his more mature and condensed account contained in his article on the Dead Sea in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), where he writes, "When, in December, 1883. the writer found himself standing on the edge of the terrace overlooking the Ghor, he beheld at his feet a wide plain stretching away northward toward the margin of the Dead Sea, and to a large extent green with vegetation and thickets of small trees. To the right in an open space were seen several large Bedouin camps, from which the shouts of wild men, the barking of dogs, and the bellowing of camels ascended. Numerous flocks of black goats and white sheep were being tended by women in long blue cloaks; and on the party of travelers being observed, groups of merry children came tripping up toward the path accompanied by a few of the elders, and, ranging themselves in a line, courteously returned salutations. Here the Arabs remain enjoying the warmth, of the plain till the increasing heat of the summer's sun calls them away to their high pasture grounds on the table-land of Edom and Moab. At a short distance farther toward the shore of the lake is the village of Es-Safieh, inhabited by a tribe of fellahin called the Ghawarneh, who by means of irrigation from the Wady el-Hessi cultivate with success fields of wheat, maize, dhurah, indigo and cotton, while they rear herds of camels and flocks of sheep and goats. On the produce of these fields the Arabs largely depend for their supplies of food and raiment, which they obtain by a kind of rude, often compulsory, barter."

LITERATURE.

Authorities favoring the south end of the Dead Sea: Dillmann, Genesis, 111 f; Robinson, BRP2, II, 187:ff; G. A. Smith, Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 505 ff; Baedeker-Socin, Palestine,III, 146; Buhl, Buhl, Geographic des alten Palastina, 117, 271, 274; see also especially Samuel Wolcott, "Site of Sodom," Bibliotheca Sacra,XXV , 112-51. Favoring the north end: Sir George Grove in various articles in Smith, Dictionary of the Bible; Canon Tristram, Land of Moab, 330 ff; Selah Merrill, East of the Jordan, 232-39; W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book.

George Frederick Wright

Cities, Levitical

Cities, Levitical - See LEVITICAL CITIES; CITY.

Cities, Store

Cities, Store - stor.

See CITY.

Citims

Citims - sit'-imz.

See CHITTIM (1 Maccabees 8:5 the King James Version).

Citizenship

Citizenship - sit'-i-zen-ship: All the words in use connected with this subject are derived from polis, "city."

1. Philological: These words, with the meanings which they have in the Bible, are the nouns, polites, "citizen"; politeia, "citizenship"; politeuma, "commonwealth"; sumpolites, "fellow-citizen"; and the verb, politeuo, "to behave as a citizen." Each will be considered more fully in its proper place.

2. Civil: (1) The word for citizen is sometimes used to indicate little if anything more than the inhabitant of a city or country. "The citizens of that country" (Luke 15:15); "His citizens hated him" (Luke 19:14). Also the quotation from the Septuagint, "They shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen" (Hebrews 8:11; compare Jeremiah 31:34). So also in the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 4:50; 5:6; 9:19).

(2) Roman citizenship.--This is of especial interest to the Bible student because of the apostle Paul's relation to it. It was one of his qualifications as the apostle to the Gentiles. Luke shows him in Acts as a Roman citizen, who, though a Jew and Christian receives, for the most part, justice and courtesy from the Roman officials, and more than once successfully claims its privileges. He himself declares that he was a citizen of Tarsus (Acts 21:39). He was not only born in that city but had a citizen's rights in it.

See PAUL; TARSUS.

But this citizenship in Tarsus did not of itself confer upon Paul the higher dignity of Roman citizenship. Had it done so, Claudius Lysias would not have ordered him to be scourged, as he did, after having learned that he was a citizen of Tarsus (Acts 21:39; compare Acts 22:25). So, over and above this Tarsian citizenship, was the Roman one, which availed for him not in one city only, but throughout the Roman world and secured for him everywhere certain great immunities and rights. Precisely what all of these were we are not certain, but we know that, by the Valerian and Porcian laws, exemption from shameful punishments, such as scourging with rods or whips, and especially crucifixion, was secured to every Roman citizen; also the right of appeal to the emperor with certain limitations. This sanctity of person had become almost a part of their religion, so that any violation was esteemed a sacrilege. Cicero's oration against Verres indicates the almost fanatical extreme to which this feeling had been carried. Yet Paul had been thrice beaten with rods, and five times received from the Jews forty stripes save one (2 Corinthians 11:24-25). Perhaps it was as at Philippi before he made known his citizenship (Acts 16:22-23), or the Jews had the right to whip those who came before their own tribunals. Roman citizenship included also the right of appeal to the emperor in all cases, after sentence had been passed, and no needless impediment must be interposed against a trial. Furthermore, the citizen had the right to be sent to Rome for trial before the emperor himself, when charged with capital offenses (Acts 16:37; Acts 22:25-29; 25:11).

How then had Paul, a Jew, acquired this valued dignity? He himself tells us. In contrast to the parvenu citizenship of the chief captain, who seems to have thought that Paul also must have purchased it, though apparently too poor, Paul quietly, says, "But I was free born" (King James Versions; "a Roman born" the Revised Version (British and American), Acts 22:28). Thus either Paul's father or some other ancestor had acquired the right and had transmitted it to the son.

3. Metaphorical and Spiritual: What more natural than that Paul should sometimes use this civic privilege to illustrate spiritual truths? He does so a number of times. Before the Sanhedrin he says, in the words of our English Versions, "I have lived before God in all good conscience" (Acts 23:1). But this translation does not bring out the sense. Paul uses a noticeable word, politeuo, "to live as a citizen." He adds, "to God" (to Theo). That is to say, he had lived conscientiously as God's citizen, as a member of God's commonwealth. The day before, by appealing to his Roman citizenship, he had saved himself from ignominious whipping, and now what more natural than that he should declare that he had been true to his citizenship in a higher state? What was this higher commonwealth in which he has enjoyed the rights and performed the duties of a citizen? What but theocracy of his fathers, the ancient church, of which the Sanhedrin was still the ostensible representative, but which was really continued in the kingdom of Christ without the national restrictions of the older one? Thus Paul does not mean to say simply, "I have lived conscientiously before God," but "I have lived as a citizen to God, of the body of which He is the immediate Sovereign." He had lived theocratically as a faithful member of the Jewish church, from which his enemies claimed he was an apostate. Thus Paul's conception was a kind of blending of two ideas or feelings, one of which came from the old theocracy, and the other from his Roman citizenship.

Later, writing from Rome itself to the Philippians, who were proud of their own citizenship as members of a colonia, a reproduction on a small scale of the parent commonwealth, where he had once successfully maintained his own Roman rights, Paul forcibly brings out the idea that Christians are citizens of a heavenly commonwealth, urging them to live worthy of such honor (Philippians 1:27 margin).

A similar thought is brought out when he says, "For our commonwealth (politeuma) is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20 margin). The state to which we belong is heaven. Though absent in body from the heavenly commonwealth, as was Paul from Rome when he asserted his rights, believers still enjoy its civic privileges and protections; sojourners upon earth, citizens of heaven. The Old Testament conception, as in Isaiah 60:1-22 through Isaiah 62:1-12, would easily lend itself to this idea, which appears in Hebrews 11:10, 16; Hebrews 12:22-24; 13:14; Galatians 4:26, and possibly in Revelation 21:1-27.

Citron

Citron - sit'-run.

See APPLE.

City

City - sit'-i (`ir, qiryah; polis):

I. THE CANAANITE CITY

1. Origin

2. Extent

3. Villages

4. Sites

5. External Appearance

6. General

II. THE CITY OF THE JEWISH OCCUPATION

1. Tower or Stronghold

2. High Place

3. Broad Place

4. Streets

5. General Characteristics

III. STORE CITIES

IV. LEVITICAL CITIES

LITERATURE

I. The Canaanite City. 1. Origin: The development of the Canaanite city has been traced by Macalister in his report on the excavation at Gezer (Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1904, 108 ff). It originated on the slopes of a bare rocky spur, in which the Neolithic Troglodytes quarried their habitations out of the solid rock, the stones therefrom being used to form a casing to the earthen ramparts, with which the site was afterwards surrounded and which served as a protection against the intrusion of enemies. Later Semitic intruders occupied the site, stone houses were built, and high stone defense walls were substituted for the earthen stone-cased ramparts. These later walls were much higher and stronger than those of the Neilithic occupation and were the walls seen by the Israelites when they viewed the country of their promise.

2. Extent: "The people that dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified, and very great" (Numbers 13:28) was the report of the spies sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan, to see "what cities they are that they dwell in, whether in camps, or in strongholds" (Numbers 13:19-20). The difficulties of the task set before the advancing Israelites and their appreciation of the strength of the cities, is here recorded, and also in Deuteronomy 1:28: "The people are greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there." This assessment of greatness was based upon comparative ignorance of such fortifications and the want of war experience and the necessary implements of assault. It need not, therefore, be supposed that the cities were "great" except by comparison in the eyes of a tent-dwelling and pastoral people. On the contrary, most recent exploration has proved that they were small (see Pere Vincent, Canaan, 27, note 3, and Pl. I, where comparative measurements of the areas of ancient cities show that, in nine cities compared, Tell Sandahannah (barely 6 acres) is the smallest). Gezer measures approximately 22 1/4 acres and Tell el-Hesy somewhat greater. By way of illustration, it is interesting to note that the Acropolis at Athens, roughly computed, measures 7:1/4 acres, while the Castle Rock at Edinburgh is about 6 acres, or the same as the whole Seleucidan city of Tell Sandahannah. The Acropolis at Tell Zakariya measures about 2 acres or nearly one-fourth of the area of the whole city (about 8 1/2 acres). It is unlikely that Jebus (Jerusalem) itself was an exception, although in Solomonic and later times it extended to a far greater area.

3. Villages: Besides the walled cities there were "unwalled (country) towns a great many" (Deuteronomy 3:5), "villages," unfortified suburbs, lying near to and under the protection of the walled cities and occupied by the surplus population. The almost incredible number of cities and their villages mentioned in the Old Testament, while proving the clannishness of their occupants, proves, at the same time, their comparatively small scale.

4. Sites: Traces of similar populations that rise and fall are seen in China and Japan today. As a little poem says of Karakura:

"Where were palaces and merchants and the blades of warriors,

Now are only the cicadas and waving blades of grass."

"Cities that stood on their mounds" (Joshua 11:13; Jeremiah 30:18) as at Lachish and Taanach are distinguished from those built on natural hills or spurs of hills, such as Jebus, Gezer, Tell es Sail (Gath?), Bethshemesh (see Vincent, Canaan, 26 ff). The Arabic name "Tell" is applied to all mounds of ancient cities, whether situated on a natural eminence or on a plain, and the word is common in the geographical nomenclature of Palestine Sites were chosen near a water supply, which was ever the most essential qualification. For purposes of defense, the nearest knoll or spur was selected. Sometimes these knolls were of no great height and their subsequent elevation is accounted for by the gradual accumulation of debris from town refuse and from frequent demolitions; restoration being effected after a levelng up of the ruins of the razed city (see Fig. 2: Tell el-Hesy, Palestine Exploration Fund, which shows a section of the Tell from which the levels of the successive cities in distinct stratification were recovered). Closely packed houses, in narrow alleys, with low, rude mud, brick, or stone and mud walls, with timber and mud roofs, burned readily and were easily razed to the ground (Joshua 8:1 ff; Joshua 11:11).

It would seem that, viewed from the outside, these cities had the appearance of isolated forts, the surrounding walls being strengthened at frequent intervals, with towers. The gates were approached by narrow roads, which mounted the slopes of the mound at the meeting-point of the meandering paths on the plain below.

5. External Appearance: The walls of Tell ej-Judeideh were strengthened by towers in the inside, and presented an unbroken circuit of wall to the outside view (see Fig. 4, PEF). Houses on the wall (Joshua 2:15; 2 Corinthians 11:33) may have been seen from the outside; but it is unlikely that any building within the walls was visible, except possibly the inner tower or stronghold. The whole of the interior of the early Jerusalem (Jebus) was visible from the hills to the East, but this peculiarity of position is uncommon. Strong and high walls, garrisoned by men-at-arms seen only through the battlements, showed no weakness, and the gates, with their narrow and steep approaches and projecting defense towers, looked uninviting traps. The mystery of these unseen interiors could therefore be easily conjured into an exaggeration of strength.

6. General: The inhabitants of the villages (banoth, "daughters," Numbers 32:42 margin) held feudal occupation and gave service to their lord of the city ('em, "mother," 2 Samuel 20:19), in defense of their own or in attacks on their neighbor's property. Such were the cities of the truculent, marauding kings of Canaan, whose broken territories lent themselves to the upkeep of a condition, of the weakness of which, the Israelites, in their solid advance, took ready advantage.

II. The City of the Jewish Occupation. After the conquest, and the abandonment of the pastoral life for that of agriculture and general trade, the condition of the cities varied but little, except that they were, from time to time, enlarged and strengthened. Solomon's work at Jerusalem was a step forward, but there is little evidence that, in the other cities which he is credited with having put his hands to, there was any embellishment. Megiddo and Gezer at least show nothing worthy of the name. Greek influence brought with it the first real improvements in city building; and the later work of Herod raised cities to a grandeur which was previously undreamed of among the Jews. Within the walls, the main points considered in the "layout" were, the Tower or Stronghold, the High Place, the Broad Place by the Gate, and the Market-Place.

1. Tower or Stronghold: The Tower or Stronghold was an inner fort which held a garrison and commander, and was provisioned with "victuals, and oil and wine" (2 Chronicles 11:11), to which the defenders of the city when hard pressed betook themselves, as a last resource. The men of the tower of Shechem held out against Abimelech (Judges 9:49) who was afterward killed by a stone thrown by a woman from the Tower of Thebez "within the city" (Judges 9:51, 53). David took the stronghold of Zion, "the same is the city of David" (2 Samuel 5:7), which name (Zion) was afterward applied to the whole city. It is not unlikely that the king's house was included in the stronghold. Macalister (Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1907, 192 ff) reports the discovery of a Canaanite castle with enormously thick walls abutting against the inside of the city wall. The strongholds at Taanach and Tell el-Hesy are similarly placed; and the Acropolis at Tell Zakariya lies close to, but independent of, the city wall.

2. High Place: The High Place was an important feature in all Canaanite cities and retained its importance long after the conquest (1 Samuel 9:12 ff; 1 Kings 3:2; Amos 7:9). It was a sanctuary, where sacrifices were offered and feasts were held, and men did "eat before Yahweh" (Deuteronomy 14:26). The priests, as was their custom, received their portion of the flesh (1 Samuel 2:12 ff). The High Place discovered at Gezer (Bible Sidelights, chapter iii) is at a lower level than the city surrounding it, and lies North and South. It is about 100 ft. in length, and when complete consisted of a row of ten rude undressed standing stones, of which eight are still remaining, the largest being 10 ft. 6 inches high, and the others varying to much smaller sizes.

See HIGH PLACE.

3. Broad Place: The Broad Place (Nehemiah 8:1, 3, 16; Jeremiah 5:1) seems to have been, usually, immediately inside the city gate. It was not, in early Jewish cities, an extensive open area, but simply a widening of the street, and was designated "broad" by comparison with the neighboring alleys, dignified by the name of street. It took the place of a general exchange. Justice was dispensed (Ruth 4:2) and punishment was administered. Jeremiah was put in "the stocks that were in the upper gate of Benjamin" (Jeremiah 20:2), proclamations were read, business was transacted, and the news and gossip of the day were exchanged. It was a place for all classes to congregate (Job 29:7 m; Proverbs 31:23), and was also a market-place (2 Kings 7:1). In later times, the market-place became more typically a market square of the Greek agora plan, with an open area surrounded by covered shelters. The present market-place at Haifa resembles this. Probably it was this type of market-place referred to in Matthew 11:16; 20:3 and Luke 7:32; 11:43. The street inside the Damascus gate of Jerusalem today is, in many ways, similar to the Broad Place, and retains many of its ancient uses. Here, Bedouin and Fellahin meet from the outlying districts to barter, to arbitrate, to find debtors and to learn the news of the day. Lying as it did immediately inside the gate, the Broad Place had a defensive value, in that it admitted of concentration against the forcing of the gate. There does not seem to have been any plan of either a Canaanite or early Jewish city, in which this question of defense did not predominate. Open areas within the city were "waste places" (Isaiah 58:12) and were not an integral part of the plan.

4. Streets: The streets serving these quarters were not laid out on any fixed plan. They were, in fact, narrow, unpaved alleys, all seeming of equal importance, gathering themselves crookedly to the various centers. Having fixed the positions of the City Gates, the Stronghold and the High Place, the inhabitants appear to have been allowed to situate themselves the best way they could, without restriction of line or frontage. Houses were of modest proportions and were poorly built; planned, most often, in utter disregard of the square, and presenting to the street more or less dead walls, which were either topped by parapets or covered with projecting wood and mud roofs (see ARCHITECTURE, fig. 1; HOUSE).

The streets, as in the present day in Palestine,were allocated to separate trades: "bakers' street" (Jeremiah 37:21), place "of the merchants" (Nehemiah 3:31-32 the King James Version), "goldsmiths," etc. The Valley of the Cheesemakers was a street in the Tyropceon Valley at Jerusalem.

For a discussion of the subject of "cisterns" , see the separate article under the word

5. General Characteristics: The people pursued the industries consequent upon their own self-establishment. Agriculture claimed first place, and was their most highly esteemed occupation. The king's lands were farmed by his subjects for his own benefit, and considerable tracts of lands belonged to the aristocracy. The most of the lands, however, belonged to the cities and villages, and were allotted among the free husbandmen. Various cereals were raised, wheat and barley being most commonly cultivated. The soil was tilled and the crops reaped and threshed in much the same manner and with much the same implements as are now used in Syria. Cities lying in main trade routes developed various industries more quickly than those whose positions were out of touch with foreign traffic. Crafts and trades, unknown to the early Jews, were at first monopolized by foreigners who, as a matter of course, were elbowed out as time progressed. Cities on the seaboard of Phoenicia depended chiefly on maritime trade. Money, in the form of ingots and bars of precious metals, "weighed out" (2 Kings 12:11), was current in preexilic times, and continued in use after foreign coinage had been introduced. The first native coinage dates from the Maccabean period (see Madden, Jewish Coinage, chapter iv). Slavery was freely trafficked in, and a certain number of slaves were attached to the households of the more wealthy. Although they were the absolute property of their masters, they enjoyed certain religious privileges not extended to the "sojourners" or "strangers" who sought the protection of the cities, often in considerable numbers.

The king's private property, from which he drew full revenue, lay partly within the city, but to a greater extent beyond it (1 Samuel 8:15-16). In addition to his private property, he received tithes of fields and flocks, "the tenth part of your seed." He also drew a tax in the shape of certain "king's mowings" (Amos 7:1). Vassal kings, paid tribute; Mesha, king of Moab, rendered wool unto the king of Israel" (2 Kings 3:4).

See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, I, chapters v-x, for detailed account of the conditions of Jewish city life. For details of government, see ELDER; JUDGES; SANHEDRIN.

III. Store Cities. These were selected by Solomon and set aside for stores of victuals, chariots, horsemen, etc. (1 Kings 9:19). Jehoshaphat "built in Judah castles and cities of store" (2 Chronicles 17:12). Twelve officers were appointed by Solomon to provision his household, each officer being responsible for the supply in one month in the year (1 Kings 4:7). There were also "storehouses in the fields, in the cities, and in the villages" (1 Chronicles 27:25 the King James Version).

IV. Levitical Cities. These were apportioned 13 to the children of Aaron, 10 to Kohath, 13 to Gershon, 12 to Merari, 48 cities in all (Joshua 21:13 ff), 6 of which were cities of Refuge (Numbers 35:6); see REFUGE, CITIES OF. For further details see ARCHITECTURE; HOUSE.

LITERATURE.

PEFS; Bliss and Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem; Macalister, Excavation at Gezer; Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine; Sellin, Excavation at Taanach; Schumacher, Excavation at Tell Mutesellim; Macalister, Bible Sidelights; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem; Historical Geography of the Holy Land; Bliss, Mounds of Many Cities; Vincent, Canaan.

Arch. C. Dickie

City of Confusion

City of Confusion - kon-fu'-zhun (qiryath-tohu): A name applied to Jerusalem (Isaiah 24:10 the King James Version).

City of David

City of David - See ZION.

City of Destruction

City of Destruction - de-struk'-shun `ir ha-herec; Septuagint Base-dek): In his prediction of the future return of Egypt to Yahweh, Isaiah declares, "In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Yahweh of hosts; one shall be called The city of destruction" (Isaiah 19:18). The name `ir ha-herec, "the city of overthrow," is evidently a play upon `ir ha-cherec, "city of the sun," a designation of Heliopolis (same meaning; compare the name for this city, Beth-shemesh, Jeremiah 43:13), in Egyptian, On (Genesis 41:45), which last name Ezekiel, by a similar play on sound, changes into Aven. See ON . Some codices, however, as the Revised Version, margin notes, read here `ir ha-cherec, the actual name of the city.

James Orr

City of Palm Trees

City of Palm Trees - pam'-trez (`ir ha-temarim).

See JERICHO (Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 3:13; 2 Chronicles 28:15).

City of Salt

City of Salt - See SALT, CITY OF.

City of Waters

City of Waters - See RABBAH.

City, Golden

City, Golden - See GOLDEN CITY.

City, Royal

City, Royal - See RABBAH.

City, Rulers of

City, Rulers of - rool'-erz: The English Versions of the Bible rendering of the politarchai, of Thessalonica, before whom Jason and the other Christians were dragged by the mob (Acts 17:6, 8). The term distinguishes the magistrates of a free Greek city from the ordinary Roman officials. It primarily denotes "rulers of the citizens," and hence, was used only of magistrates of free cities. The term seems to have been confined largely to Macedonia, although there have been found a few inscriptions elsewhere in which it is used. The use of this term well illustrates the accuracy of the author of the Book of Acts, for while politarchai is not used by classical authors, this form is attested by a number of Macedonian inscriptions. Much work has been done in this field in recent years and the results throw light on the reference in Acts. Of the inscriptions that have been found at least five belong to Thessalonica (see article by Professor Burton, in the American Journal of Theology of 1898, "The Politarchs").

"The rulers" of Philippi, before whom Paul and Silas were brought is the English Versions of the Bible rendering of archonies, which is commonly used in the New Testament (Acts 16:19). This is the ordinary term for "rulers" and is not the same as "rulers of the city."

A. W. Fortune

Clap

Clap - An emphatic expression of joy, "They clapped their hands (nakhah), and said, Long live (the King James Version "God save") the king" (2 Kings 11:12); "Oh clap your hands (taqa`), all ye peoples" (Psalms 47:1); or exultation (caphaq, Lamentations 2:15; macha', Ezekiel 25:6; taqa`, Nahum 3:19); or repudiation (caphaq, Job 27:23; 34:37).

Figurative: To denote Nature's "sympathy" with God's people. "Let the floods clap (macha') their hands" (Psalms 98:8); "All the trees of the field shall clap their hands" (Isaiah 55:12; compare Judges 5:20).

Clasps

Clasps - klasps (qerec): The word occurs nine times in Exodus 26:1-37; Exodus 36:1-38; and Exodus 39:1-43, which record the specifications for the erection of the tabernacle and their subsequent carrying out. In each of these passages the King James Version renders "taches"--an early English word of French origin now embodied in our "attachment." 50 clasps or taches of gold were ordered to be used in connecting together the two sets of inner tapestry curtains (10 in number) of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:6), and 50 clasps of brass (bronze) were similarly to be used in joining the two sets of goats' hair curtains (11 in number) which formed the outer covering (Exodus 26:11). See TABERNACLE. As to the nature of the clasp itself, it seems to have belonged to a double set of loops, opposite to each other, to one of which in each set, required to be of blue cord, a gold or brass button or pin was attached, which, being inserted into the loop opposite, kept the curtain in position (Exodus 26:4-6).

A difficulty arises from the direction in Exodus 26:33 that the veil which divided the "dwelling" into two parts--the holy place and the most holy--was to be suspended "under the clasps." If the clasps are supposed to be midway in the total length of the tabernacle, this would make the two holy places to be of equal size, contrary to the usual assumption that the outer was twice the length of the inner. The term "under" must therefore be used with some latitude, or the ordinary conception of the arrangement of the curtains, or of the size of the holy places will have to be revised (the dimensions are not actually given in the description).

W. Shaw Caldecott

Clauda

Clauda - klo'-da.

See CAUDA.

Claudia

Claudia - klo'-di-a (Klaudia): A member of the Christian congregation at Rome, who, with other members of that church, sends her greetings, through Paul, to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:21). More than this concerning her cannot be said with certainty. The Apostolical Constitutions (VII, 21) name her as the mother of Linus, mentioned subsequently by Irenaeus and Eusebius as bishop of Rome. An ingenious theory has been proposed, upon the basis of the mention of Claudia and Pudens as husband and wife in an epigram of Martial, that they are identical with the persons of the same name here mentioned. A passage in the Agricola of Tacitus and an inscription found in Chichester, England, have been used in favor of the further statement that this Claudia was a daughter of a British king, Cogidubnus. See argument by Alford in the Prolegomena to 2 Tim in his Greek Testament. It is an example of how a very few data may be used to construct a plausible theory. If it be true, the contrast between their two friends, the apostle Paul, on the one hand, and the licentious poet, Martial, on the other, is certainly unusual. If in 2 Timothy 4:21, Pudens and Claudia be husband and wife, it is difficult to explain how Linus occurs between them. See argument against this in Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers.

H. E. Jacobs

Claudius

Claudius - klo'-di-us (Klaudios): Fourth Roman emperor. He reigned for over 13 years (41-54 AD), having succeeded Caius (Caligula) who had seriously altered the conciliatory policy of his predecessors regarding the Jews and, considering himself a real and corporeal god, had deeply offended the Jews by ordering a statue of himself to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem, as Antiochus Epiphanes had done with the statue of Zeus in the days of the Maccabees (2 Maccabees 6:2). Claudius reverted to the policy of Augustus and Tiberius and marked the opening year of his reign by issuing edicts in favor of the Jews (Ant., XIX, 5), who were permitted in all parts of the empire to observe their laws and customs in a free and peaceable manner, special consideration being given to the Jews of Alexandria who were to enjoy without molestation all their ancient rights and privileges. The Jews of Rome, however, who had become very numerous, were not allowed to hold assemblages there (Dio LX, vi, 6), an enactment in full correspondence with the general policy of Augustus regarding Judaism in the West. The edicts mentioned were largely due to the intimacy of Claudius with Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, who had been living in Rome and had been in some measure instrumental in securing the succession for Claudius. As a reward for this service, the Holy Land had a king once more. Judea was added to the tetrarchies of Philip and Antipas; and Herod Agrippa I was made ruler over the wide territory which had been governed by his grandfather. The Jews' own troubles during the reign of Caligula had given "rest" (the American Standard Revised Version "peace") to the churches "throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria" (Acts 9:31). But after the settlement of these troubles, "Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church" (Acts 12:1). He slew one apostle and "when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize" another (Acts 12:3). His miserable death is recorded in Acts 12:20-23, and in Ant, XIX, Acts 8:1-40. This event which took place in the year 44 AD is held to have been coincident with one of the visits of Paul to Jerusalem. It has proved one of the chronological pivots of the apostolic history.

Whatever concessions to the Jews Claudius may have been induced out of friendship for Herod Agrippa to make at the beginning of his reign, Suetonius records (Claud. chapter 25) "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit," an event assigned by some to the year 50 AD, though others suppose it to have taken place somewhat later. Among the Jews thus banished from Rome were Aquila and Priscilla with whom Paul became associated at Corinth (Acts 18:2). With the reign of Claudius is also associated the famine which was foretold by Agabus (Acts 11:28). Classical writers also report that the reign of Claudius was, from bad harvest or other causes, a period of general distress and scarcity over the whole world (Dio LX, 11; Suet. Claud. xviii; Tac. Ann. xi. 4; xiii.43; see Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, chapter ix; and Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul, I).

J. Hutchison

Claudius Lysias

Claudius Lysias - klo'-di-us lis'-i-as Klaudios Lysias): A chief captain who intervened when the Jews sought to do violence to Paul at Jerusalem (Acts 21:31; 24:22). Lysias, who was probably a Greek by birth (compare Acts 21:37), and who had probably assumed the Roman forename Claudius (Acts 23:26) when he purchased the citizenship (Acts 22:28), was a military tribune or chiliarch (i.e. leader of 1,000 men) in command of the garrison stationed in the castle overlooking the temple at Jerusalem. Upon learning of the riot instigated by the Asiatic Jews, he hastened down with his soldiers, and succeeded in rescuing Paul from the hands of the mob. As Paul was the apparent malefactor, Lysias bound him with two chains, and demanded to know who he was, and what was the cause of the disturbance. Failing amid the general tumult to get any satisfactory reply, he conducted Paul to the castle, and there questioned him as to whether he was the "Egyptian," an postor that had lately been defeated by Felix (Josephus, BJ, II, xiii, 5; Ant, XX, viii, 6). Upon receiving the answer of Paul that he was a "Jew of Tarsus," he gave him permission to address the people from the stairs which connected the castle and the temple. As the speech of Paul had no pacifying effect, Lysias purposed examining him by scourging; but on learning that his prisoner was a Roman citizen, he desisted from the attempt and released him from his bonds. The meeting of the Sanhedrin which Lysias then summoned also ended in an uproar, and having rescued Paul with difficulty he conducted him back to the castle. The news of the plot against the life of one whom he now knew to be a Roman citizen decided for Lysias that he could not hope to cope alone with so grave a situation. He therefore dispatched Paul under the protection of a bodyguard to Felix at Caesarea, along with a letter explaining the circumstances (Acts 23:26-30. The genuineness of this letter has been questioned by some, but without sufficient reason.) In this letter he took care to safeguard his own conduct, and to shield his hastiness in binding Paul. There is evidence (compare Acts 24:22) that Lysias was also summoned to Caesarea at a later date to give his testimony, but no mention is made of his arrival there. It is probable, however, that he was among the chief captains who attended the trial of Paul before King Agrippa and Festus (compare Acts 25:22). For the reference to him in the speech of Tertullus (see Acts 24:7 the Revised Version, margin), see TERTULLUS.

C. M. Kerr

Claw

Claw - klo (parcah, literally, "hoof"): One of the marks of a "clean" animal is stated thus: "Every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, ye shall eat" (Deuteronomy 14:6 the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) "hath the hoof cloven in two"). See CHEW; CUD. the King James Version uses the word "claws" where the Revised Version (British and American) supplies "hoofs" in Zechariah 11:16, "and will tear their hoofs in pieces," as the sheep are being overdriven. In the only other passage containing the word (Daniel 4:33) there is no Hebrew equivalent in the original--"his nails like birds' (claws)."

Clay

Clay - kla (chomer, chacaph, TiT, meleT, `abhi, ma`abheh, abhTiT; pelos, "wet clay," "mud"): True clay, which is a highly aluminous soil, is found in certain localities in Palestine,and is used in making pottery. The Hebrew and Greek words, as well as the English "clay," are, however, used loosely for any sticky mud. In making mud bricks, true clay is not always used, but ordinary soil is worked up with water and mixed with straw, molded and left to dry in the sun. Chomer (compare chmar, "slime" or "bitumen") is rendered both "clay" and "mortar." TiT is rendered "clay" or "mire." In Isaiah 41:25 we have: "He shall come upon rulers as upon mortar (chomer), and as the potter treadeth clay" (TiT). In Nahum 3:14, "Go into the clay (TiT), and tread the mortar (chomer); make strong the brickkiln" (i.e. make the walls ready to withstand a siege). Chacaph is the clay of the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:33 ff). MeleT occurs only in Jeremiah 43:9, where we find: the King James Version, "Take great stones .... and hide them in the clay in the brickkiln"; the Revised Version (British and American), "hide them in mortar in the brickwork"; the Revised Version, margin, "lay them with mortar in the pavement." In Habakkuk 2:6, `abhTiT (found only here) is rendered in the King James Version "thick clay," as if from `abhi and TiT, but the Revised Version (British and American) has "pledges," referring the word to the root `abhaT, "to give a pledge." In 1 Kings 7:46, ma`abheh ha-'adhamah (compare 2 Chronicles 4:17, `abhi ha-'adhamah) is the compact or clayey soil in the plain of Jordan between Succoth and Zarethan, in which Hiram cast the vessels of brass for Solomon's temple. In John 9:6, 11, 14, Thayer gives "made mud of the spittle"; in Romans 9:21, "wet clay."

Alfred Ely Day

Clean

Clean - klen (Anglo-Saxon cloene, "clear," "pure"): Rendering four Hebrew roots: bar, etc., "purify," "select," "make shining"; zakh, etc., "bright," "clean" "pure"; naqi, "free from," "exempt"; Taher, "clean," "pure," "empty," "bright" (?) the principal root, rendered "clean" 80 times (the King James Version); occurring in all its forms in various renderings about 200 times; also one Greek root, katharos, etc., akin to castus, "chaste," "free from admixture or adhesion of anything that soils, adulterates, corrupts" (Thayer's Lexicon). The physical, ritual, ethical, spiritual, figurative uses continually overlap, especially the last four.

1. Physical: The physical use is infrequent: "Wash .... with snow water, and make my hands never so clean" (zakhakh, Job 9:30; figurative also); "clean provender" (hamits, the Revised Version (British and American) "savory"; the Revised Version, margin "salted"); "Cleanse .... inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also" (katharos, Matthew 23:26); "arrayed in fine linen, clean (katharon) and white" (Revelation 19:8; the American Standard Revised Version "bright and pure").

2. Ceremonial: The principal use was the ceremonial; applied to persons, places or things, "undefiled," "not causing defilement," or "from which defilement has just been removed"; Taher, almost exclusively ceremonial, being the chief Hebrew root. Katharos (New Testament), or derivatives, has this use clearly in Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14: "Offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses," etc.; Hebrews 9:13, 12, 23: "the cleanness of the flesh," etc. "Clean" is applied to animals and birds: "of every clean beast" (Genesis 7:2); "of all clean birds" (Deuteronomy 14:11); (for list of unclean creatures see Leviticus 14:1-57-Leviticus 20:1-27); to places: "Carry forth .... unto a clean place" (Leviticus 4:12); to buildings: "Make atonement for the house; and it shall be clean" (Leviticus 14:53); to persons: "A clean person shall take hyssop" (Numbers 19:18); to clothing: "garment .... washed the second time, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 13:58); and to objects of all sorts, free or freed from defilement.

3. Ethical or Spiritual: The ethical or spiritual meaning, either directly or figuratively, is found in the Old Testament chiefly in Job, Psalms, the Prophets, whose interest is ethico-religious, rather than ritual, but the predominant uses are found in the New Testament: "Cleanse yourselves (barar) ye that bear the vessels of Yahweh" (Isaiah 52:11); "How can he be clean (zakhah) that is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4) (principally moral, perhaps with allusion to the ceremonial defilement of childbirth); "The fear of Yahweh is clean" (Psalms 19:9), that is, the religion of Yahweh is morally undefiled, in contrast to heathen religions; "He that hath clean (naqi) hands, and a pure heart" (Psalms 24:4); "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean" (Taher, Psalms 51:7); "Therefore said he, Ye are not all clean" (katharos, John 13:11). Here, as in Psalms 51:7 and many others, the ritual furnishes a figure for the spiritual, illustrating the Divine purpose in the ritual, to impress, prefigure and prepare for the spiritual. A somewhat similar figurative moral use is found in Acts 18:6: "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean" (katharos, "guiltless," "unstained").

See also UNCLEANNESS; PURIFICATION;DEFILEMENT .

Clean.--Adverb (in one case adjective): "utterly," "wholly"; usually rendering an intensive use of the Hebrew verb as Joel 1:7: "He hath made it clean bare" (lit. "stripping he will strip"); Zechariah 11:17: "Arm .... clean dried up"; Isaiah 24:19 the King James Version :"Earth is clean dissolved." Twice it renders a principal verb: Joshua 3:17: "Passed clean over the Jordan" (literally, "finished with regard to J."); Leviticus 23:22 King James Version: "Shall not make a clean riddance" (literally, "shall not finish the corners"; the American Standard Revised Version "shalt not wholly reap"). Once it renders a noun: Psalms 77:8: "Is his lovingkindness clean gone for ever?" ("end," he-'aphec, "has his lovingkindness come to an end?"); and once an adverb "clean (ontos, "actually," "really") escaped" (2 Peter 2:18); but the American Standard Revised Version, following the reading "oligos," "a little," "scarcely," renders "just escaping."

Philip Wendell Crannell

Cleanse

Cleanse - klenz: "Make clean," "purify" being a frequent rendering of the original. It is found often (American Revised Version) instead of "purge," "purify" (the King James Version), renders nearly the same roots, and has the same overlapping phases, as "clean."

1. Physical: Physical cleansing, often figuratively used: "Stripes that wound cleanse away (tamriq) evil" (Proverbs 20:30); "A hot wind .... not to winnow, nor to cleanse" (barar, Jeremiah 4:11); "Straightway his leprosy was cleansed" (katharizo, Matthew 8:3).

2. Ceremonial: In the ceremonial sense: (1) With a very strong religious aspect: to purify from sin by making atonement (chaTe); e.g. the altar, by the sin offering (Exodus 29:36); the leprous house (Leviticus 14:48-53); the people, by the offering of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:30); the sanctuary, by the blood of the sin offering (Ezekiel 45:18 ff). (2) To expiate (kaphar, "cover," "hide"); sin (in this case blood-guiltiness): "The land cannot be cleansed of the blood" (the King James Version Numbers 35:33; the American Standard Revised Version "no expiation can be made for the land"). (3) To remove ceremonial defilement, the principal use, for which the chief root is Taher: "Take the Levites .... and cleanse them" (Numbers 8:6); "and she shall be cleansed (after childbirth) from the fountain of her blood" (Leviticus 12:7); "Cleanse it, and hallow it (the altar) from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel" (Leviticus 16:19), etc. This use is infrequent in the New Testament, except figuratively. Clear instances are Mark 1:44: "Offer for thy cleansing (katharismos) .... for a testimony unto them" (also Luke 5:14); Hebrews 9:22-23: "necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these." Physical, ritual, and figurative uses are combined in Matthew 23:25: "Ye cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter." Acts 10:15: "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common" uses the figure of the ritual to declare the complete abolition of ceremonial defilement and hence, of ceremonial cleansing. For the elaborate system of ceremonial cleansing see especially Leviticus 12:1-8 through Leviticus 17:1-16, also articles UNCLEANNESS; PURIFICATION. Its principal agencies were water, alone, as in minor or indirect defilements, like those produced by contact with the unclean (Leviticus 15:5-18, etc.); or combined with a sin offering and burnt offering, as with a woman after childbirth (Leviticus 12:6-8); fire, as with Gentile booty (Numbers 31:23; by water, when it would not endure the fire); the ashes of a red heifer without spot, mingled with running water, for those defiled by contact with the dead (Numbers 19:2 ff). For the complex ceremonial in cases of leprosy, combining water, cedar, hyssop, crimson thread, the blood and flight of birds, the trespass offering, sin offering, burnt offering, see Leviticus 14:1-57. Blood, the vehicle and emblem of life, plays a large part in the major cleansings, in which propitiation for sin, as well as the removal of ceremonial defilement, is prominent, as of the temple, altar, etc.: "According to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood" (Hebrews 9:22).

3. Ethical and Spiritual: In the ethical and spiritual sense, using the symbolism chiefly of 2. This embodies two phases: (1) the actual removal of sin by the person's own activity, "Wherewith shall a young man cleanse (zakhah) his way?" (Psalms 119:9); "Cleanse your hands, ye sinners" (James 4:8); "Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement" (2 Corinthians 7:1); (2) God's removal of the guilt and power of sin, as, by discipline or punishment: "He cleanseth it" (John 15:2, the King James Version "purgeth"); "I have cleansed thee" (Ezekiel 24:13); or in forgiveness, justification, sanctification. In these latter cases the exculpatory idea is sometimes the prominent, although the other is not absent: "I will cleanse (Taher) them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon aH their iniquities" (Jeremiah 33:8); "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse (Taher, "declare me clean") me from my sin" (Psalms 51:2). "Cleanse (naqqeh; the American Standard Revised Version "clear") thou me from hidden faults" (Psalms 19:12), while formally to be understood "hold innocent," really connotes forgiveness. In Ephesians 5:26, it is hard to determine whether pardon or God-given holiness is predominant: "That he might sanctify it (the church), having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word." In 1 John 1:7, the sanctificatory meaning seems almost wholly to absorb the other: "The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us ("is purifying, sanctifying") from all sin"; but in 1:9 it is again hard to determine the predominance: "He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sin, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The uncertainty lies in that the second clause may not, as in our speech, add a distinct idea, but may be Hebrew synonymous parallelism. Perhaps it is not wise to seek too curiously to disentangle the two ideas, since they cannot be separated. God never "clears" where he has not begun to "cleanse," and never "cleanses" by the Spirit without "clearing" through the blood.

Philip Wendell Crannell

Clear; Clearness

Clear; Clearness - kler, kler'-nes (bar; diablepo): Equivalent of several Hebrew and Greek words for bright, unclouded, shining without obstruction, distinct, brilliant; "clearer than the noon-day" (Job 11:17): "clear as the sun" (Song of Solomon 6:10); "clear shining after rain" (2 Samuel 23:4); "clear heat in sunshine" (Isaiah 18:4); "clear as crystal" (Revelation 21:11). Adverb, "clearly," for distinctly (Matthew 7:5; Mark 8:25; Romans 1:20). Noun, "clearness," for brilliancy, in Exodus 24:10, "as the very heaven for clearness."

From this physical, it is applied, in a moral sense, to character, as spotless and free from guilt, or charge, or obligation "from oath" (Genesis 24:8); "from transgression" (Psalms 19:13). Hence, the verb "to clear" means juridically to declare or prove innocent, to vindicate (Genesis 44:16; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; compare hagnos, 2 Corinthians 7:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "pure") "Be clear when thou judgest" (Psalms 51:4) refers to the proof and vindication of the righteousness of God.

H. E. Jacobs

Cleave

Cleave - klev: Is used in the Bible in two different senses:

(1) baqa` "to split," or "to rend." We are told that Abraham "clave the wood for the burnt-offering" (Genesis 22:3), and that "they clave the wood of the cart" (1 Samuel 6:14). The Psalmist speaks of Yahweh cleaving fountain and flood (Psalms 74:15), and the plowman cleaving the earth (Psalms 141:7). For other examples see Judges 15:19; Ecclesiastes 10:9; Psalms 78:15; Habakkuk 3:9.

(2) dabhaq; kollao, "to adhere to," or "to join one's self to." This meaning is the reverse of the preceding. The Psalmist speaks of his tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth (Psalms 137:6). We are told that a man should cleave unto his wife (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). It is said that Ruth clave unto her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:14), and that certain men clave unto Paul (Acts 17:34; compare Acts 4:23; 11:23 margin).

"Cleave" is also used in this sense to describe one's adherence to principles. Paul admonished the Romans to cleave to that which is good (Romans 12:9).

A. W. Fortune

Cleft; Cliff; Clift

Cleft; Cliff; Clift - kleft, klif, klift: The first of these words, from cleave, "to split," is a crevice or narrow opening, as "of the ragged rocks" (Isaiah 2:21); "under the clefts of the rocks" (Isaiah 57:5). "Clift" is an obsolete form of cleft, found in the King James Version Exodus 33:22; Isaiah 57:5, but not in the Revised Version (British and American). "Cliff," an abrupt, precipitous, towering rock, is not in the Revised Version (British and American), but is found in the King James Version 2 Chronicles 20:16, the Revised Version (British and American) "ascent," Job 30:6.

Clemency

Clemency - klem'-en-si (epietkeia, "fairness," "sweet reasonableness," Acts 24:4): The Greek word is rendered elsewhere "gentleness," 2 Corinthians 10:1; Titus 3:2, "meekhess"; James 3:17; 1 Peter 2:18.

Clement

Clement - klem'-ent (Klemes, "mild"): A fellow-worker with Paul at Philippi, mentioned with especial commendation in Philippians 4:3. The name being common, no inference can be drawn from this statement as to any identity with the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians published under this name, who was also the third bishop of Rome. The truth of this supposition ("it cannot be called a tradition," Donaldson, The Apostolical Fathers, 120), although found in Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome, can neither be proved nor disproved. Even Roman Catholic authorities dispute it (article "Clement," Catholic Cyclopaedia, IV, 13). The remoteness between the two in time and place is against it; "a wholly uncritical view" (Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity, 31).

H. E. Jacobs

Cleopas

Cleopas - kle'-o-pas (Kleopas, "renowned father"): One of the two disciples whom Jesus met on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:18). The name is a contraction of Cleopatros, not identical with Clopas of John 19:25.

Cleopatra

Cleopatra - kle-o-pa'-tra (Kleopatra, "from a famous father"): A daughter of Ptolemy VI (Philometor) and of Queen Cleopatra, who was married first to Alexander Balas 150 BC (1 Maccabees 10:58; Josephus, Ant, XIII, iv, 1) and was afterward taken from him by her father and given to Demetrius Nicator on the invasion of Syria by the latter (1 Maccabees 11:12; Josephus, Ant, XIII, iv, 7). Alexander was killed in battle against the joint forces of Ptolemy and Demetrius while Demetrius was in captivity in Parthia. Cleopatra married his brother Antiochus VII (Sidetes), who in the absence of Demetrius had gained possession of the Syrian throne (137 BC). She was probably privy (Appian, Syriac., 68) to the murder of Demetrius on his return to Syria 125 BC, but Josephus (Ant., XIII, ix, 3) gives a different account of his death. She afterward murdered Seleucus, her eldest son by Nicator, who on his father's death had taken possession of the government without her consent. She attempted unsuccessfully to poison her second son by Nicator, Antiochus VIII (Grypus), for whom she had secured the succession, because he was unwilling to concede to her what she considered her due Share of power. She was herself poisoned (120 BC) by the draught which she had prepared for their son (Justin 39). She had also a son by Antiochus VII (Sidetes Antiochus Cyzicenus), who took his name from the place in which he was educated. He was killed in battle 95 BC. The name Cleopatra was borne by many Egyptian princesses, the first of whom was daughter of Antiochus III and was married to Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) 193 BC.

J. Hutchison

Cleophas

Cleophas - kle'-o-fas.

See CLOPAS.

Clerk

Clerk - See TOWN CLERK.

Cliff; Clift

Cliff; Clift - See CLEFT.

Cloak; Cloke

Cloak; Cloke - klok, (me`il, simlah, etc.; himation, stole, etc.): "Cloke" is retained in the English Revised Version, as in the King James Version, instead of modern "cloak" (American Revised Version). In the Old Testament, me'il (compare New Testament himation) uniformly stands for the ordinary upper garment worn over the coat (kethoneth). In Matthew 5:40 both "cloak" and "coat" are mentioned together; compare Luke 6:29. In size and material the "cloak" differed according to age and sex, class and occupation, but in shape it was like our mantle or shawl. It might be sewed up to have the surplice form of the robe of the Ephod (Exodus 39:23), or be worn loose and open like a Roman toga, the Arabic Abaa, or the Geneva gown. This is the "garment" referred to in Genesis 39:12; Exodus 22:26; Deuteronomy 24:13; "the robe" that Jonathan "stripped himself of" and gave to David (1 Samuel 18:4); "the robe" of Saul, "the robe" in which it is said the "old man" (Samuel) was "covered" (1 Samuel 28:14); and in the New Testament "the best robe" put on the returning prodigal (Luke 15:22). Paul's "cloak" that he left at Troas (2 Timothy 4:13; phailones, Latin, paenula, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek phelones), it has been suggested, "may have been a light mantle like a cashmere dust-cloak, in which the books and parchment were wrapped"

(HDB, under the word).

Figuratively: The word lent itself easily and naturally to figurative uses. We find Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:5) disclaiming using "a cloak of covetousness" (compare 1 Peter 2:16) and Jesus (John 15:22) saying, "Now they have no excuse ("cloak") for their sin." Some such usage seems common to all languages; compare English "palliate."

See DRESS.

George B. Eager

Clod

Clod - In Job 7:5 (gish, gush, "a mass of earth"), "clods of dust," the crust of his sores, formed by the dry, swollen skin--a symptom of leprosy, though not peculiar to it. In Job 21:33; 38:38 (reghebh, "a soft clod," "lump of clay"), "The clods of the valley shall be sweet unto him," "The clods cleave fast together." In Joel 1:17 (meghraphah, "a furrow," "something thrown off" (by the spade)), "The seeds rot (m "shrivel") under their clods."

Figurative: "Jacob shall break his clods" (Hosea 10:11), i.e. "must harrow for himself," used figuratively of spiritual discipline (compare Isaiah 28:24 the King James Version).

M. O. Evans

Clopas; Cleophas

Clopas; Cleophas - klo'-pas (Klopas): The former in the Revised Version (British and American), the latter in the King James Version, of John 19:25, for the name of the husband of one of the women who stood by the cross of Christ. Upon the philological ground of a variety in pronunciation of the Hebrew root, sometimes identified with Alpheus, the father of James the Less. Said by tradition to have been the brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary; see BRETHREN OF THE LORD. Distinguished from Cleopas, a Greek word, while Clopas is Aramaic

Close

Close - kloz, klos verb, adjective and adverb, (kacah, caghar; kammuo): Other words are charah, "to burn"; "Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar?" (Jeremiah 22:15 the King James Version), the Revised Version (British and American) "strivest to excel in cedar," margin "viest with the cedar"; atsam, "to harden"; "Yahweh has closed your eyes" (Isaiah 29:10); gadhar, "to hedge" or "wall up" (Amos 9:11); `atsar, "to restrain" (Genesis 20:18). In Luke 4:20, ptusso, "to fold up." the Revised Version (British and American) has "was closed," margin "is opened," for "are open" (Numbers 24:3, 15), "closed" for "narrow" or "covered" (Ezekiel 40:16; 16, 26). To "keep close," sigao (Luke 9:36), the Revised Version (British and American) "held their peace." We have also "kept close" (the Revised Version (British and American) Numbers 5:13; Hebrew cathar, "to hide"); also Job 28:21; "kept himself close," the Revised Version, margin "shut up" (1 Chronicles 12:1); "close places," micgereth (2 Samuel 22:46; Psalms 18:45 = "castles or holds shut in with high walls").

W. L. Walker

Closet

Closet - kloz'-et: Is the rendering in the King James Version of (1) chuppah, and (2) tameion, also tamieion. Chuppah, derived from chaphah, "to cover," was probably originally the name of the tent specially set apart for the bride, and later (Joel 2:16) used for the bride's chamber. The word tameion, originally storeroom (compare Luke 12:24, the King James Version "storehouse"; the Revised Version (British and American) "storechamber"), but since for safety it was the inner rooms of the Hebrew house which were used for storage purposes, the word came to mean inner room, as in Matthew 6:6; Luke 12:3, in both the King James Version "closet" (compare Matthew 24:26, the King James Version "secret chamber"). In all cases the Revised Version (British and American) uses "inner chamber."

Cloth; Clothing

Cloth; Clothing - kloth, kloth'-ing.

See DRESS.

Clothed Upon

Clothed Upon - klothd, (ependuo, "to put on over" another garment): Used only in 2 Corinthians 5:2, 4. In 5:4 in contrast with unclothed, compare 1 Corinthians 15:53 f, in which the idea of putting on, as a garment, is expressed of incorruption and immortality. The meaning here is very subtle and difficult of interpretation. In all probability Paul thinks of a certain envelopment of his physical mortal body even in this life ("in this we groan," i.e. in this present body), hence, the force of the prefixed preposition. The body itself was regarded by the philosophers of his day as a covering of the soul, and hence, it was to be clothed upon and at the same time transformed by the superimposed heavenly body. Ependutes, an outer garment, is used several times in Septuagint for me`il, an upper garment or robe (compare John 21:7).

Walter G. Clippinger

Clothes, Rending of

Clothes, Rending of - klothz, (keri`ath beghadhim): This term is used to describe an ordinary tear made in a garment. Samuel's skirt was rent when Saul laid hold upon it (1 Samuel 15:27). Jesus spoke about a rent being made in a garment (Matthew 9:16). The term is also used to describe a Hebrew custom which indicated deep sorrow. Upon the death of a relative or important personage, or when there was a great calamity, it was customary for the Hebrews to tear their garments. Reuben rent his clothes when he found that Joseph had been taken from the pit (Genesis 37:29). The sons of Jacob rent their clothes when the cup was found in Benjamin's sack (Genesis 44:13). A messenger came to Eli with his clothes rent to tell of the taking of the ark of God and of the death of his two sons (1 Samuel 4:12). David rent his garments when he heard that Absalom had slain his brothers (2 Samuel 13:31). See also 2 Samuel 15:32; 2 Kings 18:37; Isaiah 36:22; Jeremiah 41:5. Rending of clothes was also an expression of indignation. The high priest rent his garment when Jesus spoke what he thought was blasphemy (Matthew 26:65).

Cloud

Cloud - kloud (`anan, `abh; nephele, nephos):

I. Clouds in Palestine. In the Bible few references are found of particular clouds or of clouds in connection with the phenomena of the weather conditions. The weather in Palestine is more even and has less variety than that in other lands. It is a long, narrow country with sea on the West and desert on the East. The wind coming from the West is always moist and brings clouds with it. If the temperature over the land is low enough the clouds will be condensed and rain will fall, but if the temperature is high, as in the five months of summer, there can be no rain even though clouds are seen. As a whole the winter is cloudy and the summer clear.

1. Rain Clouds: In the autumn rain storms often arise suddenly from the sea, and what seems to be a mere haze, "as small as a man's hand," such as Gehazi saw (1 Kings 18:44) over the sea, within a few hours becomes the black storm cloud pouring down torrents of rain (1 Kings 18:45). Fog is almost unknown and there is very seldom an overcast, gloomy day. The west and southwest winds bring rain (Luke 12:54).

2. Disagreeable Clouds: In the months of April, May and September a hot east wind sometimes rises from the desert and brings with it a cloud of dust which fills the air and penetrates everything. In the summer afternoons, especially in the month of August, on the seacoast there is apt to blow up from the South a considerable number of low cirro-stratus clouds which seem to fill the air with dampness, making more oppressive the dead heat of summer. These are doubtless the detested "clouds without water" mentioned in Jude 1:12, and "heat by the shade of a cloud" (Isaiah 25:5).

II. Figurative Uses. 1. Yahweh's Presence and Glory: The metaphoric and symbolic uses of clouds are many, and furnish some of the most powerful figures of Scripture. In the Old Testament, Yahweh's presence is made manifest and His glory shown forth in a cloud. The cloud is usually spoken of as bright and shining, and it could not be fathomed by man: "Thou hast covered thyself with a cloud, so that no prayer can pass through" (Lamentations 3:44). Yahweh Himself was present in the cloud (Exodus 19:9; 24:16; 34:5) and His glory filled the places where the cloud was (Exodus 16:10; 40:38; Numbers 10:34); "The cloud filled the house of Yahweh" (1 Kings 8:10). In the New Testament we often have "the Son of man coming on" or "with clouds" (Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27) and received up by clouds (Acts 1:9). The glory of the second coming is indicated in Revelation 1:7 for "he cometh with the clouds" and "we that are alive .... shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord" and dwell with Him (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

2. Pillar of Cloud: The pillar of cloud was a symbol of God's guidance and presence to the children of Israel in their journeys to the promised land. The Lord appeared in a pillar of cloud and forsook them not (Nehemiah 9:19). They followed the guidance of this cloud (Exodus 40:36; Psalms 78:14).

3. Bow in Cloud: The clouds are spoken of in the Old Testament as the symbol of God's presence and care over His people; and so the "bow in the cloud" (Genesis 9:13) is a sign of God's protection.

4. Clouds Blot Out: As the black cloud covers the sky and blots out the sun from sight, so Yahweh promises "to blot out the sins" of Israel (Isaiah 44:22); Egypt also shall be conquered, "As for her, a cloud shall cover her" (Ezekiel 30:18; compare Lamentations 2:1).

5. Transitory: There is usually a wide difference in temperature between day and night in Palestine. The days axe warm and clouds coming from the sea are often completely dissolved in the warm atmosphere over the land. As the temperature falls, the moisture again condenses into dew and mist over the hills and valleys. As the sun rises the "morning cloud" (Hosea 6:4) is quickly dispelled and disappears entirely. Job compares the passing of his prosperity to the passing clouds (Job 30:15).

6. God's Omnipotence and Man's Ignorance: God "bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds" (Job 26:8) and the "clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:3). Yahweh "commands the clouds that they rain no rain" (Isaiah 5:6), but as for man, "who can number the clouds?" (Job 38:37); "Can any understand the spreadings of the clouds?" (Job 36:29); "Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge?" (Job 37:16). See BALANCINGS. "He that regardeth the clouds shall not reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4), for it is God who controls the clouds and man cannot fathom His wisdom. "Thick clouds are a covering to him" (Job 22:14).

7. Visions: Clouds are the central figure in many visions. Ezekiel beheld "a stormy wind .... out of the north, a great cloud" (Ezekiel 1:4), and John saw "a white cloud; and on the cloud one sitting" (Revelation 14:14). See also Daniel 7:13; Revelation 10:1; 11:12.

8. The Terrible and Unpleasant: The cloud is also the symbol of the terrible and of destruction. The day of Yahweh's reckoning is called the "day of clouds" (Ezekiel 30:3) and a day of "clouds and thick darkness" (Zephaniah 1:15). The invader is expected to "come up as clouds" (Jeremiah 4:13). Joel (Jeremiah 2:2) foretells the coming of locusts as "a day of clouds and thick darkness" which is both literal and figurative. Misfortune and old age are compared to "the cloudy and dark day" (Ezekiel 34:12) and "the clouds returning after rain" (Ecclesiastes 12:2).

9. Various Other Figures: Clouds are used in connection with various other figures. Rapidity of motion, "these that fly as a cloud" (Isaiah 60:8). As swaddling clothes of the newborn earth (Job 38:9); indicating great height (Job 20:6) and figurative in Isaiah 14:14, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds," portraying the self-esteem of Babylon. "A morning without clouds" is the symbol of righteousness and justice (2 Samuel 23:4); partial knowledge and hidden glory (Leviticus 16:2; Acts 1:9; Revelation 1:7).

Alfred H. Joy

Cloud, Pillar of

Cloud, Pillar of - See CLOUD,II , 2;PILLAR OF CLOUD .

Clout

Clout - klout: As substantive (ha-cechabhoth) a patch or piece of cloth, leather, or the like, a rag, a shred, or fragment. Old "cast clouts and old rotten rags" (Jeremiah 38:11-12 the King James Version). As verb (Tala') "to bandage," "patch," or mend with a clout. "Old shoes and clouted (the American Standard Revised Version "patched") upon their feet" (Joshua 9:5; compare Shakespeare, Cym., IV, 2: "I thought he slept, And put my clouted brogues from off my feet"; Milton, Comus: "And the dull swain treads on it daily with his clouted shoon."

Cloven

Cloven - klo'-v'-n: In the Old Testament, represented by a participle from shaca, "to split," and applied to beasts that divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:3; Deuteronomy 14:7). Beasts with hoofs completely divided into two parts, that were also ruminant, were allowed the Israelites as food; see CUD; HOOF. In the New Testament, for diamerizomenai, in Acts 2:3 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "tongues parting asunder," i.e. "bifurcated flames." Another explanation found in the Revised Version, margin applies the word, not to tongues, but to the multitude, "parting among them," or "distributing themselves among them," settling upon the head of each disciple.

H. E. Jacobs

Club

Club - klub.

See ARMOR,III , 1; SHEPHERD; STAFF.

Cluster

Cluster - klus'-ter:

(1) 'eshkol; compare proper nameVALE OF ESHCOL . (which see), from root meaning "to bind together." A cluster or bunch of grapes (Genesis 40:10; Numbers 13:23; Isaiah 65:8; Song of Solomon 7:8; Micah 7:1, etc.); a cluster of henna flowers (Song of Solomon 1:14); a cluster of dates (Song of Solomon 7:7). "Their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter." (Deuteronomy 32:32).

(2) botrus, "gather the clusters of the vine of the earth" (Revelation 14:18).

The "cluster of raisins" (tsimmuqim) of 1 Samuel 25:18; 30:12, should rather be "raisin cakes" or "dried raisins."

E. W. G. Masterman

Cnidus

Cnidus - ni'-dus, kni'-dus (Knidos, "age"): A city of Caria in the Roman province of Asia, past which, according to Acts 27:7, Paul sailed. At the Southwest corner of Asia Minor there projects for 90 miles into the sea a long, narrow peninsula, practically dividing the Aegean from the Mediterranean. It now bears the name of Cape Crio. Ships sailing along the southern coast of Asia Minor here turn northward as they round the point. Upon the very end of the peninsula, and also upon a small island off its point was the city of Cnidus. The island which in ancient times was connected with the mainland by a causeway is now joined to it by a sandy bar. Thus were formed two harbors, one of which could be closed by a chain. Though Cnidus was in Caria, it held the rank of a free city. There were Jews here as early as the 2nd century BC.

The ruins of Cnidus are the only objects of interest on the long peninsula, and as they may be reached by land only with great difficulty, few travelers have visited them; they may, however, be reached more easily by boat. The nearest modern village is Yazi Keui, 6 miles away. The ruins of Cnidus are unusually interesting, for the entire plan of the city may easily be traced. The sea-walls and piers remain. The acropolis was upon the hill in the western portion of the town; upon the terraces below stood the public buildings, among which were two theaters and the odeum still well preserved. The city was especially noted for its shrine of Venus and for the statue of that goddess by Praxiteles. Here in 1875-78 Sir C. Newton discovered the statue of Demeter, now in the British Museum. See also the Aphrodite of Cnidus in the South Kensington Museum, one of the loveliest statues in the world. From here also came the huge Cnidian lion. The vast necropolis West of the ruins contains tombs of every size and shape, and from various ages.

E. J. Banks

Coal

Coal - kol (pecham, "charcoal"; compare Arabic fachm, "charcoal"; gacheleth, "burning coal" or "hot ember"; compare Arabic jacham, "to kindle"; shechor, "a black coal" (Lamentations 4:8); compare Arabic shachchar, "soot" or "dark-colored sandstone"; retseph (1 Kings 19:6), and ritspah (= Rizpah) (Isaiah 6:6), margin "a hot stone"; compare resheph, "a flame" (Song of Solomon 8:6; Habakkuk 3:5); anthrax, "a live coal" (Romans 12:20) (= gacheleth in Proverbs 25:22); anthrakia, "a live coal" (John 18:18; 21:9)): There is no reference to mineral coal in the Bible. Coal, or more properly lignite, of inferior quality, is found in thin beds (not exceeding 3 ft.) in the sandstone formation (see GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE, under Nubian Sandstone), but there is no evidence of its use in ancient times. Charcoal is manufactured in a primitive fashion which does not permit the conservation of any by-products. A flat, circular place (Arabic beidar, same name as for a threshing-floor) 10 or 15 ft. in diameter is prepared in or conveniently near to the forest. On this the wood, to be converted into charcoal, is carefully stacked in a dome-shaped structure, leaving an open space in the middle for fine kindlings. All except the center is first covered with leaves, and then with earth. The kindlings in the center are then fired and afterward covered in the same manner as the rest. While it is burning or smoldering it is carefully watched, and earth is immediately placed upon any holes that may be formed in the covering by the burning of the wood below. In several days, more or less, according to the size of the pile, the wood is converted into charcoal and the heap is opened. The charcoal floor is also called in Arabic mashcharah, from shachchar, "soot"; compare Hebrew shechor. The characteristic odor of the mashcharah clings for months to the spot.

In Psalms 120:4, there is mention of "coals of juniper," the Revised Version, margin "broom," rothem. This is doubtless the Arabic retem, Retama roetam, Forsk., a kind of broom which is abundant in Judea and Moab. Charcoal from oak wood, especially Quercus coccifera, L., Arabic sindyan, is much preferred to other kinds, and fetches a higher price.

In most of the passages where English versions have "coal," the reference is not necessarily to charcoal, but may be to coals of burning wood. Pecham in Proverbs 26:21, however, seems to stand for charcoal:

"As coals are to hot embers, and wood to fire,

So is a contentious man to inflame strife."

The same may be true of pecham in Isaiah 44:12 and Isaiah 54:16; also of shechor in Lamentations 4:8.

Alfred Ely Day

Coast

Coast - kost (gebhul, etc., "boundary"; compare gebhal, "mountain" and Arabic jebel, "mountain"; chebhel, literally, "a rope"; compare Arabic chabl (Joshua 19:29 the King James Version; Zephaniah 2:5-6, 7); choph, literally, "that which is washed"; compare Arabic chaffet (Joshua 9:1 the King James Version; Ezekiel 25:16); paralios, literally, "by the sea" (Luke 6:17)): "Coast" (from Latin costa, "rib" or "side") in the sense of "seacoast," occurs but a few times in the Bible. In nearly all the many passages where the King James Version has "coast," the Revised Version (British and American) correctly has "border," i.e. "boundary," translating gebhul, etc.; in Acts 27:2 the American Standard Revised Version, "coast" is the translation of topos, literally, "place." That the seacoast is but seldom mentioned arises naturally from the fact that, while the promised land extended to the sea, the coast was never effectively occupied by the Israelites.

RVm in a number of places renders 'i English Versions of the Bible "isle" or "island" (which see), by "coastland," e.g. Isaiah 11:11; 23:6; 24:15; 59:18; Jeremiah 25:22; Ezekiel 39:6; Daniel 11:18; Zephaniah 2:11. In Isaiah 20:6, the King James Version has "isle," the King James Version margin"country," and the Revised Version (British and American) "coast-land." In Jeremiah 47:4, the King James Version has "country," the King James Version marginand the Revised Version (British and American) "isle," and the Revised Version, margin "sea-coast."

See ISLE.

Alfred Ely Day

Coat

Coat - kot.

See CLOAK; DRESS, etc.

Coat of Mail

Coat of Mail - mal.

See ARMOR,ARMS ; BRIGANDINE.

Cock

Cock - kok (alektor; Latin gallus): There is no reference in the Old Testament to domesticated poultry, which was probably first introduced into Judea after the Roman conquest. See CHICKEN. The cock is several times mentioned in the New Testament and always with reference to its habit of crowing in eastern countries with such regularity as to be almost clocklike. The first full salute comes almost to the minute at half-past eleven, the second at half-past one, and the third at dawn. So uniformly do the cocks keep time and proclaim these three periods of night that we find cock-crowing mentioned as a regular division of time: "Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning" (Mark 13:35). Jesus had these same periods of night in mind when he warned Peter that he would betray Him. Matthew 26:34; Luke 22:34; John 13:38, give almost identical wording of the warning. But in all his writing Mark was more explicit, more given to exact detail. Remembering the divisions of night as the cocks kept them, his record reads: "And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say into thee, that thou today, even this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice" (Mark 14:30). See CHICKEN. It is hardly necessary to add that the cocks crow at irregular intervals as well as at the times indicated, according to the time of the year and the phase of the moon (being more liable to crow during the night if the moon is at the full), or if a storm threatens, or there is any disturbance in their neighborhood.

Gene Stratton-Porter

Cockatrice

Cockatrice - kok'-a-tris, kok'-a-tris (tsepha`; tsph`oni; Septuagint, basiliskos, "basilisk" (which see), and aspis, "asp" (see ADDER; ASP; SERPENT)):A fabulous, deadly, monster. The name "cockatrice" appears to be a corruption of Latin calcatrix, from calcare, "to tread," calcatrix being in turn a translation of the Greek ichneumon, from ichnos, "track" or "footstep." Herpestes ichneumon, the ichneumon, Pharaoh's rat, or mongoose, a weasel-like animal, is a native of northern Africa and southern Spain. There are also other species, including the Indian mongoose. It preys on rats and snakes, and does not despise poultry and eggs.

Pliny (see Oxford Dictionary, under the word "Cockatrice") relates that the ichneumon darts down the open mouth of the crocodile, and destroys it by gnawing through its belly. In the course of time, as the story underwent changes, the animal was metamorphosed into a water snake, and was confused with the crocodile itself, and also with the basilisk. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, the cockatrice was believed as late as the 17th century to be produced from a cock's egg and hatched by a serpent, and "to possess the most deadly powers, plants withering at its touch, and men and animals being poisoned by its look. It stood in awe however of the cock, the sound of whose crowing killed it. .... The weasel alone among animals was unaffected by the glance of its evil eye, and attacked it at all times successfully; for when wounded by the monster's teeth it found a ready remedy in rue, the only plant which the cockatrice could not wither." The real ichneumon does kill the most deadly snakes, and has been supposed to resort to a vegetable antidote when bitten. It actually dies however when bitten by a deadly snake, and does not possess a knowledge of herbs, but its extraordinary agility enables it ordinarily to escape injury. It is interesting to see how the changing tale of this creature with its marvelous powers has made a hodge-podge of ichneumon, weasel, crocodile, and serpent.

The Biblical references (the King James Version Isaiah 11:8; 59:5; Jeremiah 8:17) are doubtless to a serpent, the word "cockatrice," with its medieval implications, having been introduced by the translators of the King James Version.

See SERPENT.

Alfred Ely Day

Cock-crowing

Cock-crowing - kok'-kro-ing (alektorophonia): An indefinite hour of the night between midnight and morning (Mark 13:35), referred to by all the evangelists in their account of Peter's denial (Matthew 26:34, 74; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38). It is derived from the habit of the cock to crow especially toward morning.

See COCK.

Cocker

Cocker - kok'-er (titheneo, "to nurse," "coddle," "pamper"): Occurs only in Ecclesiasticus 30:9 with the meaning "to pamper": "Cocker thy child, and he shall make thee afraid"; so Shakespeare, "a cockered silken wanton"; now seldom used; Jean Ingelow, "Poor folks cannot afford to cocker themselves."

Cockle

Cockle - kok'-'-l (King James Version margin "stinking weeds," the Revised Version, margin "noisome weeds"; bo'shah, from Hebrew root ba'ash, "to stink"; batos): "Let thistles grow instead of wheat, and cockle instead of barley" (Job 31:40). On account of the meaning of the Hebrew root we should expect that the reference was rather to repulsive, offensive weeds than to the pretty corn cockle. It is very possible that no particular plant is here intended, though the common Palestinian "stinking" arums have been suggested by Hooker.