International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Eth-kazin — Ezri

Eth-kazin

Eth-kazin - eth-ka'-zin (`ittah qatsin; the King James Version Ittah Kazin): A town on the eastern border of Zebulun, mentioned between Gath-hepher and Rimmon (Joshua 19:13). The site is not identified. "Ittah" of the King James Version is due to misunderstanding of the Hebrew letter "he" locale.

Ethma

Ethma - eth'-ma (Ethma), the Revised Version (British and American) NOOMA (which see).

Ethnan

Ethnan - eth'-nan ('ethnan, "gift" or "hire"; Ethnadi): A Judahite (1 Chronicles 4:7).

Ethnarch

Ethnarch - eth'-nark (2 Corinthians 11:32 margin).

See GOVERNOR.

Ethni

Ethni - eth'-ni ('ethni, "gift"): An ancestor of Asaph, of the Gershom branch of the Levites (1 Chronicles 6:41).

Ethnography; Ethnology

Ethnography; Ethnology - eth-nog'-ra-fi, eth-nol'-o-ji.

See TABLE OF NATIONS.

Eubulus

Eubulus - u-bu'-lus (Euboulos, literally, "of good counsel," 2 Timothy 4:21): One of the members of the church in Rome at the time of Paul's second imprisonment in that city.

The apostle mentions how, at his first answer to the charges brought against him at the emperor's tribunal, the Roman Christians as a whole proved disloyal to him "no one took my part, but all forsook me" (2 Timothy 4:16). In these circumstances when the desertion of Paul by the Christians in Rome was so disheartening, it is pleasing to find that there were some among them who were true, and Eubulus was one of these. Paul therefore in writing the last of all his epistles sends to Timothy a greeting from Eubulus.

Nothing more is known in regard to Eubulus. As his name is Greek, he was probably a Gentile by birth.

John Rutherfurd

Eucharist

Eucharist - u'-ka-rist.

See LORD'S SUPPER.

Eumenes II

Eumenes II - u'-me-nez (Eumenes, "well-disposed"): King of Pergamus, son and successor of Attalus I (197 BC). He is mentioned in the Apocrypha (1 Maccabees 8:8) in connection with the league which Judas Maccabeus made with the Romans. As their ally in the war against Antiochus the Great and in recognition of his signal service at the decisive battle of Magnesia (190 BC), Eumenes II was rewarded with such extensive tracts of country as raised him at once from comparative insignificance to be the sovereign of a great state. The statement in the Apocrypha describing his extension of territory differs from those of Livy, Polybius and Appian, and cannot be correct. The Romans are said to have taken "India, and Media and Lydia" from Antiochus and to have given them to Eumenes II. Antiochus never had any possessions in India nor had any earlier king of Syria. He was obliged to give up only the countries on the side of Taurus toward Rome. No suggestion for the reading "India" in the narrative has met with acceptance (it may possibly have been a copyist's error for "Ionia"; see Livy xxxvii.44). Eumenes II cultivated the Roman alliance carefully but became suspected in connection with the affairs of Perseus, the last king of Macedonia. He never came to an open rupture with the Romans, and died in 159 BC, after a reign of 39 years.

J. Hutchison

Eunatan

Eunatan - u-na'-tan.

See ENNATAN.

Eunice

Eunice - u-ni'-se, u'-nis (Eunike, is the correct reading, and not Euneike, which is read by the Textus Receptus of the New Testament of Stephen, three syllables: Eu-ni-ke, literally, "conquering well"; 2 Timothy 1:5): The mother of Timothy.

1. Eunice's Home: Her name is Greek and this might lead to the inference that she was a Gentile by birth, but such a conclusion would be wrong, for we read in Acts 16:1 that she was a Jewess. Her husband however was a heathen Greek She was in all probability a daughter of Lois, the grandmother of Timothy, for both of those Christian women are spoken of, in one breath, by Paul, and this in high terms of commendation.

2. How She Trained Her Son: Timothy had not been circumcised in childhood, probably because of his father's being a Gentile; but the mother and the grandmother did all that lay in their power to train Timothy in the fear of God and in the knowledge of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. "From a child" Eunice had taught her boy to "know the holy scriptures" (2 Timothy 3:15 the King James Version). It is right therefore to connect this home training of Timothy in the fear of God, with his and his mother's conversion to the gospel. His name Timothy--chosen evidently not by the father, but by Eunice--signifies "one who fears God." The "wisdom" of the Hebrews consisted not in worldly prudence or in speculative philosophy, but in the fear of the Lord, as is shown in such passages as Psalms 111:10, and in Job 28:1-28, and in Proverbs throughout. His name, as well as his careful home training, shows how he was prepared to give a welcome both to Paul and to the gospel proclaimed by him, when the apostle in his first great missionary journey came to Lystra, one of the cities of Lycaonia or Southern (?) Galatia, where Eunice and her family lived. This is implied in the account of Paul's second missionary journey (Acts 16:1), where we read that he came to Lystra, and found there a certain disciple named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman who was a Jewess, who believed.

3. Her Conversion to Christ: It is therefore certain that Eunice and Timothy were not brought to a knowledge of the gospel at this time, but that they were already Christians; she, "a believer"; he, "a disciple." This evidently means that Eunice, Lois and Timothy had been converted on Paul's former visit to Lystra. This conclusion is confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:11, where Paul recalls to Timothy the fact that he had fully known the persecutions and afflictions which came to him at Lystra. The apostle repeats it, that Timothy knew what persecutions he then endured. Now this persecution occurred on Paul's first visit to that city. Eunice was therefore one of those who on that occasion became "disciples." And her faith in Christ, and her son's faith too, were genuine, and stood the test of the "much tribulation" of which Paul warned them (Acts 14:22 the King James Version); and on Paul's next visit to Lystra, Eunice had the great joy and satisfaction of seeing how the apostle made choice of her son to be his companion in his missionary work. Eunice is not afterward mentioned in the New Testament; though it is a possible thing that there may be reference to her in what is said about widows and the children of widows in 1 Timothy 5:4-5.

John Rutherfurd

Eunuch

Eunuch - u'-nuk (caric; spadon; eunouchos): Primarily and literally, a eunuch is an emasculated man (Deuteronomy 23:1). The Hebrew word caric seems, however, to have acquired a figurative meaning, which is reflected in English Versions of the Bible where "officer" and "chamberlain" are found as renderings (compare Genesis 37:36; 39:1, where caric is applied to married men; Esther 4:4). The barbarous practice of self-mutilation and the mutilation of others in this way was prevalent throughout the Orient. The religious disabilities under which men thus deformed labored under the Mosaic law had the effect of making the practice abominable to the Jews as a people (Deuteronomy 23:1; Leviticus 22:23-25). The law excluded eunuchs from public worship, partly because self-mutilation was often performed in honor of a heathen god, and partly because a maimed creature of any sort was deemed unfit for the service of Yahweh (Leviticus 21:16 ff; Leviticus 22:24). That ban, however, was later removed (Isaiah 56:4-5). On the other hand, the kings of Israel and Judah followed their royal neighbors in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2 Kings 9:32; Jeremiah 41:16), and (2) in military and other official posts (1 Samuel 8:15 margin; 1 Kings 22:9 margin; 2 Kings 8:6 margin; 2 Kings 23:11 the King James Version margin; 2 Kings 24:12-13 margin; 2 Kings 25:19 margin; 1 Chronicles 28:1 margin; 2 Chronicles 18:8 margin; Jeremiah 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; compare Genesis 37:36; 2, 7; Acts 8:27). Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods (Ant., XV, vii, 4; XVI, viii, 1). From the single reference to the practice in the Gospels (Matthew 19:12), we infer that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were known to the Jews of Jesus' time. There is no question with Jesus as to the law of Nature: the married life is the norm of man's condition, and the union thereby effected transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection (Matthew 19:5-6). But He would have His hearers recognize that there are exceptional cases where the rule does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed, as was the metaphorical use of the word in application to the third class well understood by them (compare Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew et Talmud; Schottgen, Horae Hebrew, in the place cited.).

How Origen misunderstood and abused the teaching of this passage is well known (Euseb., HE, VI, 8), and his own pathetic comment on the passage shows that later he regretted having taken it thus literally and acted on it. His is not the only example of such a perverted interpretation (see Talmud, Shabbath 152a, and compare Midrash on Ecclesiastes 10:7). The Council of Nicea, therefore, felt called on to deal with the danger as did the 2nd Council of Aries and the Apos Canons (circa 21). (Compare Bingham's Ant,IV , 9.)

It is significant that Jesus expresses no condemnation of this horrible practice. It was in keeping with His far-reaching plan of instilling principles rather than dealing in denunciations (John 3:17; 8:11). It was by His positive teaching concerning purity that we are shown the lines along which we must move to reach the goal. There is a more excellent way of achieving mastery of the sexual passion. It is possible for men to attain as complete control of this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless, and the resultant victory is of infinitely more value than the negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. These "make themselves eunuchs" with a high and holy purpose, "for the kingdom of heaven's sake"; and the interests created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is afforded to the "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11). They voluntarily forego marriage even, undertake virtual "eunuchism" because they are completely immersed in and engrossed by "the kingdom of heaven" (compare John 17:4; 1 Corinthians 7:29, 33 f; 1 Corinthians 9:5 and see Bengel, Gnomon Novi Test. in the place cited and Clement of Alexandria., Strom., iii.1 ff).

See MARRIAGE.

LITERATURE.

Driver," Deuteronomy," ICC, Deuteronomy 23:1; Commentary on Mt, in the place cited. by Morison and Broadus; Neander, Ch. Hist, II, 493; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, 72 ff; The Expositor, IV, vii (1893), 294 ff; Encyclopedia Brit, article "Eunuch."

George B. Eager

Euodia

Euodia - u-o'-di-a (Euodia, literally, "prosperous journey."

1. Women Prominent in Church at Philippi: The Textus Receptus of the New Testament of Stephen reads Euodia, which means "fragrant," Philippians 4:2. King James Version has transformed Euodia into Euodias, which is a man's name. The mistake is rectified in the Revised Version (British and American)): A Christian woman, one of the members of the church in Philippi. She and Syntyche, who is named in the same verse, were evidently persons of note, prominent in the work of the church there. At Philippi the gospel was first preached to women (Acts 16:13), and the church was first formed among women--evidently in the house of Lydia (Acts 16:15, 40). Paul here makes a request of Euodia and Syntyche. He requests--the word is never used of prayer from us to God--he asks, he beseeches. Euodia, and then he repeats the word, he beseeches Syntyche, to be of the same mind in the Lord. Possibly, as Lightfoot suggests, they may have been deaconesses in the Philippian church, but whatever their position in this respect may have been, differences had arisen between them on some subject, we know not what.

2. The Difference Which Arose: But whatever the subject in dispute was, it had become so serious that, instead of the breach being healed, matters had become chronic; and news regarding this lack of forbearance between Euodia and Syntyche had been carried to Paul in his captivity in Rome.

3. Paul Entreats Them: The state of Christian life in the church at Philippi gave Paul almost unmingled satisfaction. He regarded with joy their faith and steadfastness and liberality. There was no false teaching, no division; among them. The only thing which could cause him any uneasiness was the want of harmony between Euodia and Syntyche. He beseeches them to give up their differences, and to live at peace in the Lord. Such is the motive which he puts before them with a view to bring about their reconciliation; to live in dispute and enmity is not worthy of those who are "in the Lord," who have been redeemed by the Lord, and whose whole life should be an endeavor to please Him.

4. The True Yokefellow: Paul proceeds to ask a certain person, unnamed, but whom he terms "true yokefellow" to assist them, that is, to assist Euodia and Syntyche; for each of them, he says, "labored with me in the gospel." It is uncertain what is meant by "true yokefellow." He may refer to Epaphroditus, who carried the epistle from Rome to Philippi. Other names have been suggested--Luke, Silas, Timothy. It has been thought by some that Paul here refers to his own wife, or to Lydia. But such a suggestion is untenable, inasmuch as we know from his own words (1 Corinthians 7:8) that he was either unmarried or a widower. And the idea that the "true yokefellow" is Lydia, is equally wrong, because the word "true" is in the Greek masculine Another suggestion is that "yokefellow" is really a proper name--Syzygus. If so, then the apostle addresses Syzygus; or if this is not so, then he speaks to the unnamed "true yokefellow"; and what he says is that he asks him to help Euodia and Syntyche, inasmuch as their work in the gospel was no new thing. Far from this, when Paul brought the gospel to Philippi at the first, these two Christian women had been his loyal and earnest helpers in spreading the knowledge of Christ.

5. The Plea for Reconciliation: How very sad then that any difference should exist between them; how sad that it should last so long! He asks Clement also, and all the other Christians at Philippi, his fellow-laborers, whose names, though not mentioned by the apostle, are nevertheless in the book of life, to assist Euodia and Syntyche; he asks them all to aid in this work of reconciliation. Doubtless he did not plead in vain.

See SYNTYCHE; YOKE-FELLOW.

John Rutherfurd

Eupator

Eupator - u'-pa-tor (Eupator, "of noble father"): The name given to Antiochus V who had succeeded his father Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), 164 BC, while still a child under the guardianship of Lysias (1 Maccabees 3:32; 6:17). In the absence of Philip, a friend and foster-brother of the child's father, whom on his deathbed he had appointed guardian for his son, Lysias continued his duty as guardian, set the king upon the throne and named him Eupator. Shortly after his accession he collected a large army and marched against Jerusalem, accompanied by Lysias, for the relief of a Syrian garrison that was hard pressed by Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 6:19 ff). Judas was repulsed at Bethzacharias and after a severe struggle Bethsura was captured (1 Maccabees 6:31-50). The Jewish force in the temple was hard pressed and indeed reduced to the last extremity (1 Maccabees 6:53), when Lysias, hearing that his rival Philip had returned from Persia and had made himself master of Antioch (Josephus, Ant, XII, ix, 5 f), made a hasty peace and returned to meet Philip, whom he easily overpowered. In the following year (162 BC) Antiochus and Lysias were put to death by Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus, in requital of wrongs inflicted upon himself by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 7:2-4; 2 Maccabees 14:1, 2; Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 1).

J. Hutchinson

Euphrates

Euphrates - u-fra'-tez (perath; Euphrates, "the good and abounding river"): The longest (1,780 miles) and most important stream of Western Asia, generally spoken of in the Old Testament as "the river" (Exodus 23:31; Deuteronomy 11:24). Its description naturally falls into 3 divisions--the upper, middle and lower. The upper division traverses the mountainous plateau of Armenia, and is formed by the junction of 2 branches, the Frat and the Murad. The Frat rises 25 miles Northeast of Erzerum, and only 60 miles from the Black Sea. The Murad, which, though the shorter, is the larger of the two, rises in the vicinity of Mt. Ararat. After running respectively 400 and 270 miles in a westerly direction, they unite near Keban Maaden, whence in a tortuous channel of about 300 miles, bearing still in a southwesterly direction, the current descends in a succession of rapids and cataracts to the Syrian plain, some distance above the ancient city of Carchemish, where it is only about 200 miles from the Northeast corner of the Mediterranean. In its course through the Armenian plateau, the stream has gathered the sediment which gives fertility to the soil in the lower part of the valley. It is the melting snows from this region which produce the annual floods from April to June.

The middle division, extending for about 700 miles to the bitumen wells of Hit, runs Southeast "through a valley of a few miles in width, which it has eroded in the rocky surface, and which, being more or less covered with alluvial soil, is pretty generally cultivated by artificial irrigation. .... Beyond the rocky banks on both sides is the open desert, covered in spring with a luxuriant verdure, and dotted here and there with the black tent of the Bedouin" (Sir Henry Rawlinson). Throughout this portion the river formed the ancient boundary between the Assyrians and Hittites whose capital was at Carchemish, where there are the remains of an old bridge. The ruins of another ancient bridge occur 200 miles lower down at the ancient Thapsacus, where the Greeks forded it under Cyrus the younger. Throughout the middle section the stream is too rapid to permit of successful navigation except by small boats going downstream, and has few and insignificant tributaries. It here has, however, its greatest width (400 yds.) and depth. Lower down the water is drawn off by irrigating canals and into lagoons.

The fertile plain of Babylonia begins at Hit, about 100 miles above Babylon; 50 miles below Hit the Tigris and Euphrates approach to within 25 miles of each other, and together have in a late geological period deposited the plain of Shinar or of Chaldea, more definitely referred to as Babylonia. This plain is about 250 miles long, and in its broadest place 100 miles wide. From Hit an artificial canal conducts water along the western edge of the alluvial plain to the Persian Gulf, a distance of about 500 miles. But the main irrigating canals put off from the East side of the Euphrates, and can be traced all over the plain past the ruins of Accad, Babylon, Nippur, Bismya, Telloh, Erech, Ur and numerous other ancient cities.

Originally the Euphrates and Tigris entered into the Persian Gulf by separate channels. At that time the Gulf extended up as far as Ur, the home of Abraham, and it was a seaport. The sediment from these rivers has filled up the head of the Persian Gulf for nearly 100 miles since the earliest monumental records. Loftus estimates that since the Christian era the encroachment has proceeded at the rate of 1 mile in 70 years. In early times Babylonia was rendered fertile by immense irrigating schemes which diverted the water from the Euphrates, which at Babylon is running at a higher level than the Tigris. A large canal left the Euphrates just above Babylon and ran due East to the Tigris, irrigating all the intervening region and sending a branch down as far South as Nippur. Lower down a canal crosses the plain in an opposite direction. This ancient system of irrigation can be traced along the lines of the principal canals "by the winding curves of layers of alluvium in the bed," while the lateral channels "are hedged in by high banks of mud, heaped up during centuries of dredging. Not a hundredth part of the old irrigation system is now in working order. A few of the mouths of the smaller canals are kept open so as to receive a limited supply of water at the rise of the river in May, which then distributes itself over the lower lying lands in the interior, almost without labor on the part of the cultivators, giving birth in such localities to the most abundant crops; but by far the larger portion of the region between the rivers is at present an arid, howling wilderness, strewed in the most part with broken pottery, the evidence of former human habitation, and bearing nothing but the camel thorn, the wild caper, the colocynth-apple, wormwood and the other weeds of the desert" (Rawlinson). According to Sir W. Willcocks, the eminent English engineer, the whole region is capable of being restored to its original productiveness by simply reproducing the ancient system of irrigation. There are, however, in the lower part of the region, vast marshes overgrown with reeds, which have continued since the time of Alexander who came near losing his army in passing through them. These areas are probably too much depressed to be capable of drainage. Below the junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, the stream is called Shat el Arab, and is deep enough to float war vessels.

LITERATURE.

Fried. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 169 f; Chesney, Narrative of the Euphrates Exped., I; Loftus, Travels, etc., in Chaldoea and Susiana; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, chapters xxi, xxii; Rawlinson, Herodotus, I, essay ix; Ellsworth Huntington, "Valley of the Upper Euphrates River," Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc., XXXIV, 1902.

George Frederick Wright

Eupolemus

Eupolemus - u-pol'-e-mus (Eupolemos): Son of John, the son of Accos = Hakkoz (Akkos; Nehemiah 3:4, 21, etc.); was one of the two deputies sent by Judas Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 8:17; 2 Maccabees 4:11) to Rome circa 161 BC to ask the help of the Romans against Demetrius. A critical estimate of the narrative (1 Maccabees 8 and Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 6) of the first meeting of the representatives of the Jewish nation and the Romans will be found in Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, III, 350 ff, where it is admitted that "inaccuracies of detail only confirm the general faithfulness of the impression." Keil (Comm., 14) further remarks on this point: "that the author of 1macc wrote from twenty to twenty-five years after the destruction of Corinth (146 BC) by the Romans; and that the Jews of Palestine were not accurately informed concerning the wars of the Romans with the Greeks." Eupolemus has been identified with the historian of the same name quoted by Eusebius (Praep. Ev., IX, 17 ff); but there is no evidence that the historian was of Jewish origin.

J. Hutchison

Euraquilo

Euraquilo - u-rak'-wi-lo (the Revised Version (British and American) eurakulon; the King James Version eurokludon; the King James Version Euroclydon, u-rok'-li-don): The east or northeast wind which drove Paul's ship to shipwreck at Melita (Acts 27:14). The term seems to have been the sailor's term for that particular wind, and Paul uses the word which was used by them on that occasion. The difference in the text is explained by the fact that the term was not in general use and was therefore subject to being changed. The precise name is doubtful, but "the Euraquilo" is more easily explained as a compound of Greek euros, "east wind," and Latin aquilo, "northeast wind," hence, euraquilo, "east northeast wind." This agrees with the experience of navigators in those waters. For a summary of the various readings see Sanday, Appendices ad New Testament, 140. Full discussion of the circumstances are given in the Lives of Paul by various writers.

Alfred H. Joy

Eutychus

Eutychus - u'-ti-kus (Eutuchos, "fortunate"): The story of Eutychus occurs in the "we" section of Acts, and is therefore related by an eyewitness of the incidents (Acts 20:7-12). On the first day of the week the Christians of Troas had met for an evening service in an upper chamber, and were joined by Paul and his company. As he was to leave in the morning, Paul "prolonged his speech until midnight." A youth named Eutychus, who was sitting at the open window, became borne down with sleep owing to the lateness of the hour, and ultimately fell through the opening from the third story. He "was taken up dead." This direct statement is evaded by De Wette and Olshausen, who translate "for dead." Meyer says this expresses the judgment of those who took him up. However, Luke, the physician, is giving his verdict, and he plainly believes that a miracle was wrought by Paul in restoring a corpse to life. The intention of Luke in relating this incident is to relate a miracle. Paul went down and embraced the youth while comforting the lamenting crowd, "Make ye no ado; for his life is in him." The interrupted meeting was resumed, the bread was broken, and the conversation continued till break of day. "And they brought the lad alive, and were not a little comforted."

S. F. Hunter

Evangelist

Evangelist - e-van'-jel-ist: This is a form of the word ordinarily translated "gospel" (euaggelion), except that here it designates one who announces that gospel to others (euaggelistes, "a bringer of good tidings"), literally, God Himself is an evangelist, for He "preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham" (Galatians 3:8); Jesus Christ was an evangelist, for He also "preached the gospel" (Luke 20:1); Paul was an evangelist as well as an apostle (Romans 1:15); Philip the deacon was an evangelist (Acts 21:8); and Timothy, the pastor (2 Timothy 4:5); and indeed all the early disciples who, on being driven out of Jerusalem, "went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4 the King James Version).

But Ephesians 4:11 teaches that one particular order of the ministry, distinguished from every other, is singled out by the Head of the church for this work in a distinctive sense. All may possess the gift of an evangelist in a measure, and be obligated to exercise its privilege and duty, but some are specially endued with it. "He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers."

It will be seen that as an order in the ministry, the evangelist precedes that of the pastor and teacher, a fact which harmonizes with the character of the work each is still recognized as doing. The evangelist has no fixed place of residence, but moves about in different localities, preaching the gospel to those ignorant of it before. As these are converted and united to Jesus Christ by faith, the work of the pastor and teacher begins, to instruct them further in the things of Christ and build them up in the faith.

At a later time, the name of "evangelist" was given the writers of the four Gospels because they tell the story of the gospel and because the effect of their promulgation at the beginning was very much like the work of the preaching evangelist. In character, the Gospels bear something of the same relation to the Epistles as evangelists bear to pastors and teachers.

James M. Gray

Eve in the New Testament

Eve in the New Testament - (Eua; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Heua): "Eve" occurs twice in the New Testament and both references are in the Pauline writings. In 1 Timothy 2:12-14 woman's place in teaching is the subject of discussion, and the writer declares that she is a learner and not a teacher, that she is to be in quietness and not to have dominion over a man. Paul elsewhere expressed this same idea (see 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Having stated his position in regard to woman's place, he used the Gen account of the relation of the first woman to man to substantiate his teaching. Paul used this account to illustrate woman's inferiority to man, and he undoubtedly accepted it at its face value without any question as to its historicity. He argued that woman is inferior in position, for "Adam was first formed, then Eve." She is inferior in character, for "Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression." See CHILD-BEARING. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Paul is urging loyalty to Christ, and he uses the temptation of Eve to illustrate the ease with which one is corrupted. Paul seems to have had no thought but that the account of the serpent's beguiling Eve should be taken literally.

A. W. Fortune

Eve in the Old Testament

Eve in the Old Testament - ev, (chawwah, "life"; Eua; the name given, as the Scripture writer says, Genesis 3:20 (Zoe), from her unique function as "the mother of all living"): The first created woman; created secondarily from Adam (or man) as a "help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18-22), and later named and designated as the mother of the human race.

For the literary type and object of the story of Eve, see under ADAM, i, 2.

1. The Names Given to Her: Two names are given to her, both bestowed by the man, her mate. The first, ishshah, "woman" (literally, "man-ess"), is not strictly a name but a generic designation, referring to her relation to the man; a relation she was created to fulfill in default of any true companionship between man and the beasts, and represented as intimate and sacred beyond that between child and parents (Genesis 2:18-24). The second, Eve, or "life," given after the transgression and its prophesied results, refers to her function and destiny in the spiritual history or evolution of which she is the beginning (Genesis 3:16, 20). While the names are represented as bestowed by the man, the remarks in Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 33:20b may be read as the interpretative addition of the writer, suited to the exposition which it is the object of his story to make.

2. Her Relation to Man: As mentioned in the article ADAM, the distinction of male and female, which the human species has in common with the animals, is given in the general (or P) account of creation (Genesis 1:27); and then, in the more particularized (or J) account of the creation of man, the human being is described at a point before the distinction of sex existed. This second account may have a different origin, but it has also a different object, which does not conflict with but rather supplements the other. It aims to give the spiritual meanings that inhere in man's being; and in this the relation of sex plays an elemental part. As spiritually related to the man-nature, the woman-nature is described as derivative, the helper rather than the initiator, yet equal, and supplying perfectly the man's social and affectional needs. It is the writer's conception of the essential meaning of mating and marriage. To bring out its spiritual values more clearly he takes the pair before they are aware of the species meanings of sex or family, while they are "naked" yet "not ashamed" Genesis 2:25), and portrays them purely as companions, individual in traits and tendencies, yet answering to each other. She is the helpmeet for him (ezer keneghdo, "a help answering to him").

3. Her Part in the Change of Condition: True to her nature as the being relatively acted upon rather than acting, she is quicker than the man to respond to the suggestion initiated by the serpent and to follow it out to its desirable results. There is eagerness of desire in her act of taking the fruit quite different from the quasi matter-of-course attitude of the man. To her the venture presents itself wholly from the alluring side, while to him it is more like taking a desperate risk, as he detaches himself even from the will of God in order to cleave to her. All this is delicately true to the distinctive feminine and masculine natures. A part of her penalty is henceforth to be the subordinated one of the pair (Genesis 3:16), as if for her the values of life were to be mediated through him. At the same time it is accorded to her seed to perpetuate the mortal antipathy to the serpent, and finally to bruise the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

4. In Subsequent History: After these opening chapters of Gen, Eve is not once mentioned, nor even specifically alluded to, in the canonical books of the Old Testament. It was not in the natural scope of Old Testament history and doctrine, which were concerned with Abraham's descendants, to go back to so remote origins as are narrated in the story of the first pair. The name Eve occurs once in the Apocrypha, in the prayer of Tobit (Tobit 8:6): "Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and a stay; of them came the seed of men"; the text then going on to quote Genesis 2:18. In 1 Esdras 4:20, 21 there is a free quotation, or rather paraphrase, of Genesis 2:24. But not even in the somber complaints of 2esdras concerning the woe that Adam's transgression brought upon the race (see under ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, iii, 2) is there any hint of Eve's part in the matter.

John Franklin Genung

Eve, Gospel of

Eve, Gospel of - A Gnostic doctrinal treatise mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer., xxvi.2 ff) in which Jesus is represented as saying in a loud voice, "I am thou, and thou art I, and wherever thou art there am I, and in all things I am sown. And from whencesoever thou gatherest me, in gathering me thou gatherest thyself." See LOGIA; and compare Ropes, Die Spruche Jesu, 56.

Even; Evening; Eventide

Even; Evening; Eventide - e'-v'-n, ev'-ning, ev-'-n-tid' ("even," "evening," 'erebh; opsia, opse; see Thayer under the word): The words are used in slightly different meanings: (1) The time of sunset, the beginning of the Hebrew day, as in Leviticus 15:1-33, where directions are given for the removal of uncleanness, which took place at sunset. (2) Twilight, the time of approaching darkness when lamps are lighted; Exodus 30:8 (literally, "between the two evenings"); Jeremiah 6:4 ("the shadows of the evening"). (3) The early part of the night (Proverbs 7:9; Ezekiel 12:7). The Greek opse is literally, "late" (Mark 11:19). The Greek hespera, refers evidently to sunset, in Luke 24:29. "Eventide," `eth `erebh, "time of evening" (2 Samuel 11:2; Isaiah 17:14). "Evening," used in connection with wolves (Jeremiah 5:6; Zephaniah 3:3), is from the Hebrew [`arabhah], which may mean "darkness" or "dark cloud," but more probably "plain" or "desert."

H. Porter

Evenings, Between The

Evenings, Between The - The time of day (the Revised Version (British and American) reads "at even," margin, "between the two evenings") when the Passover lamb was slain (Exodus 12:6; Numbers 9:3), or the offering made of the evening portion of the continual burnt offering (Numbers 28:4). See preceding article.

Event

Event - e-vent': In Ecclesiastes 2:14; 2, 3, the translation of miqreh, "what happens," "lot," "fate." The English word bore this sense at the time of the King James Version. The meaning of "result," "outcome" ekbaseis), attaches to it in Wisdom of Solomon 8:8, "events of seasons," the Revised Version (British and American) "issues."

Everlasting

Everlasting - ev-er-last'-ing (olam, `adh; aidios, aionios): "Everlasting," in strictness, is that which endures forever; either that which has no beginning and will have no end (in which sense it is applicable to God only), or that which, having a beginning, will have no end, but henceforth will exist forever (thus of beings created for immortality; see IMMORTALITY ). Figuratively also the term is applied to objects of impressive stability and long duration, as mountains, hills (e.g. Genesis 49:26; Habakkuk 3:6).

Of the terms indicated as rendered by this word, `olam in the Old Testament and aionios in the New Testament, literally, "age-long," generally bear the full sense of "eternal" (always as applied to God, His mercy, His covenant, His kingdom and to the eternal life of believers). Hence, in the Revised Version (British and American) the rendering "everlasting" in the King James Version is, in the New Testament, uniformly changed to "eternal" (e.g. Matthew 18:8; 41, 46; Luke 16:9; 18:30; John 3:16, 36, etc.; Acts 13:46; Romans 6:22; 16:26; Galatians 6:8; Hebrews 13:20). In the Old Testament the rendering "everlasting" is usually retained in the Revised Version (British and American), and sometimes takes the place of other words or phrases, as "lasting" (Deuteronomy 33:15), "ever," "forever" (1 Chronicles 16:36; Nehemiah 9:5), "perpetual" (Habakkuk 3:6; Jeremiah 50:5), "of old" (Habakkuk 3:6 margin). In Psalms 100:5; 119:144, on the other hand, the Revised Version (British and American) changes the word to "for ever." In much the larger number of places `olam is translated "ever" or "for ever."

The word `adh, in the two cases in which it is translated "everlasting" in the King James Version (more frequently "for ever"), is in the Revised Version (British and American), in Isaiah 9:6, retained, with margin, "Father of Eternity," and in Habakkuk 3:6 is changed into "eternal." Another word, qedhem, with the meaning "ancient time," is rendered "everlasting" in Habakkuk 1:12 ("Art not thou from everlasting?"). With the same meaning it occurs in Deuteronomy 33:27, "The eternal God is thy dwelling-place."

The word which strictly answers to "everlasting" in the New Testament is aidios (Romans 1:20; Jude 1:6), rendered by the King James Version in the former passages "eternal," but correctly by the Revised Version (British and American) in both passages, "everlasting." The sense of the word "everlasting," in application to future punishment, is considered in the article PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING.

The term "everlasting" or "eternal," applied to God, describes Him as filling, or enduring through, all the "ages" of time. It is only thus that we can symbolically represent eternity. In reality, however, the eternity of God is not simply His filling of ever-flowing "ages," but rather that aspect of His being in which He is above time; for which time (the succession-form of existence) does not exist; to which the terms past, present and future do not apply. Yet, while God is not in time (rather holds time in Himself), time-sequence, as the form of existence of the world, is a reality for God.

See ETERNAL; ETERNITY.

James Orr

Evi

Evi - e'-vi ('ewi, "desire"; Euei): One of the five kings, or chiefs of the Midianites, slain by Israel during their sojourn in the plains of Moab (Numbers 31:8; Joshua 13:21).

Evidence; Evident; Evidently

Evidence; Evident; Evidently - ev'-i-dens, ev'-i-dent-li cepher; elegchos, phaneros): In Jeremiah 32:10-11, 12, 14, 16, 44, cepher, "a writing," is translated (the King James Version) "evidence" (of the purchase of the field in Anathoth), the Revised Version (British and American) "deed"; "evidence" is also the translation of elegchos, "conviction," in the King James Version of Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is .... the evidence of things not seen," the English Revised Version "proving," margin, "or test," better, as the American Standard Revised Version, "conviction," margin, "or test." The Greek word denotes "putting to the test," examining for the purpose of proof, bringing to conviction (Dr. W. F. Moulton). Thus if "test" or "proving" be adopted, a firm conviction of the reality of things not seen is implied as the result of putting to the proof. Trench remarks (New Testament Synonyms), "in juristic Greek elegchein is not merely to reply to, but to refute, an opponent." Hence, the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translation argumentum, followed by Wyclif and Rheims version; Tyndale and Cranmer have "certayntie." (The sense of "conviction" appears in John 8:46, "Which of you convinceth (elegchei, the Revised Version (British and American) "convicteth") me of sin?"; John 3:20, "reproved," the Revised Version, margin "convicted"; John 16:8 the King James Version "He will reprove the world of sin," the Revised Version (British and American) "convict." Compare 1 Corinthians 14:24.) "Evident" is the translation of `al panim ("on the face") in Job 6:28, the King James Version "Look upon me; for it is evident unto you if I lie," margin, "Hebrew before your face," the Revised Version (British and American) "to your face," margin, "And it will be evident unto you if I lie," which is, perhaps, to be preferred to the text; delos, "manifest," is translated "evident" (Galatians 3:11); katadelos, "very manifest," is in Hebrews 7:15, the King James Version "far more evident," the Revised Version (British and American) "more abundantly evident"; prodelos, "manifest before-hand" (Hebrews 7:14), "evident." "Evidently" occurs only in Acts 10:3, as the translation of phaneros, "openly," "manifestly," the Revised Version (British and American) "openly."

It is important to note the true nature of faith according to the correct translation of Hebrews 11:1, as being the well-grounded and assured conviction of things not seen.

W. L. Walker

Evil

Evil - ev'-'-l, e'-vil ra`; poneros, @kakos, @kakon): In the Bible it is represented as moral and physical. We choose to discuss the subject under these heads. Many of the evils that come upon men have not been intended by those who suffer for them. Disease, individual and national calamity, drought, scarcity of food, may not always be charged to the account of intentional wrong. Many times the innocent suffer with, and even for, the guilty. In such cases, only physical evil is apparent. Even when the suffering has been occasioned by sin or dereliction of duty, whether the wrong is active or passive, many, perhaps the majority of those who are injured, are not accountable in any way for the ills which come upon them. Neither is God the author of moral evil. "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man" (James 1:13).

See TEMPTATION.

1. Moral Evil: By this term we refer to wrongs done to our fellowman, where the actor is responsible for the action. The immorality may be present when the action is not possible. "But if that evil servant shall say in his heart" (Matthew 24:48-49), whether he shall smite his fellow-servants or not, the moral evil is present. See SIN. "All these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:21-23). The last six commandments of the Decalogue apply here (Exodus 20:12-17). To dishonor one's parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet are moral evils. The spiritual import of these commandments will be found in Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28. "But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness" (Matthew 6:23). Words and deeds are coined in the heart before the world sees or hears them (Matthew 12:34-35). The word ought or its equal may be found in all languages; hence, it is in the mind of all people as well as in our laws that for the deeds and words we do and speak, we are responsible. "Break off thy sins by righteousness" (Daniel 4:27) shows that, in God's thought, it was man's duty, and therefore within his power, to keep the commandment. "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well" (Isaiah 1:16 f). We cannot think of God commanding men to do what He knew they had no ability to do! God has a standing offer of pardon to all men who turn from their evil ways and do that which is right (Ezekiel 33:11-14 f). Evil begins in the least objectionable things. In Romans 1:18-23, we have Paul's view of the falling away of the Gentiles. "Knowing God" (verse 21), they were "without excuse" (verse 20), but "glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened" (verse 21). "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (verse 22). This led the way into idolatry, and that was followed by all the corruption and wrongdoing to be instigated by a heart turned away from all purity, and practiced in all the iniquity to be suggested by lust without control. Paul gives fifteen steps in the ladder on which men descend into darkness and ruin (Galatians 5:19-21). When men become evil in themselves, they necessarily become evil in thought and deed toward others. This they bring upon themselves, or give way to, till God shall give "them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Romans 1:28). Those thus fallen into habits of error, we should in meekness correct, that "they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will" (2 Timothy 2:25-26).

2. Physical Evil: Usually, in the Old Testament the Hebrew word ra` is employed to denote that which is bad. Many times the bad is physical; it may have been occasioned by the sins for which the people of the nation were responsible, or it may have come, not as a retribution, but from accident or mismanagement or causes unknown. Very many times the evil is a corrective, to cause men to forsake the wrong and accept the right. The flood was sent upon the earth because "all flesh had corrupted their way" (Genesis 6:12). This evil was to serve as a warning to those who were to live after. The ground had already been cursed for the good of Cain (Genesis 4:12). Two purposes seemed to direct the treatment: (1) to leave in the minds of Cain and his descendants the knowledge that sin brings punishment, and (2) to increase the toil that would make them a better people. God overthrew Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, cities of the plain, making them "an example unto those that should live ungodly" (2 Peter 2:6). In the Book of Isa the prophet, we find a number of "burdens": the burden of Babylon (13:1-22); the burden of Moab (15:1-9); the burden of Damascus (17:1-14); the burden of Egypt (19:1-17); the burden of the Wilderness of the Sea (21:1-10); the burden of Dumah (21:11,12); the burden upon Arabia (21:13-17); the burden of the Valley of Vision (22:1-25); the burden of Tyre (23:1-18); the burden of the Beasts of the South (30:6-14); the burden of the Weary Beast (46:1,2). These may serve as an introduction to the story of wrongdoing and physical suffering threatened and executed. Isa contains many denunciations against Israel: against the Ten Tribes for following the sin introduced by Jeroboam the son of Nebat; and the threatening against Judah and Benjamin for not heeding the warnings. Jeremiah saw the woes that were sure to come upon Judah; for declaring them, he was shut up in prison, and yet they came, and the people were carried away into Babylon. These were the evils or afflictions brought upon the nations for their persistence in sin. "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Yahweh, that doeth all these things" (Isaiah 45:7). These chastisements seemed grievous, and yet they yielded peaceable fruit unto them that were exercised thereby (Hebrews 12:11).

David Roberts Dungan

Evil Eye

Evil Eye - (ra` `ayin, "evil of eye"; ophthalmos poneros): The superstition of the influence of the "evil eye," so widely spread over the earth, has had a mighty influence on life and language in Palestine, though direct references to it are not frequent in the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 15:9; 54, 56; Proverbs 23:6; 28:22; Matthew 20:15 (compare Matthew 6:23; Luke 11:34); Mark 7:22). In the Bible the expression is synonymous with envy, jealousy and some forms of covetousness. In comparing Romans 1:29 with Mark 7:22 we find that ophthalmos poneros corresponds to phthonos. See Trench, New Testament Synonyms, under the word The eye of the envious (as also the tongue of the invidious by an apparently appreciative word, which, however, only disguises the strong desire of possessing the object of comment or of destroying it for its rightful owner) was supposed to have a baneful influence upon the wellbeing of others, especially of children. Therefore mothers bestowed constant care against the frustration of such fancied designs by means of innumerable sorts of charms. They often allowed their darlings to appear as unlovely as possible, through uncleanliness or rags, so as to spare them the harmful rising of envy in the hearts of others. Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, gives perhaps the most accessible account of this superstition as held at the present day in Egypt, and Thomson, The Land and the Book, does the same for Palestine, while an equal amount of evidence might be collected from every other oriental country. Instances of the same superstition, though possibly slightly disguised, are by no means wanting among ourselves. Compare the expression, "green-eyed jealousy" (Othello,III , iii; Merchant of Venice,III , ii ), etc.

For certain Biblical phrases referring to the "evil eye" see ENVY; EYE.

LITERATURE.

F. T. Elworthy, The Evil Eye, London, 1895.

H. L. E. Luering

Evil One

Evil One - (ho poneros): Nearly all peoples who have expressed their religious thought and feeling believe in a spirit that presides over the destinies of men for their good. They believe that there is also a spirit, a person, whose work it is to lead men into temptation: a spirit of light and a spirit of darkness. Feelings and preferences may have much to do with the conclusions. In Matthew 5:37, 39, 45; 6:13, the King James Version gives "evil," the Revised Version (British and American) "the evil one," margin, "evil," the personal form referring to the enemy of the race known by various terms: Satan, "the adversary" or "the accuser," occurs 50 times; Beelzebub is found 7 times; devil, 35 times; it means "accuser," "calumniator."

See SATAN.

David Roberts Duncan

Evil Spirit

Evil Spirit - See DEMON;DEMONIAC ; COMMUNION WITH DEMONS; SATAN.

Evil Thing

Evil Thing - (to kakon, plural in Luke 16:25): An evil thing or evil things may be the thoughts of evil men, their plans or their deeds; or the things men suffer for their own wrongs; or the evils consequent upon the errors of others. In the dark picture of fallen men in Romans 1:30, "inventors of evil things" appear. "The evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil (poneros) things" (Matthew 12:35). Men should not lust after evil (kakos) things (1 Corinthians 10:6). This fixing the mind upon, with desire, leads to increased wrong. "The mouth of the wicked poureth out evil (ra') things" (Proverbs 15:28). The rich man had good things in his life, but did not use them to the glory of God or the good of men. The poor man had evil things: sickness, nakedness, hunger. The scene changes after death (Luke 16:25).

David Roberts Dungan

Evil-doers

Evil-doers - e-v'-l-doo'-erz mere`im; from ra`-a`; kakopoios, always plural): Malefactors or offenders of God's law. Used generally of the ungodly, as, "Fret not thyself because of evil-doers." (Psalms 37:1). Sometimes also of personal offenders: "He hath delivered the soul of the needy from the hand of evil-doers." (Jeremiah 20:13).

Evil-favoredness

Evil-favoredness - e-v'-l-fa'-verd-nes

The word is the translation of the Hebrew dabhar ra', lit "evil thing," and refers to the ritual unfitness for sacrifice of any animal which, though included in the class of clean beasts, yet possesses a blemish (see the word), or otherwise lacks beauty of symmetry, or is lean-fleshed (Deuteronomy 17:1 the King James Version; compare "ill blemish," Deuteronomy 15:21). We find these conditions combined in Genesis 41:3-4, 19-20, 21, 27, where the seven "ill-favored and lean-fleshed" kine of Pharaoh's dream are mentioned.

Evil-merodach

Evil-merodach - e-vil-me-ro'-dak; -mer'-o-dak 'ewil merodhakh; Septuagint Eueialmarodek; so B in K, but B in Jeremiah, and A and Q in both places much corrupted): The name of the son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon. The Babylonian form of the name is Amelu-Marduk, that is, "man of Marduk." About 30 contract tablets dated in this reign have been found. They show that Evil-merodach reigned for two years and about five months. He is said by Berosus to have conducted his government in an illegal and improper manner, and to have been slain by his sister's brother, Nergalshar-ucur, who then reigned in his stead. Evil-merodach is said in 2 Kings 25:27-30 and in the parallel passage in Jeremiah 52:31-34 to have taken Jehoiachin, king of Judah, from his prison in Babylon, where he seems to have been confined for Jeremiah 37:1-21 years, to have clothed him with new garments, to have given him a seat above all the other kings, and to have allowed him to eat at the king's table all the days of his life. It is an undesigned coincidence, that may be worthy of mention, that the first dated tablet from this reign was written on the 26th of Elul, and Jeremiah 52:31 says that Jehoiachin was freed from prison on the Jeremiah 25:11-38th of the same month.

R. Dick Wilson

Evil-speaking

Evil-speaking - e-v'-l-spek'-ing: Occurs twice in English Versions: (1) 1 Peter 2:1 it is the translation of katalalia, "a speaking against," rendered "backbiting" in 2 Corinthians 12:20; compare katalalos, "backbiter" (Romans 1:30); the verb katalaleo is rendered to "speak against" (1 Peter 2:12; James 4:11; 1 Peter 3:16); (2) of blasphemia, "what is hurtful to the good name of anyone," "detraction," "slander" (Ephesians 4:31 the Revised Version (British and American), "railing"; compare 1 Timothy 6:4; Jude 1:9; Colossians 3:8); the verb blasphemeo is rendered to "speak evil of" (Romans 14:16; 1 Corinthians 10:30; Titus 3:2, etc.); to "speak evil" occurs in Mark 9:39 as the translation of kakologeo, "lightly (the Revised Version (British and American) "quickly") speak evil of me"; Acts 19:9 the King James Version "spake evil of that way." In Psalms 140:11, we have "evil-speaker" as the translation of 'ish lashon, "a man of tongue"; so the Revised Version (British and American). The wrong thing condemned as evil-speaking seems to be essentially detraction, what is hurtful to the reputation, and it is often too lightly regarded even among Christians.

See BLASPHEMY;RAILING ; SLANDER.

W. L. Walker

Evolution

Evolution - ev-o-lu'-shun:

1. The Idea of Evolution: Evolution is a scientific and philosophical theory designed to explain the origin and course of all things in the universe. By origin, however, is not understood the production or emergence of the substance and of the cause or causes of things, but that of the forms in which they appear to the observer. Sometimes the term is vaguely used to cover absolute origin in the sense just excluded. A moment's reflection will make it clear that such a view can never secure a place in the realm of pure science. The problem of ultimate origin is not one that science can solve. If it is solved at all, it must be by purely philosophical as distinguished from scientific or scientific-philosophical methods. Evolution, therefore, must be viewed in science purely and strictly as a process of orderly change in the form of things. As such it assumes the existence of substance or substances and of a force or forces working its successive transformations. (NOTE: This position is apparently contradicted in the title of Henri Bergson's L'evolution creatrice. But an examination of Bergson's system shows that the contradiction is only apparent. Bergson's evolution is neither substance nor efficient cause or principle. The latter is given in his vital impetus (elan vital); the former in his concept of duration.)

As an orderly change of the form of things, evolution may be viewed as operative in the field of inorganic matter, or in that of life. In the first, it is known and called cosmic evolution; in the second, organic evolution. Of cosmic evolution again there appear two aspects, according as the process, or law. of transformation, is observed to operate in the realm of the lower units of matter (atoms and molecules), or is studied in the region of the great. In the first sphere, it is made to account for the emergence in Nature of the qualities and powers of different kinds of matter called elements. In the second, it explains the grouping together, the movements and transformations of the solar and of stellar systems. Similarly, of organic evolution there appear to be two varieties. The first occurs in the world of life including the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Evolution here accounts for the various forms of living beings building their bodies and passing from one stage to another in their existence as individuals, and for the course of the history of all life as it differentiates into species and genera. The second variety of evolution operates in the higher realm of intelligence, morality, social activity and religion. The idea of a law of orderly change governing all things is not a new one. Historians of science find it in some form or other embodied in the philosophies of Heraclitus, Democritus, Lucretius and Aristotle. There are those who find it also in the system of Gautama (Buddha).

2. Recent Origin of Notion: But in none of these was there a sufficiently wide basis of fact inductively brought together, or a thorough enough digestion and assimilation of the material to give the view as presented by them a firm standing. Hegel's idealistic theory of Development is kindred to the evolution theory in its essence; but it too antedates the working out of the system upon the basis of the scientific induction of the phenomena of Nature.

Until the time of Herbert Spencer, the scientific use of the word evolution was limited to the narrow department of embryology. By him, the term was made synonymous with all orderly change in Nature. The notion that such change is the result of chance, however, was not a part of Spencer's teaching. On the contrary, that philosopher held that chance is but the expression of laws undiscerned by the human mind. Yet these laws are just as definite and rigid as those already discovered and formulated.

Since the appearance of the inductive method in scientific research, and the rise of the science of biology in particular, the idea of evolution has been elaborated into a great systematic generalization, and proposed as the philosophy of all perceptible phenomena. Beginning as a working hypothesis in a special narrow department, that of biology, it has been extended into all the sciences until all come under its dominance, and it is viewed no longer as a mere working hypothesis, but as a demonstrated philosophy with the force and certainty of fact.

3. Evolution and Biblical Truth: It was natural that such an important proposition as the explanation of the present form of the whole universe by theory of evolution should in its course have occasioned much controversy. On one side extravagant claims were bound to be put forth in its behalf, combined with a misconception of its field. On the other a stubborn denial of its sufficiency as an explanation, even in the narrow sphere where it first made its appearance, was destined to confront it. This challenge, too, was the result of the misconception of it as an all-sufficient theory of the universe as distinguished from a law or method of the operation of a cause ulterior and superior to itself. The period of this warfare is now nearly, if not altogether, over. The task which remains to be accomplished is to recognize the bearings of theory on forms of thought arrived at apart from the light thrown on the world by itself.

Since such forms of thought are given in the Bible, certain problems arise which must be solved, if possible, in the light of evolution. These problems concern mainly the following topics: (1) The belief in a personal God, such as the Christian Scriptures present as an object of revelation; (2) The origin of the different species of living beings as portrayed in the Book of Gen; (3) The particular origin of the human species (the descent (ascent) of man); (4) The origin of morality and religion, and (5) The essential doctrines of the Christian faith, such as supernatural revelation, the idea of sin, the person of Christ, regeneration and immortality. Beyond the answers to these primary questions, it will be neither possible nor profitable to enter within the brief compass of the present article.

The relation of creation to evolution has been already suggested in the introductory explanation of the nature of evolution. If creation be the act of bringing into existence material or substance which did not previously exist, evolution does not touch the problem. It has nothing to say of a First Cause. The idea of a first cause may be regarded as material for metaphysics or the ground of religious belief.

4. Evolution and Creation: It may be speculated about, or it may be assumed by faith. The theory of evolution begins with matter or substance already in existence. A fairly representative statement of this aspect of it is illustrated by Huxley's dictum, "The whole world living and not living is the result of the mutual attraction according to definite laws of the powers possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed" (Life of Darwin, II, 210). This statement leaves two things unaccounted for, namely, molecules in the form of a "primitive nebulosity" and "powers possessed by these molecules." How did primitive nebulosity come to exist? How did it come to be composed of molecules possessed of certain powers, and how did there come to be definite laws governing these molecules? The agnostic answers, "We do not know, we shall not know" (ignoramus, ignorabimus, DuBois-Reymond). The pantheist says, "They are the substance and attributes of the Ultimate Being." The theist posits "an uncaused Cause who is greater than they, and possesses all the potentialities exhibited in them, together with much more (therefore at least a personal being), has brought them into existence by the power of His will" (compare EPICUREANS).

Thus the believer in evolution may be an agnostic, a pantheist or a theist, according to his attitude toward, and answer to, the question of beginnings. He is an evolutionist because he believes in evolution as the method of the transformation of molecules under the control of the powers possessed by them. Conversely theist (and by implication the Christian) may be an evolutionist. As an evolutionist he may be thoroughgoing. He may accept evolution either as a working hypothesis or as a well-established generalization, even in the form in which it is defined by Herbert Spencer: the integration of matter out of an indefinite incoherent homogeneity into definite coherent heterogeneity with concomitant dissipation of energy. (For the exact definition in its full length, see First Principles, 367.) In this definition, as in every other form of it, evolution is the name of a process of transformation, not a theory of absolute causation or creation ex nihilo. The human mind may leave the problem of initial creation uninvestigated; it may assume that there is no problem by regarding matter and energy as uncaused and ultimate realities or phases of one reality; or it may trace these back to a First Cause which has at least the powers and characteristics perceptible in the universe and particularly in itself as mind (i.e. individuality, intelligence and freedom), or in other words, to a personal God. In any of these contingencies it may hold to theory of evolution.

5. Evolution and the Origin of Species: Evolution is strongest in the realm of life. It is here that it first achieved its most signal conquests; and it is here that it was first antagonized most forcibly by the champions of religious faith. Here it proved irresistibly fascinating because it broke down the barriers supposed to exist between different species (whether minor or major) of life. It showed the unity and solidarity of the entire living universe with all its infinite variety. It reduced the life-process to one general law and movement. It traced back all present different forms, whether recognized as individuals, varieties, species, genera, families or kingdoms, to a single starting-point. In this realm the adjective "organic" has been prefixed to it, because the characteristic result is secured through organization. One of its most enthusiastic supporters defines it as "progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces" (LeConte).

The proof for organic evolution is manifold. It cannot be given here at any length. Its main lines, however, may be indicated as follows: (1) The existence of gradations of structure in living forms beginning with the simplest (the amoeba usually furnishes the best illustration) and reaching to some of the most complex organisms (the human body). (2) The succession of living forms in time. This means that, according to the evidence furnished by geology, the simpler organisms appeared earlier on the face of the earth than the more complex, and that the progress of forms has been in general from the simpler to the more complex. (3) The parallelism between the order thus discovered in the history of life upon earth and the order observed in the transformations of the embryo of the highest living forms from their first individual appearance to their full development. (4) The existence of rudimentary members and organs in the higher forms.

The most striking of these proofs of evolution are the two commonly designated the paleontological and the ontogenetic. The first is based on the fact that in the strata of the earth the simpler forms have been deposited in the earlier, and the more complex in the later. This fact points to the growth in the history of the earth of the later, more complex forms of life, from earlier simpler ones. The second consists in the observation that each individual of complexly constructed species of organisms begins its life in the embryonic stage as the simplest of all living forms, a single cell (constituted in some cases out of parts of two preexisting cells). From this beginning it advances to its later stages of growth as an embryo, assuming successively the typical forms of higher organisms until it attains the full form of its own species, and thus begins its individual post-embryonic life. It thus recapitulates in its individual history the history of its species as read in the paleontological records. This consideration shows that whatever the truth may be as to the species as a whole (for instance of man), each individual of the species (each man) has been evolved in his prenatal life, if not exactly from definitely known and identifiable species (anthropoid individuals perfectly formed), at least from foetal organisms apparently of the same type as those of anthropoids.

But assuming organic evolution to be true upon these grounds, and upon others of the same character, equally convincing to the scientific man, it must not be left out of account that it is to be distinguished quite sharply from cosmic evolution. These two phases of the law are identical at their basis, but become very different in their application according to the nature of the field in which they operate. Cosmic evolution works altogether through reactions. These are invariable in their cause and effect. Given material elements and conditions, they always issue in the same results. Their operations are grouped together under the sciences of chemistry and physics. Organic evolution works through processes to which the term "vital" is applied. Whether these are identical with the chemico-physical processes in the ultimate analysis is an open question among scientists. In the field of purely descriptive science, however, which limits itself to the observation of facts, it can scarcely emerge as a question, since the true nature of vitality is beyond the reach of observation. And upon the whole, theory that there is an inner difference between vitality and physico-chemical attractions and affinities is supported by certain obvious considerations. But even if vitality should prove to be nothing more than a series of reactions of a chemical and physical nature, the type of evolution to which it yields is differentiated by broad characteristics that distinguish it from merely molecular attractions and affinities.

(1) Vital processes cannot be correlated with the chemico-physical ones. Heat, light, electricity, magnetism, gravitation, chemical affinity, are interchangeable and interchanged among themselves. But none of these can be converted into life as far as now known. (2) All life is from preexisting life (omne vivum e vivo). Biogenesis still holds the field as far as experimental science has anything to say about it, and abiogenesis is at the most an attractive hypothesis. (3) The vital processes overcome and reverse the chemical and physical ones. When a living organism is constituted, and as long as it subsists in life, it breaks up and reconstitutes forms of matter into new forms. Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, in combination with other elements, are separated from one another and reunited in new combinations in the tissues of the plant and the animal. On the other hand, the moment the vital process ceases, the chemical and physical resume their course. The organism in which the vital process has been annihilated is immediately put under the operation of chemical affinities, and reduced into its first elements. So long as the vital process is on, there seems to be a ruling or directive principle modifying and counteracting the normal and natural course of the so-called chemical and physical forces. (4) The vital process is characterized by the manifestation in matter of certain peculiarities that never show themselves apart from it. These are irritability, assimilation of non-living matter in the process of growth, differentiation or the power in each kind of living organism to develop in its growth regularly recurring characteristics, and (5) reproduction. The result of the vital process is the tendency in the organic product of it to maintain itself as a unity, and become more and more diversified in the course of its life. These features of organic evolution make it necessary to account not only for the origin of the matter and the energy which are assumed in the cosmic form of evolution, but also for the origin and nature of the unknown something (or combination of things) which is called life in the organism, whether this be a unitary and distinct force or a group of forces. (It is interesting to notice the return to the notion of life as primal energy in the philosophy of Bergson (elan vital); compare Creative Evolution. The same view is advocated by Sir Oliver Lodge, Life and Matter.)

Furthermore, care must be taken not to confuse any special variety of evolutionary theory in the organic realm with the generic theory itself. Evolutionists hold and propound different hypotheses as to the application of the principle. The Lamarckian, the Darwinian, the Weismannian, the De Vriesian views of evolution are quite different from, and at certain points contradictory of, one another. They assume the law to be real and aim to explain subordinate features or specific applications of it as seen in certain given series of facts. They differ from one another in insisting on details which may be real or unreal without affecting the truth of the main law. Lamarckian evolution, for instance (revived recently under the name neo-Lamarckian), makes. much of the alleged transmissibility through heredity of acquired traits. Darwinian evolution is based largely on the principle of accidental variations worked over by natural selection and the slow insensible accumulation of traits fitting individuals to survive in the struggle for life. Weismannian evolution posits an astonishingly complex germinal starting-point. DeVriesian evolution is built on the sudden appearance of mutations ("sports") which are perpetuated, leading to new species. It is unscientific to array any of these against the other in the effort to undermine the generic theory of evolution, or to take their differences as indicating the collapse of theory and a return to the idea of creation by fiat. The differences between them are insignificant as compared with the gulf which separates them all from the conception of a separate creative beginning for each species at the first appearance of life upon earth. (On some differences between the primitive form of Darwinian and later theories of the same general type, see Rudolph Otto, in Naturalism and Religion (ET ).)

With these limitations, the law of organic evolution may be taken into the Biblical account of creation as given in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2. The question raised at once is one of the relation of the doctrine to the Biblical account. If the evolutionary conception is true, it naturally follows that the Biblical account cannot be accepted in its literal interpretation. For the one of these accounts pictures the different species and general types as coming into existence gradually out of preexisting ones, whereas the other (literally interpreted) represents them as created by a Divine fiat. This difference it is true may be artificially exaggerated. Nowhere does the Biblical account explicitly ascribe the creation of each species to the fiat of God. The word "created" (bara'), as used in Genesis, does not necessarily exclude pre-existing matter and form. On the other hand, expressions such as "Let the earth bring forth" (1:11 the King James Version) indicate a certain mediation of secondary powers in the elements ("resident forces," LeConte) through which organisms came into being. "After their kind" suggests the principle of heredity. "Abundantly" suggests the law of rapid and ample reproduction leading to the "struggle for life," "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." But all efforts to harmonize Gen with science upon this basis lead at the best to the negative conclusion that these two are so far different in their purpose and scope as not to involve radical contradiction. A positive agreement between them cannot be claimed.

The difficulty vanishes in its entirety when it is borne in mind that the two accounts are controlled by different interests, treat primarily of different matters and, where they appear to cover the same ground, do so each in an incidental way. This means that their statements outside of the sphere of their primary interests are popularly conceived and expressed, and cannot be set over against each other as rivals in scientific presentation. Upon this basis the Gen account is the vehicle of religious instruction (not, however, an allegory); its cosmogonic accounts are not intended to be scientifically correct, but popularly adequate. For all that science is concerned, they may be traditional conceptions, handed down in the form of folklore, and purged of the grotesque, purely mythological element so apt to luxuriate in folklore. Between such accounts and the dicta of pure science, it would be absurd either to assume or to seek for harmony or discord. They are parallel pictures; in the one the foreground is occupied by the actual unfolding of the facts, the religious element is concealed deep by the figures in the foreground. In the other the background of haze and cloud is the domain of fact, the foreground of definite figures consists of the religious ideas and teachings. The evolutionary notion of the origin of living forms on the earth can thus in no way be assumed as in contradiction either to the letter or the spirit of the teaching of Gen.

6. The Descent (Ascent) of Man: A still more important problem arises when the evolutionary theory touches the origin of man upon earth. Here, too, not simply the Biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve, and their primitive life in the Garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2:1-25 is affected, but all that is said of man as a child of God, clothed with peculiar dignity and eternal worth.

(1) The difference between the Biblical and evolutionary records of the creation of man may easily be resolved if the Biblical account (Genesis 2:1-25) is not viewed as a literal statement of actual occurrences, but as the vehicle of certain determinative thoughts designed to affiliate man in his proper relation to God. This means that what is essential in the Biblical account is that man as a distinctive and different being in the world came into existence as the result of a special act of will on the part of God, that he was created as the golden summit of the whole upward movement of life. He is not a mere creature of Nature, but the offspring of the Divine will, with power to know his Maker, to hold fellowship with Him and to carry in him the rational and moral image of the Creator of all. Against this view of the origin of man, evolutionary science has nothing to set over. It is concerned with the process through which the emergence of such a being as man was accomplished, and the time and circumstances in which it took place. These points it finds as it finds similar points affecting other living beings.

It would be easy of course to take materialistic forms of the evolutionary theory, such as that advocated by Haeckel, Guyeau, Ray Lankester, and establish an irreconcilable discord between them and the Biblical account; but such varieties of theory are distinguished, not by the occurrence of the idea of evolution in them, but rather by the materialistic metaphysics underlying them; when, for instance, Haeckel defines the notion of evolution by excluding from it intelligence or purpose, and by obliterating differences between the lower animal creation and man, he does so not as an evolutionist in science, but as a materialist (Monist of the materialistic type) in metaphysics. The moment the evolutionist determines to limit himself to the scientific side of his task, and the interpreter of the Biblical account to the religious side of his task, the assumed discord in Genesis 2:1-25 and the evolutionary theory totally vanishes.

(2) The more important point of contact between theory of evolution and the Biblical conception of man, however, is that of the notion of the dignity and worth of man. The very existence of a Bible is based on the idea that man is of some consequence to the Creator. And through the Bible this idea not only appears early (Genesis 1:26), "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," followed by the statement, "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," but is interwoven with every fundamental teaching.

It is contended that a representation like this is not compatible with the evolutionary conception of the origin of man from simian ancestors. The contention would be well supported if the evolutionary theory actually obliterated the line of distinction between man and the lower creation; and in any form of it in which such line is ignored, and man is regarded as a being of the same order (neither more or less) as those from which he sprang, it is not capable of being harmonized with the Biblical doctrine. But as a matter of fact, the whole drift and tendency of evolutionary thought ought to be and is the very opposite of belittling man. For according to it, man is the culmination and summit of a process whose very length and complexity simply demonstrate his worth and dignity as its final product. Accordingly, some of the most radical evolutionists, such as John Fiske (Through Nature to God) have extended and strengthened the argument for the immortality of man by an appeal to his evolutionary origin.

7. The Origin and Nature of Religion: Kindred to the problem of the origin of man, and, in some aspects of it, a part of that problem, is the further problem of the origin and nature of religion. First of all, according to evolution, religion cannot be an exception to the general law of the emergence of the more complex from simpler antecedents. Accordingly, it must be supposed to have evolved from non-religious or pre-religious elements. But the very statement of the case in this form necessitates the clear conception of the idea of religion. If religion is the sense in the human soul of an infinite and eternal being, or beings, issuing in influences upon life, then it is coeval with man and inseparable from the human soul. There never was a time when man was not religious. The very emergence of this sense in the mind of a prehuman ancestor of man would change the brute into the man.

We may speak of the states of the prehuman brute's mind as "materials for the making of religion," but not as religion. Their transformation into religion is therefore just as unique as the creation of the man himself. Whatever the mental condition of the brute before the emergence of the sense of an eternal reality and the dependence of itself upon that reality, it was not a religious being. Whatever the form of this sense, and whatever its first content and results, after the emergence of man it became religion. What caused it to appear at that particular moment and stage in the course of the onward movement? This is a question of causes, and its answer eludes the search of science, both pure and philosophical, and if undertaken by pure philosophy, leads to the same diversity of hypotheses as has been found to control the solution of the problem of beginnings in general (Agnosticism, Pantheism, Theism).

For the rest, that the general features hold true in the field of religion is obvious at a glance. Religious thought, religious practices, religious institutions, have undergone the same type of changes as are observed in the material universe and in the realm of life.

8. The Moral Nature: What is true of religion as an inner sense of a reality or realities transcending the outward world is equally, and even more clearly, true of the moral life which in one aspect of it is the outward counterpart of religion. To speak of the evolution of the conscience from non-ethical instincts is either to extend the meaning and character of the ethical into a region where they can have no possible significance, or to deny that something different has come into being when the sense of obligation, of duty, of virtue, and the idea of the supreme good have appeared.

In other particulars, the development of the moral nature of man, both in the individual and in the community, manifestly follows the process discerned in the material universe at large, and in the realm of organized life in particular. As an observed fact of history, the gradual growth of moral ideas and the mutual play of the inner controlling principle of the sense of oughtness ("the voice of God") and of social conditions and necessities, arising from the nature of man as a social being, are so manifest that they could neither be denied nor better explained in any other way than in accordance with the evolutionary view.

9. Christianity and Christian Doctrine: But the rise of the evolutionary theory calls for a new consideration not only of the questions of the origin and nature of religion and morality, but also of that of the content of the Gospel.

(1) At the basis of Christianity lies the idea of revelation. The God whom Jesus presented to men is supremely concerned in men. He communicates to them His interest in and His wishes concerning them. This fact the followers of Jesus have in general called "revelation." Some have insisted and still do insist that such revelation must be supernatural. Setting aside the consideration that the term "supernatural" does not occur in Biblical phraseology, and that the notion is deduced by a process of interpretation which leaves a large flexibility to it, i.e. a possibility of conceiving it in a variety of ways, revelation itself is not necessarily bound up with any special method of the communication of the Divine will (compare REVELATION). Analogies drawn from human life furnish many different ways of making known to the minds of intelligent fellow-beings the thought of one's own mind. These include, first, the pragmatic resort to some act or attitude of a physical nature, as, for instance, the touch of the whip or the point of the spur on the horse; the flown or the smile for the higher class of understanding of the human type. Secondly, the linguistic, wherein by conventional, articulate, highly complex sounds, one tells in words what lies in his own consciousness. All such expression is necessarily partial, indirect and symbolic. Thirdly, the telepathic and mysterious method (whose reality some still doubt) by which communication takes place without the mediation of either language or action. The evolutionary view does not exclude the possibility of any of these methods conceived as ethical and psychological processes. It does exclude any and all of them if understood as magical or preternatural phenomena. There is nothing, however, in a proper interpretation of the facts of Christian revelation to force the magical interpretation of the coming of the Divine message.

On the contrary, there is everything in the gradual and progressive method of the formation of the Christian Scriptures to suggest that the law of evolution was not violated here. One of the latest writers in Scripture plainly represents the whole method of revelation from the Divine point of view as a cumulative delivery of knowledge in different and successive parts and aspects (Hebrews 1:1). Both at its inception and in the course of its history, the gospel shows conformity to this fundamental law.

(2) Evolution and incarnation: One of the strongest objections to the idea of an all-comprehensive generalization of the law of evolution has been said to be that such a law would destroy the uniqueness of the personality of Jesus Christ. This is, however, due to a confusion of thought. In reality it is no more a denial of uniqueness to say that the Son of God entered the world in accordance with the laws of the world as ordered by the Father, than to say that He was subject to those laws after He entered the world; for instance, that He hungered and thirsted, was weary and needed rest and sleep, that His hands and feet bled when they were pierced and that He ceased to breathe when His heart failed to beat. It is a denial of uniqueness as to the method of entrance into the world, but not a denial of uniqueness of character, of nature, even of essence in the Nicene sense. It behooved Him, in bringing many sons to perfection, "to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering." The question of the Virgin Birth of Jesus is definitely excluded from the discussion because it is one of historical evidence chiefly, and, in whatever way the evidence may solve it, theory of evolution will have no difficulty to set over against the solution.

See VIRGIN BIRTH.

From the evolutionist's point of view, the incarnation is the climax and culmination of the controlling process of the universe (see INCARNATION). Evolution demands such a consummation as the appearance of a new type of person, and particularly the type which appeared in Jesus Christ. This is not saying that other men can be or have been of the same nature and essence as the incarnate Saviour. It is saying simply that through the incarnation God brings into perfection the ideal embodied and unfolded in previous generations partially, and held in view as the goal through the whole process of previous struggle and attainment. In other words, the New Adam, in Jesus Christ, emerges in the course of the upward ascent of man as the Adam of Gen emerged in the upward ascent from the lower creation. Theology from the point of view of revelation must necessarily explain this as the voluntary entrance of the Son of God into humanity for purposes of redemption. In doing so it does not contradict the evolutionary view, but simply presents another aspect of the subject.

Assuming, as is done throughout, that the evolution theory concerns not causes and principles, but the processes of transformation of life, the idea of the world is not complete with the creation of man in the image of God. That image must be brought into perfection through the incoming of eternal life. But eternal life is the life of God lived in the species of time and space. It could only come in a personal form through fellowship with God. The bringing of it must therefore be the necessary goal to which all the age-long ascent pointed.

The Incarnation fulfills the conditions of the evolutionary process in that it inserts into the world by a variation the new type governed by the principle of self-sacrifice for others. This is a new principle with Christ, although it is constituted out of preexisting motives and antecedents, such as the "struggle for others" (compare Drummond, The Ascent of Man) and "altruism" (in its noble instances in human history). It is a new principle, first, because in its pre-Christian and extra-Christian antecedents it is not real self-sacrifice, not being consciously consummated as the result of the outplay of the motive given in eternal life, and secondly, because it reverses the main stream of antecedent motive. It enthrones love by revealing God's supreme character and motive to be love. Thus viewed the Incarnation is the real entrance into the stream of cosmic movement of the Superman. Nietzsche's Superman would be exactly the contrary of this, i.e. the reversion of man to the beast, the denial of the supremacy of love, and the assertion of the supremacy of might.

(3) Another difficulty met by the harmonist of the Christian system with the evolutionary theory is that of the problem of sin. The method of the origin of sin in the human race, as well as its nature, are given in the Biblical account in apparently plain words. The first man was sinless. He became sinful by an act of his own.

As compared with this, according to one common conception of the law of evolution, all the bad tendencies and propensities in man are the survival of his animal ancestry. Cruelty, lust, deceitfulness and the like are but the "tiger and the ape" still lingering in his spiritual constitution, just as the vermiform appendix and the coccyx remain in the physical, mere rudiments of former useful organs; and just like the latter, they are apt to interfere with the welfare of the species later developed. Here, as in every previous stage of our survey, the difficulty arises from the failure to distinguish between that which appears in man as man, and the propensities in animals which lead to acts similar in appearance, but different in their place and function in the respective lives of those animals. As a matter of fact, the tendencies to cruelty, greed, lust and cunning in the brute are not sinful. They are the wholesome and natural impulses through which the individual and the race are preserved from extinction. They are sinful in man because of the dawn in the soul of a knowledge that his Maker is showing him a better way to the preservation of the individual and the race in the human form. Until the sense of the obligation to follow the better way has arisen, there can be no sin. But when it has come, the first act performed in violation of that sense must be regarded as sinful. As the apostle Paul puts it, "I had not known sin, except through the law." "I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived (was made to live) and I died" (Romans 7:7, 9).

Instead of militating against the idea of a primitive fall, the discovery of the law of evolution confirms it by showing that at some time, as the moral sense in man arose, in the very earliest stage of his existence as man, by an act of his own will, he set aside the new and better principle of conduct presented to him in his inner consciousness (disobeyed the voice of God), and fell back to the prehuman non-moral rule of his life. If this is not the doctrine of the Fall expressed in the terms of present-day science, it would be hard to conceive how that doctrine could be formulated in modern words. (F. J. Hall, Evolution and the Fall; compare FALL, THE.)

According to this theory, it was possible for man as he first began his career upon the earth to have passed at once into the condition of perfect fellowship with God. Development might have been sinless. But it was not likely. And it was not desirable that it should be (see ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT). For moral character apart from struggle and victory is weak and only negatively perfect. The elimination of sin was to be accomplished by a process which according to the evolutionary philosophy everywhere and always produces higher and stronger types. It is only as progress is achieved by regeneration following degeneration that the best results are secured. Thus "where sin abounded," it was `in order that grace might superabound' (Romans 5:20). Yet neither is sin the less sinful nor grace the less supernatural. It would be reading an unwarrantable doctrine into Scripture to say that upon the whole an unfallen race would have been superior to a fallen and redeemed race. The world as it is is not a mistake but the wisest thought of God.

The mystery of evil in the world is thus left neither more nor less difficult to understand under the evolutionary conception than under any other. The difficulty of an unbroken continuity between the lower and the higher forms of life, culminating in the free will of man, with the necessary possibility of conflict with the will of God, is not treated by the evolutionary philosophy, even though it may not be materially relieved. To this extent, however, it is relieved, that the Divine action is here understood to be analogous and consistent with itself throughout, even though transcending in scope and extent the human intelligence.

(4) In the light of what has already been made clear, it will be easy to dismiss the correlative doctrine of salvation from sin as fully compatible with the idea of evolution. The Christian doctrine of salvation falls into two general parts: the objective mediatorial work of the Redeemer, commonly called the Atonement, and the subjective transforming work of the Holy Spirit, begun in regeneration and continued in sanctification.

The idea of the Atonement lies somewhat remote from the region where the law of evolution is most clearly seen to operate. At first sight it may be supposed to sustain no special relation to evolution either as offering difficulties to it or harmonizing with it and corroborating it. Yet in a system whose parts are vitally interrelated, it would be strange if the acceptance of the evolutionary theory did not in some way and to some extent affect the conception. It does so by fixing attention on the following particulars: (a) That with the emergence of man as a personality, the relation of the creature to the Creator comes to be personal. If that personal relation is disturbed, it can be restored to its normal state in accordance with the laws observed in the relations of persons to one another. The Atonement is such a restoration of personal relations between God and man. (b) In achieving the goal of perfect fellowship with Himself on the part of creatures bearing His own image, the Creator must in a sense sacrifice Himself. This Divine self-sacrifice is symbolized and represented in the Cross. Yet the meaning of the Cross is not exhausted in mere external influence upon the sinful creature whose return to the holy Father is thereby aimed at. (c) Since the alienation of the creature by sin represents an offense to the person of the Creator, there is necessity that this offense should be removed; and this is done through the sacrifice of the Incarnate Son identifying Himself with, and taking the place of, the sinful creature.

The correlative doctrine of Regeneration stands much nearer the center of the thought of evolution. It has always been conceived and expressed in biological phraseology. The condition of sin postulated by this doctrine is one of death. Into this condition a new life is inserted, an act which is called the New Birth. Whatever life may be in its essence, it overcomes, reverses and directs the lower forces to other results than they are observed to achieve apart from its presence. In analogy to this course of life in the process of regeneration, a new direction is given to the energies of the new-born soul. But the analogy goes farther. Regeneration is from above as life is always from above. It is God's Spirit through the word and work of Christ that begets the new Christian life, nurtures, trains and develops it to its full maturity revealed in the image and stature of Christ Himself (see REGENERATION).

10. Conclusion: If the above considerations are valid, the evolutionary and the Christian views of the world cannot logically be placed against each other as mutually exclusive and contradictory. They must be conceived as supplementing one another, and fulfilling each the promise and possibility of the other. Evolution is a scientific generalization which, kept within the limits of science, commends itself as a satisfactory explanation of the great law controlling all the movements of matter, life and mind. Christianity, so far as it enters into the intellectual life, is interested in the idea of God and of man's relation to God. It may confidently leave the facts in the lower world of processes of transformation to be schematized under the scientific generalization of evolution.

LITERATURE.

The literature of the subject is vast. At the basis of the discussion stand the works of Darwin, Huxley, Wallace, Spencer, Weismann, Haeckel, Romanes and others. For a clear statement of theory, see Metcalf, An Outline of the Theory of Organic Evolution, 1905; Saleeby, Evolution the Master-Key, 1907; Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin (historical), 1908. On its relation to religion and Christianity, B. F. Tefft, Evolution and Christianity, 1885; E. Caird, The Evolution of Religion, 1893; Le Conte, Evolution; Its Nature, Its Evidences and Its Religious Thought, 1888; McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 1888; Iverach, Christianity and Evolution, 1894. On its bearing on the ideas of man, sin and redemption, Griffith-Jones, The Ascent through Christ, 1900; H. Drummond, The Ascent of Man, 12th edition, 1901; Tyler, The Whence and Whither of Man; Orr, The Image of God in Man, 1907; Sin as a Problem of Today, 1910; Hall, Evolution and the Fall, 1910; Murray, Christian Faith and the New Psychology, 1911; T. A. Palm, The Faith of an Evolutionist, 1911.

Andrew C. Zenos

(EDITORIAL NOTE.--It will be understood, that while Professor Zenos has been asked and permitted to state his views on this question unreservedly, neither the publishers nor the editors are to be held as committed to all the opinions expressed.)

Ewe

Ewe - u (rachel, `ul, seh, "a female sheep"): Rachel (compare pr. note Rachel, and Arabic rachala, "to migrate") is the ordinary Hebrew word for ewe, but is translated "sheep," though with clear indication of sex in context, in Isaiah 53:7 and Song of Solomon 6:6 (the Revised Version (British and American) "ewes"). `Aloth, participle of `ul, "to suckle" (compare Arabic ghal) is found in Psalms 78:71 and Isaiah 40:11 (the King James Version "are with young," the English Revised Version "that give suck," the American Standard Revised Version "have their young"). In 1 Samuel 6:7, 10 occurs paroth `aloth, "milch kine." Seh, in Leviticus 22:28, while translated "ewe," might from the context be "ewe" or "shegoat" and indeed seems to be used here as a term applying equally to either, being used elsewhere for one of a flock of sheep or goats.

See SHEEP.

Alfred Ely Day

Exact

Exact - eg-zakt':

(1) naghas (Deuteronomy 15:2-3; 2 Kings 23:35; Isaiah 58:3), to secure by force or pressure interest or money for tribute, and perhaps, in Isaiah 58:3, labor or toil; but compare the Revised Version, margin "oppress all your laborers"; probably better with a slight change of text, "exact money lent on pledges" (reading for `abhoT beyedhekhem, `atstsebhekhem).

(2) nasha', or nashah (Nehemiah 5:7, 10 (the King James Version not the Revised Version (British and American)),11; Job 11:6 (but see below); Psalms 89:22), to demand interest, to be a harsh and importunate creditor, a practice which Nehemiah asks the Jews to forego. Job 11:6 better with the Revised Version, margin for "exact," "causeth to be forgotten."

(3) yotse' (2 Kings 15:20 (if text is correct)). Menahem secured the tribute which the king of Assyria demanded by levying a tax on the chief men of his kingdom.

(4) prassein (Luke 3:13 the King James Version (compare Daniel 11:20 Septuagint); 1 Maccabees 10:35 the Revised Version (British and American)), to demand money or tribute or taxes of anyone.

Walter R. Betteridge

Exaction

Exaction - eg-zak'-shun: (1) mashsha' (Nehemiah 10:31), a demand for money lent on pledge, which the Jews agreed to forego in the seventh year; (2) gerushah (Ezekiel 45:9, "your exactions," the Revised Version, margin "expulsions"), eviction from house and home.

Exactors

Exactors - eg-zak'-ters (noghesayikh (Isaiah 60:17, the Revised Version, margin "taskmasters"; compare Exodus 1:11; 3:7)): Righteousness personified is in Zion to take the place of the officials who oppress the people. In Isaiah 14:4 the American Revised Version, margin, Babylon is called an "exactress of gold."

Exalt

Exalt - eg-zolt' (rum, gabhah (mappiq he), nasa'; hupsoo): The Hebrew word most often translated "exalt," "exalted," is rum; "to lift up," "to be or become high." It is used with reference to both God and man, e.g. Exodus 15:2, "My father's God, and I will exalt him"; Psalms 99:5, 9, "Exalt ye Yahweh our God"; compare Psalms 107:32; 118:28; 1 Samuel 2:10, "Exalt the horn of his anointed"; Job 17:4, "Therefore shalt thou not exalt them"; compare Isaiah 13:2 the King James Version; Isaiah 14:13; gabhah, "to be high," figuratively "to be exalted," occurs in Job 36:7; Proverbs 17:19 the King James Version; Isaiah 5:16, etc.; nasa', "to lift up," occurs in Numbers 24:7; 1 Chronicles 29:11, etc.; other words are calal, "to raise up" (Exodus 9:17; Proverbs 4:8), saghabh (Job 5:11; 36:22 the King James Version; Isaiah 2:11, 17; 12:4; 33:5), ramam, "to be high" (Job 24:24; Psalms 118:16).

In the New Testament "exalt" is the translation of hupsoo, "to elevate" (not used with reference to God) (Matthew 11:23; 23:12; Acts 2:33; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Peter 5:6, etc.); also (twice) of epairo, "to lift up, upon or against" (2 Corinthians 10:5; 11:20), once of huperairo, "to lift up above" (2 Thessalonians 2:4); in 2 Corinthians 12:7 bis, this word is translated "exalted above measure," the Revised Version (British and American) "exalted overmuch"; huperupsoo, "to lift up above" (Philippians 2:9), is translated "highly exalted"; hupsos, "elevation," is translated "exalted" (James 1:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "high estate").

For "it increaseth" (Job 10:16), the Revised Version (British and American) gives "and if my head exalt itself"; instead of "God exalteth by His, power" (Job 36:22), "God doeth loftily in his power"; for "though thou exalt thyself as the eagle" (Obadiah 1:4), "mount on high"; for "highly esteemed" (Luke 16:15) "exalted"; for "exalteth itself" (2 Corinthians 10:5), "is exalted"; for "He shall lift you up" (James 4:10), "He shall exalt you."

Self-exaltation is strongly condemned, especially by Christ; humbleness is the way to true exaltation (Matthew 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14; compare James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:6); the supreme example is that of Christ Himself (Philippians 2:5-11).

W. L. Walker

Exaltation of Christ, The

Exaltation of Christ, The - See CHRIST,THE EXALTATION OF .

Examine; Examination

Examine; Examination - eg-zam'-in, eg-zam-i-na'-shun: darash, "to follow," "inquire," "make inquisition" (Ezra 10:16); and bachan, "to test," "investigate," "prove," "tempt" (Psalms 26:2). The former was the judicial term. anakrino, "scrutinize," "investigate," "interrogate" (in court), "judge," "search" (Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; 12:19; 28:18; 1 Corinthians 9:3); and anetazo, "to investigate" (judicially), "examine" (Acts 22:24, 29). Also dokimazo, "to test," "examine," "try" (1 Corinthians 11:28 the King James Version); and peirazo, "scrutinize," "discipline" (2 Corinthians 13:5 the King James Version). The noun anakrisis, "examination," "investigation," occurs in Acts 25:26.

See also COURTS, JUDICIAL.

Frank E. Hirsch

Example

Example - eg-zam'-p'-l (tupos, "a pattern," hupodeigma, "copy" "representation" hupogrammos, "a writing-copy," example"): A typical, representative, or illustrative case; a pattern or model for imitation (hupodeigma, John 13:15; Hebrews 8:5 the King James Version; James 5:10; hupogrammos, 1 Peter 2:21; tupos, 1 Timothy 4:12 the King James Version) or warning (deigma, "a sample," "exhibition," Jude 1:7; compare 2 Peter 2:6; hupodeigma, Hebrews 4:11; tupos, 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11 ).

"Ensample" (tupos, 2 Maccabees 6:28, 31; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:12; 1 Peter 5:3) and "example" have the same meaning, but the former is always suggestive of goodness.

Exceed; Exceeding; Exceedingly

Exceed; Exceeding; Exceedingly - ek-sed': The verb is found in other than its present sense in Job 36:9 the King James Version, "They have exceeded" (the Revised Version (British and American) "behaved themselves proudly"); 1 Samuel 20:41, "They .... wept .... until David exceeded" (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). In both these passages the idea is that of going too far, beyond proper bounds (Hebrew, respectively, gabhar, "be strong" (in the Hithpael); gadhal, "be great" (in the Hiphil). "Exceeding" (as an adverb with adjectives and rarely as an adjective) and "exceedingly" occur often as representing various expressions for the superlative in Hebrew and Greek

Excellency

Excellency - ek'-se-len-si (ga-on, ga'awah; huperbole): "Excellency" in the Old Testament is chiefly the translation of ga'on, "mounting," "swelling" (Exodus 15:7; Job 37:4 the King James Version; Psalms 47:4 the King James Version; Isaiah 13:19 the King James Version, etc.); [~ga'awah, rising, is thrice so rendered (Deuteronomy 33:26, 29; Psalms 68:34); se'eth, "rising" (twice) (Job 13:11 the King James Version; Psalms 62:4 the King James Version); yether, "superabundance" (twice) (Genesis 49:3 the King James Version; Job 4:21 the King James Version), and chadhar, "honor," "beauty," "majesty" (twice) (Isaiah 35:2); gobhah, "uplifted" (Job 40:10); yithron, "advantage" (Ecclesiastes 7:12); si', "elevation" (Job 20:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "height"). In the New Testament huperbole, "surpassing," "a casting beyond," occurs (2 Corinthians 4:7, "that the excellency of the power may be of God," the Revised Version (British and American) "exceeding greatness"); huperoche, "a holding over" or "beyond," is translated "excellency" (1 Corinthians 2:1), and to huperechon, "the pre-eminence" (Philippians 3:8), "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ."

Instead of "excellency" the Revised Version (British and American) has "pride" (Isaiah 13:19; Ezekiel 24:21), "majesty" (Job 37:4 and the American Standard Revised Version 13:11; 31:23), the American Standard Revised Version has "pre-eminence" (Genesis 49:3-4), "glory" (Psalms 47:4), "dignity" (Psalms 62:4); for "the fat of lambs" (Psalms 37:20), the English Revised Version has "the excellency of the pastures," with margin, "the fat of lambs"; the American Standard Revised Version retains the King James Version rendering with the English Revised Version in the margin; instead of "Doth not their excellency which is in them go away?" (Job 4:21), the Revised Version (British and American) has "Is not their tent-cord plucked up within them?" margin, "Is not their excellency which is in them removed?"

W. L. Walker

Excellent

Excellent - ek'-se-lent 'addir, yattir (Aramaic); diaphoroteros, kratistos): The translation of various Hebrew words, chiefly of 'addir, "great," "honorable" (Psalms 8:1, 9; 16:3; 76:4); yattir, "surpassing," is Aramaic, occurring in Daniel 2:31; 4:36; 12, 14; 6:3. Other words are bachar, "to glow," "try," "choose" (Song of Solomon 5:15); ga'on, "mounting," "swelling" (Isaiah 4:2; see EXCELLENCY); gadhal, "to make or become great" (Isaiah 28:29), and other words occurring singly.

In the New Testament we have diaphoroteros, "greater," "better" (Hebrews 1:4; 8:6); kratistos, "most excellent," "most noble" (Luke 1:3; Acts 23:26); ta diapheronta, "things that differ," "are preeminent" (Romans 2:18; Philippians 1:10); megaloprepes, "becoming to the great" (2 Peter 1:17, the King James Version "a voice to him from the excellent glory," the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version, margin "the Majestic Glory"); kath' huperbolen "very surpassing" (1 Corinthians 12:31, "Yet I show unto you a more excellent way," the Revised Version (British and American) "most excellent"); pleion, "greater," "fuller" (Hebrews 11:4; see ABEL).

W. L. Walker

Exchange; Exchanger

Exchange; Exchanger - eks-chanj', eks-chan'-jer.

See BANK,BANKING .

Excommunication

Excommunication - eks-ko-mu-ni-ka'-shun: Exclusion from church fellowship as a means of personal discipline, or church purification, or both. Its germs have been found in (1) the Mosaic "ban" or "curse" (cherem, "devoted"), given over entirely to God's use or to destruction (Leviticus 27:29); (2) the "cutting off," usually by death, stoning of certain offenders, breakers of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) and others (Leviticus 17:4; Exodus 30:22-38); (3) the exclusion of the leprous from the camp (Leviticus 13:46; Numbers 12:14). At the restoration (Ezra 10:7-8), the penalty of disobedience to Ezra's reforming movements was that "all his substance should be forfeited (cherem), and himself separated from the assembly of the captivity." Nehemiah's similar dealing with the husbands of heathen women helped to fix the principle. The New Testament finds a well-developed synagogal system of excommunication, in two, possibly three, varieties or stages. nidduy, for the first offense, forbade the bath, the razor, the convivial table, and restricted social intercourse and the frequenting of the temple. It lasted thirty, sixty, or ninety days. If the offender still remained obstinate, the "curse," cherem, was formally pronounced upon him by a council of ten, and he was shut out from the intellectual, religious and social life of the community, completely severed from the congregation. shammatha', supposed by some to be a third and final stage, is probably a general term applied to both nidduy and cherem. We meet the system in John 9:22: "If any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue" (aposunagogos); John 12:42: "did not confess .... lest they should be put out of the s."; and John 16:2: "put you out of the synagogue." In Luke 6:22 Christ may refer to the three stages: "separate you from their company (aphorisosin), and reproach you (oneidisosin = cherem, "malediction"), and cast out your name as evil (ekbalosin)."

It is doubtful whether an express prescription of excommunication is found in our Lord's words (Matthew 18:15-19). The offense and the penalty also seem purely personal: "And if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican," out of the pale of association and converse. Yet the next verse might imply that the church also is to act: "Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc. But this latter, like Matthew 16:19, seems to refer to the general enunciations of principles and policies rather than to specific ecclesiastical enactments. On the whole, Jesus seems here to be laying down the principle of dignified personal avoidance of the obstinate offender, rather than prescribing ecclesiastical action. Still, personal avoidance may logically correspond in proper cases to excommunication by the church. 2 Thessalonians 3:14: "Note that man, that ye have no company with him"; Titus 3:10: "A factious man .... avoid" (American Revised Version margin); 2 John 1:10: "Receive him not into your house," etc., all inculcate discreet and faithful avoidance but not necessarily excommunication, though that might come to be the logical result. Paul's "anathemas" are not to be understood as excommunications, since the first is for an offense no ecclesiastical tribunal could well investigate: 1 Corinthians 16:22, "If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema"; the second touches Paul's deep relationship to his Lord: Romans 9:3, "I myself .... anathema from Christ"; while the third would subject the apostle or an angel to ecclesiastical censure: Galatians 1:8-9, "Though we, or an angel .... let him be anathema."

Clear, specific instances of excommunication or directions regarding it, however, are found in the Pauline and Johannine writings. In the case of the incestuous man (1 Corinthians 5:1-12), at the instance of the apostle ("I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit"), the church, in a formal meeting ("In the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together"), carrying out the apostle's desire and will ("and my spirit"), and using the power and authority conferred by Christ ("and with the power of our Lord Jesus"), formally cut off the offender from its fellowship, consigning (relinquishing?) him to the power of the prince of this world ("to deliver such a one unto Satan"). Further, such action is enjoined in other cases: "Put away the wicked man from among yourselves." 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 probably refers to the same case, terminated by the repentance and restoration of the offender. `Delivering over to Satan' must also include some physical ill, perhaps culminating in death; as with Simon Magus (Acts 8:20), Elymas (Acts 13:11), Ananias (Acts 5:5). 1 Timothy 1:20: "Hymenaeus and Alexander .... that they might be taught not to blaspheme," is a similar case of excommunication accompanied by judicial and disciplinary physical ill. In 3 John 1:9, 10 we have a case of excommunication by a faction in control: "Diotrephes .... neither doth he himself receive .... and them that would he .... casteth out of the church."

Excommunication in the New Testament church was not a fully developed system. The New Testament does not clearly define its causes, methods, scope or duration. It seems to have been incurred by heretical teaching (1 Timothy 1:20) or by factiousness (Titus 3:10 (?)); but the most of the clear undoubted cases in the New Testament are for immoral or un-Christian conduct (1 Corinthians 5:1, 11, 13; perhaps also 1 Timothy 1:20). It separated from church fellowship but not necessarily from the love and care of the church (2 Thessalonians 3:15 (?)). It excluded from church privileges, and often, perhaps usually, perhaps always, from social intercourse (1 Corinthians 5:11). When pronounced by the apostle it might be accompanied by miraculous and punitive or disciplinary physical consequences (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20). It was the act of the local church, either with (1 Corinthians 5:4) or without (1 Corinthians 5:13; 3 John 1:10) the concurrence of an apostle. It might possibly be pronounced by an apostle alone (1 Timothy 1:20), but perhaps not without the concurrence and as the mouthpiece of the church. Its purpose was the amendment of the offender: "That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5:5); and the preservative purification of the church: "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened" (1 Corinthians 5:7). It might, as appears, be terminated by repentance and restoration (2 Corinthians 2:5-11). It was not a complex and rigid ecclesiastical engine, held in terrorem over the soul, but the last resort of faithful love, over which hope and prayer still hovered.

LITERATURE.

Arts. in HDB, DB, Jew Eric, DCG; Martensen, Christian Ethics, III, 330 ff; Nowack, Benzinger, Heb Archaeol.; Commentary in the place cited.

Philip Wendell Crannell

Execute; Executioner

Execute; Executioner - ek'-se-kut, ek-se-ku'-shun-er (`asah, "to do," din,"to judge," "decide"; poieo, "to do"; spekoulator, Latin speculator, "an attendant"): "Execute" in the sense of "executing judgment," "vengeance," etc., is often found in the Old Testament (Exodus 12:12; Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 149:7; Jeremiah 22:3; Ezekiel 25:11; Micah 5:15; compare Jeremiah 21:12, "Execute justice in the morning") and a few times in the New Testament (John 5:27; Romans 13:4 the King James Version; Jude 1:15). In the sense of punishing capitally, by legal process, it is not found. "Executioner" is found only in Mark 6:27 the King James Version, where Herod, the king, is said to have "sent an executioner" (spekoulator) to behead John the Baptist, but the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version have instead, according to the stricter meaning of the text, "The king sent forth a soldier of his guard." The office of executioner, however, was a recognized office in all the great nations of antiquity.

George B. Eager

Exegesis

Exegesis - ek-se-je'-sis.

See INTERPRETATION.

Exercise

Exercise - ek'-ser-siz (`asah; gumnazo, poieo) : "Exercise" (meaning originally, "to drive or thrust out") has different shades of meaning: It means (1) "to do," "to put into action" (Jeremiah 9:24, `asah, "to do," "Yahweh who exerciseth lovingkindness"; Revelation 13:12, poieo, "to do," "He exerciseth all the authority of the first"; Tobit 12:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "do"); (2) with violence implied, gazal, "to take away violently," "have exercised robbery" (Ezekiel 22:29); "to act habitually" (Psalms 131:1, halakh, "to walk," "Neither do I exercise myself in great matters" the Revised Version, margin "walk"; Acts 24:16, askeo, "to work up"; compare 2 Esdras 15:8; Ecclesiasticus 50:28); (3) "to train" or "discipline," gumnazo, "to use exercise," "to train up" (1 Timothy 4:7, "Exercise thyself unto godliness"; Hebrews 5:14; 12:11; 2 Peter 2:14; compare 1 Maccabees 6:30; 2 Maccabees 15:12); (4) "to afflict (Ecclesiastes 1:13; 3:10, `anah, "to be afflicted," "exercised therewith," "exercised in it"); in Matthew 20:25; Mark 10:42, katakurieuo, "to lord it over," and katexousiazo, "to exercise authority," are translated respectively "exercise dominion" and "exercise authority," the English Revised Version "lord it over" and "exercise authority"; in Luke 22:25, the Greek words are kurieuo, "to be lord over" and exousiazo, "to have power or authority over," the Revised Version (British and American) "have lordship," "have authority." In 1 Timothy 4:8 the noun, gumnasia, meaning gymnastic exercise, occurs (somatike gumnasia), translated "bodily exercise," contrasted with "exercise unto godliness," the Revised Version (British and American) "For bodily exercise is profitable for a little (m "for little"); but godliness is profitable for all things," a saying to which the youth of all times would do well to give heed. In 2 Maccabees 4:9, Jason is said to have set up "a place of exercise" (gumnasion) in Jerusalem. In 1 Peter 5:2 the Revised Version (British and American), "exercising the oversight" is substituted for "taking the oversight."

W. L. Walker

Exhortation

Exhortation - ek-sor-ta'-shun (paraklesis): The Greek word translated "exhortation" (paraklesis) signifies, originally, "a calling near or for" (as an advocate or helper who should appeal on one's behalf), and carries the twofold sense of "exhortation" and "consolation" (which see). In the Septuagint of the Old Testament it is used in the sense of "consolation"; but in 2 Maccabees 7:24, it is translated "exhort," the Revised Version (British and American) "appeal." The verb parakaleo is also translated "exhortation" (1 Maccabees 13:3 the King James Version) and "exhort" (2 Maccabees 9:26).

In the New Testament paraklesis is translated "exhortation" (Acts 13:15; Romans 12:8, the Revised Version (British and American) "exhorting"; 1 Corinthians 14:3, the English Revised Version "comfort," the American Revised Version, margin "or comfort"; 2 Corinthians 8:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:13; Hebrews 12:5; 13:22). the American Standard Revised Version has also "exhortation," instead of "consolation" in Philippians 2:1. In Luke 3:18, parakaleo, "to call near or for," is translated exhortation," "and many other things in his exhortation," the Revised Version (British and American) "with many other exhortations," and in Acts 20:2, parakaleo logo pollo is rendered (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)), "had given them much exhortation."

W. L. Walker

Exile

Exile - ek'-sil, eg'-zil (galah, tsa`ah): Occurs twice only in the King James Version (2 Samuel 15:19 (galah, "to remove"); Isaiah 51:14 (tsa`ah, "to be bowed down")). In the Revised Version (British and American) "exile" is substituted for "captivity" (Ezra 8:35 (shebhi), and Ezekiel 12:4 (golah)); "go into exile," for "remove and go" (Ezekiel 12:11); "exiles of Ethiopia" for "Ethiopians captives" (Isaiah 20:4); "He shall let my exiles go free" for "He shall let go my captives" (Isaiah 45:13); "an exile" for "a captive" (Isaiah 49:21). "The exile" is in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "the captivity" (which see).

Exodus, The

Exodus, The - ek'-so-dus:

I. THE ROUTE

1. The Starting-Point

2. Rameses to Succoth

3. Succoth to Etham

4. Passage of the Sea

5. Other Views of the Route

II. THE DATE

1. Old Testament Chronology

2. Date of Conquest of Palestine

3. Date of Exodus

4. Other Views

5. Astronomical Calculations

6. Relation between Date of Exodus and Date of Patriarchs

7. Agreement between Monuments and Old Testament Chronology

8. A Text of Minepthah

III. THE THEORY OF LEPSIUS

1. 1st Argument: City Rameses

2. 2nd Argument: Manetho's Statements

3. Relation of Manetho's Stories to the Exodus

4. Greek and Latin Writings

5. Condition of Egypt under Minepthah

6. Explanations of Minepthah's Statements

(1) Pithore was Heroopolis

(2) Rameses II not Named in Judges

(3) Some Hebrews Were never in Egypt

IV. THE NUMBERS

1. Colenso's Criticism of Large Number

2. Increase of Population

3. Number a Corruption of Original Statement

4. Review

I. The Route. 1. The Starting-Point: On the 14th Abib (early in April) the Hebrews were gathered at Rameses (Numbers 33:5) where apparently the hostile Pharaoh was also living (Exodus 12:31). From Psalms 78:12, 43 it appears that the wonders preceding the Exodus occurred in the "field of Zoan," where the starting-point may be placed (see RAAMSES; ZOAN). Dr. Naville has suggested that the court was at Bubastis, not at Zoan, and that the route lay from near Zagazig down Wady Tumeilat--a line well fitted for a people driving flocks and herds. On the other hand, in favor of the starting-point having been at Zoan, we read that the "way of the land of the Philistines" was "near" (Exodus 13:17). This route, which was not taken lest the people should be discouraged by defeat at Gaza where the Egyptians always had troops, reached Egypt at Migdol (see MIGDOL, 2), and ran thence to Daphnai--some 15 miles--and to Zoan by a second march of the same length. The route from Bubastis to Daphnai (some 50 miles) is less likely to have been described as "near." Although an Arab will march 30 miles in a day on foot, yet when moving camp with camels, who travel only about 2 miles an hour, with women and children and herds, he only covers about 12 or 15 miles a day. We cannot suppose the Hebrew cattle to have covered more than this distance without water on any single march.

2. Rameses to Succoth: We are not told how many days were occupied on the way from Rameses to SUCCOTH (which see), though the general impression is that the stages mentioned (Numbers 33:1-56) represent a day's journey each. Measuring back from the first camp after crossing the Red Sea, we find that Succoth probably lay in the lower part of Wady Tumeilat, where there was plenty of water and herbage. The direct route from Zoan leads to Phakousa (Tell Faqus) by a march of 15 miles through well-watered lands. A second march, across the desert to Heroopolis and down the valley to Succoth, would be of the same length. The Hebrews departed "in haste," and no doubt made as long marches as they could. If the whole of the people were not in Rameses, but scattered over Goshen, it is possible that some came down the valley from near Bubastis, and that the whole force concentrated at Succoth.

3. Succoth to Etham: The next march (Exodus 13:20; Numbers 33:6) led Israel to Etham, on the "edge of the wilderness" which lies West of the Bitter Lakes, not far from where the Nile water then entered them, and no doubt made them sweet. The intention of Moses probably was to reach the desert of Shur by rounding the head of this stretch of water; but we are told (Exodus 14:2 f) that he was commanded to "turn"--evidently to the South--and to encamp before "the mouth of the lakes" (see PI-HAHIROTH), in order that Pharaoh might conclude that the Hebrews were "entangled in the land," and shut in between the lakes on their left and the desert mountains on their right. This camp would seem to have been West of the lakes, and some 10 miles North of Suez. It was perhaps two days' journey from Etham, since the lakes are 30 miles long; or, if Etham was farther South than the head of the lakes, the distance may have been covered by one forced march of 20 to 25 miles, the beasts being watered from the lakes if they were then filled with fresh water, as they would be when having an outlet to a tideless sea.

4. Passage of the Sea: The sea which Israel crossed is not named in the actual account of the journey, but in the Song of Moses (Exodus 15:4) it is called the "Red Sea" in the English Versions of the Bible, following the Septuagint, the Hebrew name being Yam Cuph, or "weedy sea," a term which applied not only to the Gulf of Suez (Numbers 33:10), but also to the Gulf of 'Aqabah (Deuteronomy 28:1-68; 1 Kings 9:26). We are also told that the route chosen was "the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea" (Exodus 13:18). It is generally supposed that the head of the Gulf of Suez at the time of the Exodus was farther North than at present; and, as the Bitter Lakes were then probably filled by the Nile waters flowing down Wddy Tumeildt, they would no doubt have carried the Nile mud into this gulf, which mud had gradually filled up this Nile branch before 600 BC. The probable point of passage was the narrow channel (about 2 miles across) by which the lakes discharged into the sea, and was thus about 10 miles North of Suez. We are told that the water was driven back by "a strong east (or "contrary") wind" in the night (Exodus 14:21), and the sea (or "lake," as the word yam often means in the Old Testament; see Gesenius, Lexicon, under the word) was thus "divided," a shoal being formed and the waters being heaped up (Exodus 15:8), so that when the wind ceased they rushed back; whereas, during the passage, they were a "wall" or "defence" (Exodus 14:22) against any flank attacks by the Egyptians (compare 1 Samuel 25:16, where David's men are said to have been a "wall" when defending Nabal's shepherds). The effect of the wind on shallow waters can be seen at the mouth of the Kishon, where a shoal exists which is dry with a west wind, but under water and impassable when the wind blows down the river. In 1882, Sir Alexander Tulloch saw the waters of Lake Menzaleh driven back more than a mile by the east wind. Thus, however opportune the occurrence, the drying up of the sea, as described in the Bible, was a perfectly natural phenomenon. The Hebrews crossed in the morning, and a march of 15 miles would bring them to the springs from which Suez is supplied, called 'Ain Naba' and 'Ayyun Musa ("the gushing spring" and "the spring of Moses"), from which point their wanderings in the desert of Shur would begin (see WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL).

5. Other Views of the Route: This view of the Exodus route is practically the same as advocated by Dr. Robinson, by Dr. E. Naville, by Sir S. Warren, by Sir W. Dawson, and by others who have visited the region in question. The view advocated by Brugsch, according to which the sea crossed was a lagoon near Pelusium, has found no supporters, because it directly conflicts with the statement that Israel did not follow the shore road to Philistia, but went by the wilderness of the Red Sea. Another theory (see SINAI), according to which the "Red Sea" always means the Gulf of 'Aqabah, is equally discarded by most writers of experience, because the distance from Egypt to Elath on this gulf is 200 miles, and the Israelites could not have traversed that distance in four marches, especially as the route has hardly any water along it in springtime. As detailed above, the route offers no difficulties that would discredit the historical character of the narrative.

II. The Date. 1. Old Testament Chronology: The actual statements of the Books of Kings, giving parallel reigns from the time of Solomon's death down to the fixed date of the fall of Samaria in 722 BC, place the foundation of the Temple within a few years of 1000 BC. It is true that this interval is reduced, by about 30 years, by scholars who accept the very doubtful identification of Ahabu of Sir-lai with Ahab of Israel; but this theory conflicts with the fact that Jehu was contemporary with Shalmaneser II of Assyria; and, since we have no historical account of the chronology of Hebrew kings other than that of the Old Testament, for this period, and no monumental notice of Israel in Egypt, or of the Exodus, we must either adopt Old Testament chronology or regard the dates in question as being unknown.

2. Date of Conquest of Palestine: We have several statements which show that the Hebrew writers believed the conquest of Palestine by Joshua to have occurred early in the 15th century BC, and this date fully agrees with the most recent results of monumental study of the history of the XVIIIth (or Theban) Dynasty in Egypt, as about to be shown, and with the fact that Israel is noticed as being already in Palestine in the 5th year of Minepthah, the successor of Rameses II. In 1 Kings 6:1 we read that the Temple was founded "in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt," this referring to the Conquest and not to the Exodus, as appears from other notices. The Septuagint reads "440 years," but the details show that the Hebrew text is preferable. In Judges 11:26 the first victory of Jephthah is said to have occurred 300 years after Joshua's conquest. The details given for this interval, in other passages of the same book, amount to 326 years; but the periods of "rest" may be given in round numbers, and thus account for this minor discrepancy. Samuel ruled apparently for 20 years (1 Samuel 7:2), and Saul (the length of whose reign is not stated in our present text of this same book) very probably ruled for 20 years also, as Josephus (Ant., VI, xiv, 9) states. Thus 175 years elapsed between Jephthah's victory and the foundation of the Temple--a total of 475 years, or rather more, from Joshua's conquest.

3. Date of Exodus: The popular belief that many of the judges were contemporary does not agree with these facts, and is indeed in conflict with ten definite statements in Jgs. In Acts 13:19-20 we read that after the Conquest there were judges about the space of 450 years, and this rough estimate (including the rule of Samuel) agrees pretty nearly with the 415, or 420, years of the various passages in the Old Testament. According to the Pentateuch and later accounts (Amos 5:25; Acts 7:30), Israel abode in the desert 40 years. We therefore find that Joshua's conquest is placed about 1480 BC, and the Exodus about 1520 BC. According to the revised chronology of the XVIIIth Dynasty of Egypt (see HITTITES), which rests on the notices of contemporary Kassite kings in Babylon, it thus appears that the Pharaoh of the oppression was ThothmesIII- -a great enemy of the Asiatics--and the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be AmenophisII or ThothmesIV . If Moses was 80 at the time of the Exodus, he must have been born when Thothmes III was an infant, and when his famous sister Hatasu (according to the more probable rendering of her name by French scholars) was regent, and bore the title Ma-ka-Ra. She therefore might be the "daughter of Pharaoh" (Exodus 2:5) who adopted Moses--no king being mentioned in this passage, but appearing (Exodus 2:15) only when Moses was "grown"; for her regency lasted more than 20 years, till Thothmes III came of age.

4. Other Views: As regards this date, it should be remarked that theory of Lepsius, which has been adopted by Brugsch and by many writers who accept his authority, is not accepted by every scholar. E. de Bunsen supposed that the Exodus occurred early in the times of the XVIIIth Dynasty; Sir Peter le Page Renouf said that "no materials have yet been discovered for fixing historical dates in periods of Egyptian history as far back as the Hebrew Exodus"--which was true when he wrote. Professor J. Lieblein supposes the Exodus to have occurred late in the time of Amenophis III--also of the XVIIIth Dynasty (see Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., 1890, 157-60; 1892, 60-62; 1898, 277; 1899, 53; 1907, 214). Dr. Hommel has also recently declared in favor of the view that the Exodus took place under the XVIIIth Dynasty (Expository Times, February, 1899). Lepsius asserted that the Exodus occurred in 1314 BC, being the 15th year of Minepthah; but this is generally regarded as at least half a century too early for the year in question, and Israel was not in Egypt even ten years earlier in his reign.

5. Astronomical Calculations: The approximate dates given by Brugsch for the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties are very close to those which can be deduced from notices of contemporary kings of Babylon (History of Egypt, II, 314). The later dates which Mahler based on certain astronomical calculations of the French astronomer Blot (Academie des inscriptions, March 30, 1831, 597, 602-4) are not accepted by other Egyptologists. Brugsch says that on this question, "scientific criticism has not yet spoken its last word" (Hist Egypt, I, 36). Renouf (Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., December, 1892, 62) more definitely states that "unfortunately there is nothing on Egyptian documents which have as yet come down to us which can, by astronomical calculations, be made to result in a date." This judgment appears to be justified by recent discoveries, since Mahler's dates are about a century too late, as shown by the known history of the Kassites of Babylon. Biot's calculations were based on recorded observations of the rising of Sirius just before the sun, in certain years of certain Egyptian kings. But Sirius is not in the plane of the earth's orbit, and its rising is not constant in retardation. The "heliacal" rising is now about 2 1/2 min. later each year, but about the date in question the retardation was about 12 min., so that a cycle of 1,461 years cannot be used by simple addition. Blot also assumed that the Egyptian observations were as accurate as those made by a modern astronomer with a telescope, whereas, when using the naked eye, the Egyptian observer may well have been a day wrong, which would make a difference of 120 years in the date, or even more. The Babylonian chronology thus gives a far safer basis than do these doubtful observations. On the basis of Biot's calculations the Exodus has been placed in 1214 BC, or even (by Dr. Flinders Petrie) in 1192 BC (Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc., December, 1896, 248). He thus cuts off more than three centuries in the period of the Judges, many of whom he regards as contemporary. Lepsius in like manner, in order to establish his date, accepted the chronology of the Talmud, which is notoriously 166 years too late for the known date of the fall of Samaria, and he endeavored (while rejecting the Old Testament statement as to the 480 years) to base himself on the number of generations before the Exodus, whereas it is well known that the Hebrew genealogies often give only the better-known names and skip several links.

6. Relation between Date of Exodus and Date of Patriarchs:

As regards the relation between the earlier date for the Exodus (about 1520 BC) and the chronology of the Hebrew patriarchs, the Hebrew text gives an interval of 645 years, and the Greek text of 430 years between the Exodus and the call of Abraham; and the call would thus be dated about 2165 BC or 1950 BC. Abraham is very generally held to have been contemporary with Hammurabi of Babylon (Amraphel), whose accession dates (according to Dr. F. Peiser) in 2139 BC. Dr. Hommel and Mr. King prefer a later date, about 1950 BC, though Nabunahid (the last king of Babylon) places Hammurabi about 2140 BC. The longer reckoning is reconcilable with the Hebrew text, and the shorter with the Greek text, of Gen, without disturbing the approximate date for the Exodus which has been advocated above.

7. Agreement between Monuments and Old Testament Chronology:

There is in fact no discrepancy between the actual results of monumental study and the chronology of the Old Testament. If the Exodus occurred under Thothmes IV, it would have been useless for Israel to attempt the entrance into Palestine by the "way of the land of the Philistines," because at Gaza, Ashkelon and in other cities, the road was still held by forces of Egyptian chariots, which had been established by Thothmes III. But about 40 years later the rebellion of the Amorites against Egypt began, in the time of the Egyptian general Yankhamu, and general chaos resulted in Southern Palestine The Egyptian garrison at Jerusalem (Amarna Tablets, Berlin, No. 102) was withdrawn in his time--about 1480 BC--and it is then (numbers 102-3-4-6, 199) that a fierce people coming from Seir, and called the 'Abiri or Chabiri, are noticed by the Amorite king of Jerusalem as "destroying all the rulers" of the country. They are not named in any of the other Amarna letters (the term gum-gaz, or "man of war," though once applying probably to them, being used of other warriors as well); and the name is geographical for they are called (no. 199) "people of the land of the 'Abiri." The first sign has the guttural sounds 'A and Chronicles, and has not the sound K, which has been wrongly attributed to it, making the word to mean Kabiri, "or great ones." Nor can it be rendered "allies," for it is the name of a people, and quite another word is used for "allies" in this correspondence. The date agrees with that mentioned in the Old Testament for the Hebrew conquest of Palestine,and the only objection to the identification of the 'Abiri (who attacked Ajalon, Lachish, Ashkelon and other cities) with the Hebrews is, that it upsets theory of Lepsius and the popular views as to the date of the Exodus which he maintained.

8. A Text of Minepthah: Nor is this the only evidence which destroys his theory; for Dr. Flinders Petrie (Contemporary Review, May, 1896) has published an equally important text of the 5th year of Minepthah, from Thebes. A slab of black syenite, bearing this text, was reused from a temple of Amenophis III. In it Minepthah boasts of his conquest of the invaders who--as elsewhere stated--attacked the Delta, and penetrated to Belbeis and Heliopolis. He says that "Sutekh (the Hittite god) has turned his back on their chief"; "the Hittites are quieted, Pa-Kan'ana is ravaged with all violence"--this town being otherwise known to have been near Tyre--"the people of Israel is spoiled, it has no seed"; "Ruten has become as the widows of the land of Egypt." Thus, so far from the Exodus having occurred in the 15th year of Minepthah, Israel is noticed 10 years earlier in connection with a place near Tyre with Hittites yet farther North. Even if the Hebrews had only just arrived, they must have left Egypt 40 years before--in the reign of Rameses II--if we attach any value to Old Testament statements; and all the dates variously given by followers of Lepsius are quite upset; whereas the notice of the 'Abiri, two centuries before Minepthah's accession, is quite in accord with this allusion to Israel, as well as with Old Testament chronology.

III. The Theory of Lepsius. The reasons which influenced Lepsius require, however, to be stated, and the objections to a date for the Hebrew Conquest about 1480 BC (or a little later) to be considered, since theory that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the oppression, and Minepthah the Pharaoh of the Exodus is often said to be a secure result of monumental studies, whereas it is really not so, because the only monumental allusions to Israel and the Hebrews are those just mentioned.

1. 1st Argument: City Rameses: The arguments adduced in favor of the later date are as follows: In the first place, Lepsius (Letters from Egypt, 1842-44) held that no city called Rameses could have been so named, or built by the Hebrews, before the reign of Rameses II, and he placed the site at Heroopolis. This was a very doubtful assumption (see RAAMSES), and his identification of the city is now abandoned. The theory always was vitiated by an objection which he seems to have overlooked: for the "land of Rameses" is noticed in the time of Jacob (Genesis 47:11), and since it is impossible to suppose that Jacob lived in the time of Rameses II, the followers of Lepsius are obliged to regard this notice as an anachronism, which destroys their case, as it might equally be an anachronism in the account of the Exodus, though it is probably correct.

2. 2nd Argument: Manetho's Statements: The second argument is based on the account by Manetho of the expulsion of leprous and unclean tribes from Egypt. Manetho was an Egyptian priest who wrote about 268 BC, and who evidently hated the Jews. His account only reaches us secondhand through Josephus (Apion, I, 14, 15, 26-31), this Hebrew author rejecting it as fabulous. Manetho apparently said that, after the Hyksos kings had ruled for 511 years, and had fortified Avaris (see ZOAN), they agreed with King Thummosis to leave Egypt, and went through the desert to Jerusalem, being afraid of the Assyrians (who had no power in Palestine at this time). He continued to relate that, after Armesses Miamon (Rameses II) had ruled 66 years, he was succeeded by an Amenophis whom Josephus calls a "fictitious king"--and rightly so since the name does not occur in the XIXth Dynasty. Apparently Minepthah was meant--though perhaps confused with Amenophis II--and he is said by Manetho to have sent the leprous people to quarries East of the Nile, but to have allowed them later to live in Avaris where the shepherds had been. They were induced by Osarsiph, a priest of Heliopolls, to renounce the Egyptian gods, and this Osarsiph Manetho identified with Moses. They then induced the shepherds who had been expelled by Thummosis to return from Jerusalem to Avaris, and Amenophis fled to Memphis and Ethiopia. His son Rhampses (apparently Rameses III is meant) was sent later to expel the shepherd and polluted people, whom he met at Pelusium and pursued into Syria. This story Josephus discredits, remarking: "I think therefore that I have made it sufficiently evident that Manetho, while he followed his ancient records, did not much mistake the truth of the history, but that, when he had recourse to fabulous stories without any certain author, he either forged them himself without any probability, or else gave credit to some men who spoke so out of their ill will to us"--a criticism sounder than that of Lepsius, who prefers the libelous account of a prejudiced Egyptian priest of the 3rd century BC, identifying Moses with a renegade priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph, to the ancient Hebrew records in the Bible.

3. Relation of Manetho's Stories to the Exodus: A thread of truth underlay Manetho's stories, but it has nothing to do with the Exodus, and the details to be found on Egyptian monuments do not agree with Manetho's tale. The Hyksos rulers were not expelled by any Thothmes, but by Aahmes who took Avaris about 1700 BC, and who reopened the quarries of the Arabian chain. Minepthah, about 1265 BC, was attacked in Egypt by Aryan tribes from the North, who had nothing to do with Hyksos chiefs, being Lycians, Sardians and Cilicians. He repelled them, but they again attacked Rameses III (about 1200 BC), and were again driven to the North. No mention of Israel occurs in connection with any of these events.

4. Greek and Latin Writers: The story of the leprous Jews was, however, repeated by other Greek writers. Cheremon (see Josephus, Apion I, 32) says that Rameses, the son of Amenophis, defeated and expelled a diseased people led against him, at Pelusium, by Tisithen and Petesiph, whom he identified with Moses and Joseph. Lysimachus said that a scabby people were led by Moses through the desert by Judea and Jerusalem in the time of Bocchoris (735 BC). Diodorus Siculus (Fr. of Bk, 34) repeats the tale, about 8 BC, saying that lepers were driven out of Egypt, and were led by Moses who founded Jerusalem, and "established by law all their wicked customs and practices," and again (Fr. of Bk, 40) that strangers in Egypt caused a plague by their impurity, and being driven out were led by Moses. Tacitus, about 100 AD (Hist, v.ii), believed the Jews to have fled from Crete to Libya and, being expelled from Egypt, to have been led by their "Captains Jerusalem and Judah." Again he says (v. iii) that under Bocchoris (735 BC) there was sickness in Egypt, and that the infected being driven out were led by Moses, and reached the site of their temple on the 7th day.

5. Condition of Egypt under Minepthah: No true critic of the present time is likely to prefer these distorted accounts of the Exodus, or any of the Greek and Roman calumnies leveled against the hated Jews, to the simple narration of the Exodus in the Bible. The historic conditions in the 5th year of Minepthah were very different from those at the time of Moses. The invaders of Egypt reached Belbeis and Heliopolis (see Brugsch, History of Egypt,II , 117), and Minepthah states, in his text on the wall of the temple of Amon at Thebes, that he had to defend Hellopolls and Memphis against his foes from the East. The region was then "not cultivated but was left as pasture for cattle, on account of the foreigners. It lay waste from the time of our forefathers." The kings of upper Egypt remained in their entrenchments, and the kings of lower Egypt were besieged in their cities by warriors, and had no mercenaries to oppose them. But Israel, as Minepthah himself has told us now, was in Palestine, not in Egypt, in this year of his reign; and, far from desiring to expel Asiatic pastoral peoples, the same Pharaoh encouraged their immigration into the region of Goshen (see PITHOM) laid waste by the Aryan raid.

6. Explanations of Minepthah's Statements: Objections to the view that the Exodus occurred two centuries and a half before the reign of Minepthah began, and attempts to explain away the statements on his monuments require some notice.

(1) Pithom was Heroopolis. The first of these objections is due to the belief that Pithom was Heroopolis, and was a city founded by Rameses II; but this (see PITHOM) is too hazardous a conclusion to suffice for the entire neglect of Old Testament chronology which it involves, since the site of this city is still very doubtful.

(2) Rameses II Not Named in Judges. A second objection is made, that the Old Testament shows complete ignorance of Egyptian history if it makes Rameses II contemporary with Jdg because he is not named in that book. But Old Testament references to foreign history are always very slight, while on the other hand it is quite probable that there are allusions, in this book, to the events which took place in the reigns of Rameses II, and of Minepthah. The Hebrews were then confined to the mountains (Judges 1:19) and the Egyptians to the plains. No Pharaoh is mentioned by name in the Old Testament till the time of Rehoboam. In his 8th year Rameses II took various towns in Galilee including Salem (North of Taanach), Merom, Beth-Anath, Anem and Dapur (Daberath at the foot of Tabor). The revolt of Barak probably occurred about the 25th year of Rameses II, and began at Tabor. In the Song of Deborah (Judges 5:2), the first words (bi-pheroa` pera`oth), rendered by the Septuagint (Alex MS) "when the rulers ruled," may be more definitely translated "when the Pharaohs were powerful," especially as Sisera--who commanded the Canaanite forces--bears a name probably Egyptian (ses-Ra, or "servant of Ra"), and may have been an Egyptian resident at the court of Jabin. So again when, about 1265 BC, Minepthah says that "Israel is ruined, it has no seed," the date suggests the time of Gideon when wild tribes swarmed over the plains, "and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance in Israel" (Judges 6:4). The Midianites and Amalekites may have then joined the tribes from Asia Minor who, in the 5th year of Minepthah, ruined the Hittites and invaded the Delta.

(3) Some Hebrews Were Never in Egypt. But another explanation of the presence of Israel in this year on the line of Minepthah's pursuit of these tribes after their defeat has been suggested, namely, that some of the Hebrews never went to Egypt at all. This of course contradicts the account in the Pentateuch (Exodus 1:1-5; 12:41) where we read that all Jacob's family (70 men) went down to Goshen, and that "all the hosts of the Lord" left Egypt at the Exodus; but it is supposed to be supported by a passage (1 Chronicles 7:21) where we read of one of the sons of Ephraim "whom the men of Gath born in the land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle." Ephraim however was born in Egypt (Genesis 41:52), and his sons and "children of the third generation" (Genesis 50:23) remained there. The meaning no doubt is that men of Gath raided Goshen; and there were probably many such raids by the inhabitants of Philistia during the times of the Hyksos kings, similar to those which occurred in the time of Minepthah and of Rameses III. The objections made to the Old Testament date for the Exodus early in the reign of Amenophis III, or in that of his predecessor Thothmes IV, thus appear to have little force; and the condition of Egypt before the 5th year of Minepthah was unlike that which would have existed at the time of the Exodus. The theory of Lepsius was a purely literary conjecture, and not based on any monumental records. It has been falsified by the evidence of monuments found during the last 20 years, and these are fully in accord with the history and chronology of the Old Testament.

IV. The Numbers. 1. Colenso's Criticism of Large Number: The historic difficulty with respect to the Exodus does not lie in the account of plagues natural to Egypt even now, nor in the crossing of the Red Sea, but in a single statement as to the numbers of Israel (Exodus 12:37), `about 600,000 footmen--strong men--with many children, and also many wanderers.' The women are not mentioned, and it has been supposed that this represents a host of 2,000,000 emigrants at least. The objection was urged by Voltaire, and the consequences were elaborately calculated by Colenso. Even if 600,000 means the total population, the "heroes," or "strong men on foot" would, it is urged, have been as numerous as the largest Assyrian army (120,000 men) employed in the conquest of Syria. With an army of more than half a million Moses would have held control over Egypt and Palestine alike; and the emigrants, even in close column of companies, would have stretched for 20 miles; the births would occur every ten minutes; and the assembly before Sinai would have been impossible.

2. Increase of Population: It is also difficult to suppose, on ordinary calculations of the increase of population, that in 430 years (Exodus 12:40), or in 215 years as given in the Septuagint, a tribe of 70 males (Genesis 46:26 f; Exodus 1:5; 6:14) could have increased to 600,000, or even 100,000 men. But on the other hand we are specially told (Exodus 1:7-20) that the children of Israel "increased abundantly," and the comments of Dr Orr (Problem of the Old Testament, 1906, 363-65) on this question should be studied. A young and vigorous nation might multiply much faster than is now usual in the East. Dr. Flinders Petrie has suggested that for "thousand" we should read "families"; but, though the word ('eleph) sometimes has that meaning (Judges 6:15; 1 Samuel 10:19; 23:23), it is in the singular, and not in the plural, in the passage in question (Exodus 12:37).

3. Number a Corruption of Original Statement: It should not be forgotten that variations in numbers are very commonly found in various texts, VSS, and parallel passages of the Old Testament. Thus for instance (1 Samuel 13:5) the Syriac version reads 3,000 for the 30,000 chariots mentioned in the Hebrew and Greek; and the Septuagint (1 Kings 5:11) gives 20,000 for the 20 measures of oil noticed in the Hebrew text. The probable reason for these discrepancies may be found in the fact that the original documents may have used numeral signs--as did the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites and Phoenicians--instead of writing the words in full as they appear in the New Testament. These numeral signs--especially in cuneiform--were apt to be misread, and the sign for "unity" could easily be confused with those denoting "sixty" (the Babylonian unit) and "an hundred"--if, in the latter case, a short stroke was added. In the opinion of the present writer the difficulty is due to a corruption of the original statement, which occurred during the course of some fifteen centuries, or more, of continued recopying; but the reader will no doubt form his own conclusions as to this question.

4. Review: The general questions of the credibility of that history of the Exodus which is given us in the Pentateuch, and of the approximate date of the event, have been treated above in the light of the most recent monumental information. No reference has yet been found in Egyptian records to the presence of Israel in the Delta, though the Hebrews are noticed as present in Palestine before the 5th year of Minepthah. The Pharaohs as a rule--like other kings--only recorded their victories, and no doubt reckoned Israel only as a tribe of those "hostile Shasu" (or "nomads") whom the Theban kings of the XVIIIth Dynasty drove back into Asia. It would be natural that a disaster at the Red Sea should not be noticed in their proud records still extant on the temple walls in Egypt.

See also WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.

C. R. Conder

Exodus, the Book Of, 1

Exodus, the Book Of, 1 - ek'-so-dus:

I. IN GENERAL

1. Name

2. Contents in General

3. Connection with the Other Books of the Pentateuch

4. Significance of These Events for Israel

5. Connecting Links for Christianity

II. STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES AND ACCORDING TO MODERN ANALYSES

1. In General

2. In the Separate Pericopes

III. HISTORICAL CHARACTER

1. General Consideration

2. The Miraculous Character

3. The Legislative Portions

4. Chronology

5. Unjustifiable Attacks

IV. AUTHORSHIP

1. Connection with Moses

2. Examination of Objections

LITERATURE

(NOTE: For the signs J (Jahwist), E (Elohist), P or Priestly Code (Priest Codex), R (Redactor) compare the article on GENESIS.)

I. In General. 1. Name: The second book of the Pentateuch bears in the Septuagint the name of Exodos, in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) accordingly Exodus, on the basis of the chief contents of the first half, dealing with the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt. The Jews named the book after the first words: we-'elleh shemoth ("and these are the names"), or sometimes after the first noun shemoth ("names") a designation already known to Origen in the form of Oualesmoth.

2. Contents in General: In seven parts, after the Introduction (Exodus 1:1-7), which furnishes the connection of the contents with Genesis, the book treats of (1) the sufferings of Israel in Egypt, for which mere human help is insufficient (Exodus 1:8 through Exodus 7:7), while Divine help through human mediatorship is promised; (2) the power of Yahweh, which, after a preparatory miracle, is glorified through the ten plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and which thus forces the exodus (Exodus 7:8 through Exodus 13:16); (3) the love of Yahweh for Israel, which exhibits itself in a most brilliant manner, in the guidance of the Israelites to Mt. Sinai, even when the people murmur (Exodus 13:17 through Exodus 18:27); (4) making the Covenant at Mt. Sinai together with the revelation of the Ten Words (Exodus 20:1 ff) and of the legal ordinances (Exodus 21:1 ff) as the condition of making the Covenant (Exodus 19:1 through Exodus 24:18); (5) the directions for the building of the Tabernacle, in which Yahweh is to dwell in the midst of His people (Exodus 24:18 through Exodus 31:18); (6) the renewal of the Covenant on the basis of new demands after Israel's great apostasy in the worship of the Golden Calf, which seemed for the time being to make doubtful the realization of the promises mentioned in (5) above

(Exodus 32:1 through Exodus 35:3); (7) the building and erection of the Tabernacle of Revelation (or Tent of Meeting) and its dedication by the entrance of Yahweh (Exodus 35:4 through Exodus 40:38). As clearly as these seven parts are separated from one another, so clearly again are they most closely connected and constitute a certain progressive whole.

In the case of the last four, the separation is almost self-evident. The first three as separate parts are justified by the ten plagues standing between them, which naturally belong together and cause a division between that which precedes and that which follows. Thus in the first part we already find predicted the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh, the miracles of Yahweh and the demonstrations of His power down to the slaying of the firstborn, found in the 2nd part (compare Exodus 2:23 through Exodus 7:7).

In part 3, the infatuation of Pharaoh and the demonstration of the power of Yahweh are further unfolded in the narrative of the catastrophe in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:4, 17). Further the directions given with reference to the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:1-40 through Exodus 31:1-18 taken from P) presuppose the Decalogue (from E); compare e.g. Exodus 25:16, 21; 31:18; as again the Exodus 6:11-30th section (Exodus 32:1-35 ff) presupposes the 5th part, which had promised the continuous presence of God (compare Exodus 32:34 J; Exodus 33:3, 5, 7 ff JE; Exodus 33:12, 14-17 J; Exodus 34:9 J, with Exodus 25:8; 29:45 f P; compare also the forty days in Exodus 34:28 J with those in Exodus 24:18 P) as in Exodus 34:1, 28 J and Exodus 34:11-27 J refers back to the Exodus 4:11-31th part, namely, Exodus 20:1 ff E; Exodus 21:1 ff E; Exodus 24:7 JE (Decalogue; Books of the Covenant; Making the Covenant). In the same way the last section presupposes the third, since the cloud in Exodus 40:34 ff P is regarded as something well known (compare Exodus 13:21 f JE; Exodus 14:19 E and J, Exodus 14:24 J) . The entire contents of the Book of Exodus are summarized in an excellent way in the word of God to Israel spoken through Moses concerning the making of the covenant: "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:4-6). Here reference is made to the powerful deeds of God done to the Egyptians, to His deeds of lovingkindness done to Israel in the history of how He led them to Sinai, to the selection of Israel, and to the conditions attached to the making of the covenant, to God's love, which condescended to meet the people, and to His holiness, which demands the observance of His commandments; but there is also pointed out here the punishment for their transgression. The whole book is built on one word in the preface to the ten commandments: "I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2 E; compare Exodus 29:45 f P).

3. Connection with the Other Books of the Pentateuch:

The events which are described in the Book of Exodus show a certain contrast to those in Genesis. In the first eleven chapters of this latter book we have the history of mankind; then beginning with 11:27, a history of families, those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Exodus we have following this the beginning of the history of the chosen people. Then there is also a long period of time intervening between the two books. If Israel was 430 years in Egypt (compare 12:40 f P; also Genesis 15:13 J; see III , 4 below), and if the oppression began during the long reign of the predecessors of the Pharaoh, during whose reign Israel left the country (Exodus 2:23; 1:8), then, too, several centuries must have elapsed between the real beginning of the book (x Exodus 1:8 ff), and the conclusion of Genesis. Notwithstanding these differences, there yet exists the closest connection between the two books. Exodus 1:1-7 connects the history of the people as found in Exodus with the family history of Genesis, by narrating how the seventy descendants of Jacob that had migrated to Egypt (compare Exodus 1:5; Genesis 46:27) had come to be the people of Israel, and that God, who offers Himself as a liberator to Moses and the people, is also the God of those fathers, of whom Genesis spoke (compare Exodus 3:6 JE; Exodus 3:13 E; Exodus 3:15 f R; Exodus 4:5 J; Exodus 6:3 P). Indeed, His covenant with the fathers and His promises to them are the reasons why He at all cares for Israel (Exodus 2:24 P; Exodus 6:8 P; Exodus 33:1 JE), and when Moses intercedes for the sinful people, his most effective motive over against God is found in the promises made to the patriarchs (Exodus 32:13 JE).

As is the case with Genesis, Exodus stands in the closest connection also with the succeeding books of the Pentateuch. Israel is certainly not to remain at Sinai, but is to come into the promised land (3:17 JE; 6:8 P; 23:20 ff JE; 32:34 J; 33:1 ff JE; 33:12 ff J; 34:9 ff J and D; compare also the many ordinances of the Books of the Covenant, 21:1 ff E; 34:11 ffD and J). In this way the narratives of the following books, which begin again in Numbers 10:11 ff P and JE with the story of the departure from Sinai, continue the history in Exodus. But the legislation in Leviticus also is a necessary continuation and supplement of the Book of Exodus, and is prepared for and pointed to in the latter. The erection of the burnt-offering altar (Numbers 27:1 ff; 38:1 ff), as well as the mention made of the different kinds of sacrifices, such as the burnt sacrifices and the sin offering (Numbers 29:18, 14) and of the heave offering (Numbers 29:28), point to the promulgation of a law of sacrifices such as we find in Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38. The directions given in regard to the consecration of the priests (Exodus 29:1-46) are carried out in Leviticus 8:1-36 f. The indefinite commands of Exodus 30:10 in reference to the atonement on the horn of the incense altar once every year renders necessary the special ritual of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:1-34 as its supplement. The more complete enlargement in reference to the shewbread mentioned in Exodus 25:30 is found in Leviticus 24:5-9; and even the repetitions in references to the candlesticks (Exodus 25:31 ff; Leviticus 24:1-4; Numbers 8:1-4), as also the tamidh ("continuous") sacrifices (compare Numbers 28:3-8 with Exodus 29:38-42), point to a certain connection between Exodus and the following books. How close the connection between Deuteronomy and Exodus is, both in regard to the historical narratives and also to their legal portions (compare the Decalogue and the Books of the Covenant), can only be mentioned at this place.

4. Significance of These Events for Israel: When we remember the importance which the exodus out of Egypt and the making of the covenant had for the people of Israel, and that these events signalized the birth of the chosen people and the establishment of theocracy, then we shall understand why the echo of the events recorded in Exodus is found throughout later literature, namely, in the historical books, in the preaching of the prophets and in the Psalms, as the greatest events in the history of the people, and at the same time as the promising type of future and greater deliverances. But as in the beginning of the family history the importance of this family for the whole earth is clearly announced (Genesis 12:1-3), the same is the case here too at the beginning of the history of the nation, perhaps already in the expression "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6), since the idea of a priesthood includes that of the transmission of salvation to others; and certainly in the conception `first-born son of Yahweh' (Exodus 4:22), since this presupposes other nations as children born later.

The passages quoted above are already links connecting this book with Christianity, in the ideas of a general priesthood, of election and of sonship of God. We here make mention of a few specially significant features from among the mass of such relationships to Christianity.

5. Connecting Links for Christianity: How great a significance the Decalogue, in which the law is not so intimately connected with what is specifically Jewish and national, as e.g. in the injunctions of the Priest Codex, according to the interpretation of Christ in Matthew 5:1-48, has attained in the history of mankind! But in Matthew 5:17 ff Jesus has vindicated for the law in all its parts an everlasting authority and significance and has emphasized the eternal kernel, which accordingly is to be assigned to each of these legal behests; while Paul, on the other hand, especially in Romans, Galatians and Colossians, emphasizes the transitory character of the law, and discusses in detail the relation of the Mosaic period to that of the patriarchs and of the works of the law to faith, while in 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 he lauds the glory of the service in the spirit over that of the letter (compare Exodus 34:1-35)--an idea which in reference to the individual legal institutions is also carried out in the Ep. to the Hebrews. Compare on this subject also the articlesLEVITICUS and DAY OF ATONEMENT. Then too the Passover lamb was a type of Jesus Christ (compare e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:7; John 19:36; 1 Peter 1:19). In Exodus 12:1-51 the Passover rite and the establishment of the covenant (Exodus 24:3-8) arc found most closely connected also with the Lord's Supper and the establishment of the New Covenant. In the permanent dwelling of God in the midst of His people in the pillar of fire and in the Tabernacle there is typified His dwelling among mankind in Christ Jesus (John 1:14) and also the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the Christian congregation (1 Peter 2:5; Ephesians 4:12) and in the individual Christian (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; John 14:23). The Apocalypse particularly is rich in thought suggested by the exodus out of Egypt. Unique thoughts in reference to the Old Testament are found in the conceptions that the law was given through angels (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2); further that the rock mentioned in Exodus 17:6 followed, and was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4); and that in Hebrews 9:4 the real connection of the altar of incense with the Holy of Holies appears as changed into a local connection (Exodus 40:26-27), while the idea found in Hebrews 9:4 that the manna was originally in the Ark of the Covenant, is perhaps not altogether excluded by Exodus 16:33; and the number 430 years, found in Galatians 3:17, probably agrees with Exodus 12:40-41, in so far as the whole of the patriarchal period could be regarded as a unit (compare on the reading of the Septuagint in Exodus 12:40-41, III, 4 below).

Continued in EXODUS, THE BOOK OF, 2.

Exodus, the Book Of, 2

Exodus, the Book Of, 2 - Continued from EXODUS, THE BOOK OF, 1.

II. Structure of the Book According to the Scriptures and According to Modern Analyses.

In the following section (a) serves for the understanding of the Biblical text; (b) is devoted to the discussion and criticism of the separation into sources.

1. In General: (a) The conviction must have been awakened already by the general account of the contents given in I, 2 above, that in the Book of Exodus we are dealing with a rounded-off structure, since in seven mutually separated yet intimately connected sections, one uniform fundamental thought is progressively carried through. This conviction will only be confirmed when the details of these sections are studied, the sections being themselves again organically connected by one leading thought. Since, in addition, the Book of Genesis is clearly divided into ten parts by the ten toledhoth ("generations") (compare also the division made by typical numbers in articlesLEVITICUS and DAY OF ATONEMENT), thus too the number seven, as itself dividing the Book of Exodus into seven parts, is probably not accidental; and this all the less, as in the subordinate parts too, a division is to be found according to typical numbers, this in many cases appearing as a matter of course, and in other cases traced without difficulty, and sometimes lying on the surface (compare 10 plagues, 10 commandments). Yet in all of the following investigations, as is the case in the articles GENESIS, LEVITICUS and DAY OF ATONEMENT, the demonstration of the fundamental thought must be the main thing for us. The division according to typical numbers is to be regarded merely as an additional confirmation of the literary unity of the book. We refer here first of all to a number of cases, where certain numbers independently of the separate chief parts combine the Biblical text into a unity. In Numbers 14:22 R, Yahweh states that Israel had now tempted Him and been disobedient to Him ten times: compare Exodus 14:11 ff JE(?) (Red Sea); Exodus 15:23 f JE (Marah); Exodus 16:2-3 P; Exodus 16:20 JE; Exodus 16:27-28 R (Manna); Exodus 17:1 ff JE (Massah and Meribah); Exodus 32:1 ff JE (Golden Calf); Numbers 11:1 ff JE (Tuberah); Numbers 11:4 ff JE (Graves of Lust); Numbers 14:2 ff P and JE (Spies). Most of these cases are accordingly reported in the Book of Exodus, but in such manner that in this particular a clearly marked progress can be noticed, as Yahweh does not begin to punish until Exodus 32:1-35; but from here on He does so with constantly increasing severity, while down to Exodus 32:1-35 grace alone prevails, and in this particular, previous to Exodus 32:1-35, there is found nothing but a warning (Exodus 16:27). Ten times it is further stated of Pharaoh, in a great variety of forms of expression, that he hardened his own heart (Exodus 7:13 P; Exodus 7:14 JE; Exodus 7:22 P; Exodus 8:15 P; Exodus 8:32 JE; Exodus 9:7, 34-35 JE; Exodus 13:15 D); ten times the hardening is ascribed to God (Exodus 4:21 JE; Exodus 7:3 P; Exodus 9:12 P; Exodus 10:1 R; Exodus 10:20 JE; Exodus 10:27 E; Exodus 11:10 R; Exodus 14:4, 8 P; Exodus 17:1-16 P ?). Here already we must note that within the narrative of the miracles and the plagues at first there is mention made only of the hardening by Pharaoh himself (Exodus 7:13 P; Exodus 7:14 JE; Exodus 7:22 P; Exodus 8:11 ff; Exodus 8:15 P; Exodus 8:28 JE; Exodus 9:7 JE, i.e. seven times) before a single word is said that God begins the hardening; and this latter kind of hardening thereupon alone concludes the whole tragedy (Exodus 14:4, 8 P; Exodus 17:1-16 P?). Ten months cover the time from the arrival at Sinai (Exodus 19:1 P) to the erection of the sacred dwelling-place of God (Exodus 40:17 P). Since, further, exactly three months of this time are employed in Exodus 19:10, 16 JE; Exodus 24:3 ff JE; Exodus 24:16 P (ten days); Exodus 24:18 P (40 days); 34:28 J (40 days), there remain for the building of the tabernacle exactly seven months.

(b) What has been said does anything but speak in favor of the customary division of Exodus into different sources. It is generally accepted that the three sources found in Genesis are also to be found in this book; in addition to which a fourth source is found in Exodus 13:3-16, of a Deuteronomistic character. It is true and is acknowledged that the advocates of this hypothesis have more difficulties to overcome in Exodus than in Genesis, in which latter book too, however, there are insufficient grounds for accepting this view, as is shown in the article GENESIS. Beginning with Exodus 6:1-30 the chief marks of such a separation of sources falls away as far as P and J are concerned, namely, the different uses of the names of God, Elohim and Yahweh. For, according to the protagonists of the documentary theory, P also makes use of the name Yahweh from this chapter on; E, too, does the same from Exodus 3:13 ff on, only that, for a reason not understood, occasionally the word Elohim is still used by this source later on, e.g. Exodus 13:17 ff; Exodus 18:1 ff. But as a number of passages using the name Elohim are unhesitatingly ascribed by the critics to J, this difference in the use of the name of God utterly fails to establish a difference of sources. To this is to be added, that J and E are at this place closely interwoven; that, while the attempt is constantly being made to separate these two sources, no generally accepted results have been reached and many openly acknowledge the impossibility of such a separation, or admit that it can be effected only to a very limited extent. Peculiarities which are regarded as characteristic of the different sources, such as the sin of Aaron in J, the staff of Moses in E, Sinai in J and the Priestly Code (P), Horeb in E, the dwelling of the Israelites in Goshen in J, but according to E their living in the midst of the Egyptians, and others, come to nought in view of the uniform text in the passages considered. This has been proved most clearly, e.g. by Eerdmans in his Alttestamentliche Studien, III ("Das Buck Exodus") in regard to many of these passages. Narratives of a similar character, like the two stories in which Moses is described as striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1; Numbers 20:1 ff), are not duplicates, but are different events. Compare the different localities in Exodus 17:7 and Numbers 20:1, as also the improbability that Israel would without cause in the first passage have put into permanent form the story of its shame, and then in the latter there would have been an uncertainty as to the importance of this locality for the career of Moses; and finally, we must notice the distinction expressly made by the additional statement, "waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin," in Numbers 27:12-14; Deuteronomy 32:51 (compare Ezekiel 47:19; 48:28). Then, too, these occurrences, if we accept the division into J and E at this place, are not reduced to a single event, since both sources would share in both narratives. The same condition of affairs is found in Exodus 16:1-36 in so far as JE comes into consideration, and in Exodus 18:1-27 in comparison with Numbers 11:1-35. In the case of Numbers 11:1-35 there is express reference made to a former narrative by the word "again" and in the second case all the details in their differences point to different occurrences. Concerning other so-called duplicates in Ex, see later in this article. But the acceptance of P in contradistinction to the text of JE does also not lead to tangible results, notwithstanding that there exists a general agreement with regard to the portions credited to P. Not taking into consideration certain that are peculiar, the following sections are attributed to this source: Exodus 1:1-7, 13-15; 2:23 b - Exodus 25:1-40; 6:2 through Exodus 7:13 (Exodus 6:28-30 R); Exodus 7:19-20 a; Exodus 21:1-36 b; Exodus 22:1-31; Exodus 8:1-3, 11 b - Exodus 15:1-27; Exodus 9:8-12; Exodus 12:1-20, 28, 37 a; Exodus 40:1-38; Exodus 13:1-2, 20; Exodus 14:1-4, 8-10, 15-18; Exodus 21:1-36 aa; Exodus 22:1-31 - Exodus 23:1-33, 19; Exodus 16:1-3, 1-14, 15 b - Exodus 18:1-27, 21 - Exodus 26:1-37, 31 - Exodus 32:1-35, 34 a; Exodus 35:1-35; 17:1 a; Exodus 19:1-2 a; Exodus 24:15 through Exodus 31:17; 34:29 through Exodus 40:38. It is claimed that in the Book of Genesis these sources constitute the backbone of the whole work; but this is not claimed for Ex. The sections ascribed to P constitute in this place, too, anything but an unbroken story. In both language and substance they are, to a certain extent, most closely connected with the parts ascribed to JE, and in part they are indispensable for the connection whence they have been taken (compare for details below). It is absolutely impossible to separate on purely philological grounds in the purely narrative portions in Exodus the portions belonging to P. That genealogies like Exodus 6:14 ff, or chronological notices like Exodus 12:40-41, 51; 16:1; 19:1, or directions for the cults like Exodus 12:1; 25:1 ff have their own peculiar forms, is justified by self-evident reasons; but this does not justify the acceptance of separate authors. It is the result of the peculiar matter found in each case. We must yet note that the passages attributed to P would in part contain views which could not be harmonized with theological ideas ascribed to this source, which are said to include an extreme transcendental conception of God; thus in 16:10 the majesty of Yahweh suddenly appears to the congregation, and in 40:34 ff this majesty takes possession of the newly erected dwelling. In 8:19 mention is made of the finger of God, and in 7:1 Moses is to be as God to Pharaoh. In Exodus 12:12 the existence of the Egyptian gods is presupposed and the heathen sorcerers are able to act in competition with Moses and Aaron for a while; Exodus 7:11-12, 22; 8:3. P also describes the Passover, which on account of the handling of the blood in Exodus 12:7 cannot be regarded in any other light than as a sacrifice in the house, and in Numbers 9:7, 13, this act is expressly called a qorban Yahweh (`sacrifice of Yahweh'). Compare also the commands in Exodus 12:10, 43, 18. But more than anything else, what has been said under (a) above goes to show that all these sources have been united in a way that characterizes the work of a systematic writer, and declares against any view that would maintain that these sources have been mechanically placed side by side and interwoven into each other. What has here been outlined for the whole book in general must now be applied to the different parts in particular.

2. In the Separate Pericopes: (1) Exodus 1:8 through 7:7: (a) Everything that is narrated in this section, which in so worthy a manner introduces the whole book, is written from a standpoint of the Egyptian oppression, from which human help could give no deliverance, but from which the mighty power of Yahweh, working through human agency, offered this deliverance. It is a situation which demands faith (4:31). This section naturally falls into ten pericopes, of which in each instance two are still more closely connected. Numbers 1:1-54 and 2 (Numbers 1:8-14, 15-22), namely, the oppression through forced labor and the threat to take the life of the newly born males of the Israelites; and in contrast to this, the Divine blessing in the increase of the people in general and of the midwives in particular; numbers 3 and 4 (Exodus 2:1-10, 11-22), namely, the birth and youth of Moses stand in contrast. The child seems to be doomed, but God provides for its deliverance. Moses, when grown to manhood, tries to render vigorous assistance to his people through his own strength, but he is compelled to flee into a far-off country. Numbers 5:1-31 and 6 (Exodus 2:23 through Exodus 4:17, 18-31) report the fact that also in the reign of a new Pharaoh the oppression does not cease, and that this causes God to interfere, which in Exodus 2:23-25 is expressed in strong terms and repeatedly, and this again leads to the revelation in the burning bush (Exodus 3:1 ff). And at the same time the narrative shows how little self-confidence Moses still had (three signs, a heavy tongue, direct refusal). The sixth pericope and also the beginning of the last four, describe, from an external viewpoint, the return of Moses to Midian, and his journey from there to Egypt. Here, too, mention is made of the troubles caused by Pharaoh, which God must remove through His power. This deliverance is not at all deserved by Israel, since not even any son in a family had up to this time been circumcised. On the other hand, everything here is what can be expected. Those who sought the life of Moses had died; the meeting with Aaron at the Mount of the Lord; in Egypt the faith of the people. In an effective way the conclusion (Exodus 4:31) returns to the point where the two companion narratives (Exodus 2:24 f) begin. After this point, constituting the center and the chief point in the introductory section, numbers 7 and 8 (Exodus 5:1 through Exodus 6:1, 2-12), everything seems to have become doubtful. Pharaoh refuses to receive Moses and Aaron; the oppression increases; dissatisfaction in Israel appears; Moses despairs; even the new revelations of God, with fair emphasis on fidelity to the Covenant which is to unfold Yahweh's name in full, are not able to overcome the lack of courage on the part of the people and of Moses. Numbers 9:1-23 and Numbers 10:1-36, introduced by Exodus 6:13 (Exodus 6:14-27 and Exodus 6:28 through Exodus 7:7), show that after Moses and Aaron have already been mentioned together in Exodus 4:14, 27 ff; Exodus 5:1 ff, and after it has become clear how little they are able of themselves to accomplish anything, they are now here, as it were, for the first time, before the curtain is raised, introduced as those who in the following drama are to be the mediators of God's will (compare the concluding verses of both pericopes, Exodus 6:27; 7:7), and they receive directions for their common mission, just at that moment when, humanly speaking, everything is as unfavorable as possible.

(b) The unity of thought here demonstrated is in this case too the protecting wall against the flood-tide of the documentary theory. For this theory involves many difficulties. In Exodus 1:13 f there would be an account of the oppression by the Priestly Code (P), but the motive for this can be found only in the preceding verses, which are ascribed to JE; Exodus 2:24 speaks of the Covenant of God With Isaac, concerning which P is said to have reported nothing in the Book of Gen, as in the latter book a reference to this matter is found only in Genesis 26:2-5 R; Genesis 26:24 J. In Exodus 6:2 ff Moses and Aaron are mentioned; but as the text of P reads we know absolutely nothing from this source as to who these men are. According to Exodus 7:1 ff Aaron is to be the speaker for Moses before Pharaoh. But according to P neither Moses nor Aaron speaks a single word. The omissions that are found by critics in documents J and E--which, if they are separated, have lines of demarcation claimed for the separation that are very unsettled--we here pass over in silence.

On the critical theory, the narratives of the Priestly Code (P), in the Book of Ex, as also in Gen, would have discarded many of the stereotyped formulas characteristic of this source (compare Exodus 2:23 ff; Exodus 6:2 ff; Exodus 7:1 ff), and in both form and contents would be made very similar to the rest of the text Exodus 1:9-10, 12 JE; Exodus 1:20 E; Exodus 7:1 P; and to a great extent expressions similar to these are here found and in part refer to these. The same must be said concerning Exodus 3:7 JE in its relation to Exodus 2:23 ff P; Exodus 6:6 ff (sibhloth) P in its relation to Exodus 1:11 JE; Exodus 2:11 E; Exodus 5:4-5 JE (in contrast Exodus 1:13-14; 2:23). JE, in Exodus 4:9 for "dry land," makes use of the term ha-yabbashah, which in Genesis 1:9 f and Exodus 14:16 is ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), and a different expression is used for this thought by J in Genesis 7:22. In reference to Exodus 7:1 P compare Exodus 4:14 E (?). In reference to the hardening of Pharaoh, which is found in all the sources (Exodus 7:3 P), see above under 1a; in reference to the miracles, and their purpose of making Yahweh known to the Egyptians (7:3-5 P) see the following paragraph. The four generations mentioned in 7:14 ff P find their parallel in Genesis 15:16 J (compare Genesis 46:8 ff); and the sons of Aaron mentioned in Exodus 6:23 the Priestly Code (P), Nadab and Abihu, are mentioned also in the text of Exodus 24:1, 9, ascribed to JE although, except in Leviticus 10:1-20 the Priestly Code (P), their names are not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. In reference to the repetitions, it must be said that Exodus 1:13 P is either the continuation (in so far as the Israelites instead of being compulsory laborers became slaves), or is a concluding summary, such as is found frequently. The new revelation of God in Exodus 6:1-30 the Priestly Code (P), according to chapter 3 JE, finds its psychological and historical motive in the account of the failure described in Exodus 5:1 ff JE, and in the discouragement of the Israelites and of Moses resulting therefrom. In the same way the renewed mention by Moses of his difficulties of speech (Exodus 6:12 P; compare with Exodus 4:10 ff J and E (?)) is very characteristic of human ways, and this again necessitates the twice repeated consideration of this matter by God (Exodus 6:30 R; Exodus 4:10 ff J and E (?); concerning the names of God, see GENESIS; GOD, NAMES OF).

One difficulty, which is also not made clear by the proposed division of sources, is found in the name of the father-in-law of Moses; since according to Exodus 2:18 J, this name is Reuel, and according to Exodus 3:1; 18:1 JE, it is Jethro (Exodus 4:18 E in the form "Jether"); in Numbers 10:29 JE is called Hobab and a son of Reuel (the King James Version "Raguel") for all of these passages are ascribed to J or E. It is probable that the name Jethro is a title ("Excellency"); and as for the rest, in Numbers 10:29 chothen probably does not mean father-in-law but brother-in-law (Judges 1:16; 4:11); or in Exodus 2:18 we find father and in Exodus 2:21 daughter in the place of grandfather and granddaughter; otherwise we should be compelled to accept different traditions, by which view, however, the Mosaic authorship of Exodus would be made impossible (compare IV , below).

(2) Exodus 7:8 through 13:16: (a) This section is separated as a matter of course from the rest by the typical number of ten plagues. It is introduced by the transformation of the rod into a serpent in the presence of Pharaoh (7:8-13). To explain the fact that there were ten plagues on the ground of the accidental combination of sources, is from the very outset a precarious undertaking. To this must be added the following reasons that indicate a literary editing of the material. All of the plagues are introduced by the same formula (7:12 JE; 8:1 J; 8:12 P; 8:16 JE; 8:20 JE; 9:1 JE; 9:8 P; 9:13 JE; 10:1,12 JE; 10:21 E; 11:1 E), and in connection with each plague the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh is mentioned (compare (1a) above); compare 7:22 P; 8:11 J; 8:15 P; 8:28JE ; 9:7JE ; 9:12 P; 9:34JE ; 9:35JE ; 10:1 R; 10:20JE ; 10:27 E; 11:10 R; 13:15 D. As is the case in the first section, we find here too in each instance two plagues more closely connected, namely, numbers 1 and 2 already externally united by the double address of Yahweh (compare 7:14JE ; 7:19P and 7:26 J; 8:1 P), but also by the methods of punishment that are related to each other (water changed to blood and frogs); and, finally, by the extension of the plague (the Nile and beyond the river). In 3 and 4 we have to deal with insects (stinging flies and dung flies); in 5 and 6 with a kind of pest (pest among cattle, and boils); 7 and 8 are again formally joined by the repeated command of Yahweh to Moses in 9:13,12 JE and 10:1,12 JE, as also by the fullness of the account the two show and their similarity, in both also use being made of the staff (9:23 f JE; 10:13 f JE), in the repetition of the emphasis put on the remarkable character of the plague (9:18,24; 10:6,14 JE). By both plagues vegetation is destroyed; and in the plague of locusts special reference is made also to the hail (compare 10:5,12,15). In the case of 9 and 10, the darkness constitutes a connecting link (compare 10:21 E; 11:4 J; 12:12 P; 12:30,31JE ). By the side of the occasional rhythm formed of two members there is also one formed of three members (after the manner of a triole in a measure of two beats). In the case of each group of three plagues, two are announced beforehand (thus 1 JEP and 2 JP; 4 JE and 5 JE; 7 JE and 8 JE; 10 EJ over against 3 the Priestly Code (P), 6 P and 9 E); the first of each group of three plagues, as 1, 4 and 7, is to be announced by Moses on the following morning to Pharaoh (7:15; 8:20; 9:13 JE). Also in regard to the impression caused by the plagues a distinct progress can be noticed, in this too, that the Egyptian sorcerers are active only down to the third plague. Naturally, too, over against these facts, further peculiarities can be pointed out in the separate plagues, e.g. the fact that Goshen, or rather that Israel, is spared in the 4th, 5th, 7th through 10th plagues (8:22; 9:6,26 JE; 10:23 E; 11:7 J); and in the mention made of the intercession in the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th (8:8 J; 8:12; 9:28,33; 10:17 f JE) without thereby destroying the artistic construction of the whole that has been described above, or that in each such case of individuality of presenting the matter there is to be found a reason for claiming a separate source.

(b) In the same way, too, it is not a permissible conclusion, that in the first miracle and in the first three plagues mention is made of the fact that Aaron performed this miracle with his staff (Exodus 7:8 ff,Exodus 19:1-25; Exodus 8:5-20 ff P). At any rate, in the parts ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), no absolute uniformity is to be found, since plagues 1 to 3 are commanded to Moses, while the 6th is commanded to Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:19; 1, 20 over against Exodus 9:8); and since, further, in the 6th plague (Exodus 9:8) it is Moses, and in the 10th (Exodus 12:12) it is God Himself who really carries out the command, and not Aaron, as was the case in the introductory miracles and in the first three plagues. Further, according to JE (Exodus 4:30), it appears that the presupposition is that we are to consider all of the addresses and actions in general as taking place through Aaron, even in those cases where this is not especially mentioned.

Only the 1st plague (Exodus 7:14 ff) furnishes an apparent reason for the acceptance of two sources. In this case mention is made at times of the waters of the Nile only, and then of all other waters being changed into blood; and a separation from this point of view at least could be carried through. But this possibility disappears at once in the case of the 2nd plague (frogs), where the passage Exodus 8:1-3, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), which verses contain the consummation of the plague announced in Exodus 7:25 J (Hebrew), is altogether necessary for this connection; as otherwise the impression made upon Pharaoh by this plague, which is not mentioned in P at all, would be a torso. The similarity in the construction of the 2nd and the 1st plague, however (compare under (a) above), and the same difference in the mention made of the Nile and of the other waters in the 2nd plague, make it possible and even advisable in the case of the first plague, too, to discard the hypothesis of a difference in sources, because in the 2nd plague this difference cannot be carried out. Then, too, there would be other omissions found in P. According to the customary separation of sources, P would not contain the fulfillment of the threatened tenth plague announced in 12:12 at all. In the same way the statement in 12:28 refers to the carrying out of a command, the announcement of which to Israel in 12:21 ff would be found in another source. Further in 12:37a we would have the Priestly Code (P), as when the parts belonging to P have been eliminated, the other sources too would contain omissions in 12:21 ff, mostly JE; 12:37b E; 13:3 ff D. In the same way the announcement of a large number of miracles (7:3 P; 11:9 R) is too comprehensive, if these verses refer only to the narratives found in P. In addition, there is a remarkable similarity found in all of the narratives of P with those parts which are ascribed to JE; compare the first miracle in 7:8 ff with 4:2 ff J; 4:17 E. In the Priestly Code (P), too, as is the case with JE, it is stated that the purpose of the miracle is, that Pharaoh, or the Egyptians, or Israel, are to recognize that Yahweh is God and the Lord of the earth, or something to this effect (7:5 P; 7:17 JE; 8:10 R; 8:22; 9:14,29,30 JE; 10:2 R; 11:7 J; compare from the next section, 14:4 P; 14:18 the Priestly Code (P), which at the same time is also the fundamental thought that forms the connecting link of the whole section). The position of Exodus 11:1-3 E between Exodus 10:28-29 E and Exodus 11:8 J constitutes a difficulty, because in the last-mentioned passages Moses is represented as standing continuously before Pharaoh. The announcement made by Yahweh to Moses, that one more plague is to come, and that the Israelites should borrow articles of value from the Egyptians, must in reality have been made before, but for good reasons it is mentioned for the first time at this place, in order to explain the confident utterance of Moses, that he would not again appear before Pharaoh (Exodus 10:29). But the fact that according to Exodus 12:31 JE Pharaoh does in reality once more cause Moses and Aaron to be called, can readily be explained on the ground of the events that happened in the meantime.

The structure of Exodus 12:1-51 f contains nothing that could not have been written by one and the same author. Only Moses naturally did not at once communicate (Exodus 12:21 ff) to the leading men of Israel the command given in Exodus 12:15 ff concerning the unleavened bread, which command had been given for later generations; and not until Exodus 13:3 ff is this command mentioned in connection with the order given to the people in the meantime concerning the firstborn (Exodus 13:1 f) . The further fact, that the story of the exodus reaches a preliminary conclusion in Exodus 12:42 before the details of the Passover (verses 3 ff) have been given, is in itself justifiable. As far as contents are concerned, everything in chapters 12 f, namely, the exodus, the festival of unleavened bread, the firstborn, and orders pertaining thereto, that the month of the exodus is to be regarded as the first month, etc., are closely connected with the Passover and the 10th plague. Because the latter had to be described more fully than the other plagues, we find already in 11:9,10, after the announcement of this plague and its results, a comprehensive notice concerning all the miracles through which Yahweh demonstrated how He, amid great manifestations of power (7:4 P) and with a mighty hand (6:1 JE), has led His people forth.

(3) Exodus 13:17 through 18:27: (a) This section finds its connecting thought in the emphasis placed on the love of Yahweh, on His readiness to help, and His long-suffering in the leading of His at times murmuring people on the road to and as far as Sinai. This section covers two months. What is narrated, beginning with Exodus 16:1, transpires even within a single two weeks (compare Exodus 19:1). Numbers 1:1-54 (Exodus 13:17-22), describes the journey to Etham (out of love God does not lead the people the direct way, since He fears that they will become unfaithful in the event of a battle; Joseph's bones are taken along, since God now really is taking care of His people (compare Genesis 50:24, 26); Yahweh's friendly presence is shown in the pillar of fire). Numbers 2:1-34 (Exodus 14:1-31) contains the passage through the Red Sea (Yahweh the helper; compare Exodus 14:10, 15, 13-14, 30, 21, 24, 26 f,Exodus 31:1-18, notwithstanding the murmuring of Israel, Exodus 14:11 f). Numbers 3:1-51 (Exodus 15:1 ff) contains the thanksgiving hymn of Moses for Yahweh's help, with which fact each one of the four strophes begins (Exodus 15:1 ff,6 ff,Exodus 11:1-100,10b ff). Numbers 4:1-49 (Exodus 15:20 f) contains Miriam's responsorium. Numbers 5:1-31 (Exodus 15:22-27) treats of Marah and Elim (Yahweh proves Himself to be Israel's helper and physician (Exodus 15:25 f) notwithstanding the murmuring of Israel (Exodus 15:24)). Numbers 6:1-27 introduces the last five pericopes, with a designation of the time (Exodus 16:1-36), and describes the miraculous feeding with manna and quails. (The murmuring is particularly emphasized in Exodus 16:2, 7-9, 12. Israel also gathers more than they have been directed to do (Exodus 16:16 f); reserves some for the following day (Exodus 16:19 f); collects some on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:27); Yahweh, who in Exodus 16:6-12 alone is mentioned in rapid succession no fewer than ten times, at first does not even utter a word of reproach, and when the Sabbath has been violated He does nothing more than reprove.) Numbers 7:1-89 (Exodus 17:1-7) reports the help of Yahweh (Exodus 17:4) at the Waters of Contention (Strife). He even appears on the rock (Exodus 17:6), notwithstanding the murmuring (Exodus 17:2-4, 7). Numbers 8:1-26 (Exodus 17:8-16) describes the victory over the Amalekites, which furnished the occasion for the erection of the memorial altar, called `Yahweh-my- Banner.' Possibly in this connection Joshua ("Yahweh helps") was changed from Hosea (Numbers 13:16). Compare Hengstenberg, Authenthic. des Pentateuches, II, 395 f. Numbers 9:1-23 (Exodus 18:1-12) shows in a constantly changing variety of expressions that emphasis is laid on the impression which the deeds of God in connection with Israel make on Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, while he was visiting the latter (Exodus 18:1, 8-12). Effective in this connection is also the mention made of the symbolical names of the sons of Moses (Gershom, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land"; and Eliezer, "The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh" (Exodus 18:3 f)). Further, the name Mount of God (Exodus 18:5; compare Exodus 18:12) probably is a reminder of the fulfillment of Exodus 3:12. Numbers 10:1-36 (Exodus 18:13-17) shows how God helps Moses (compare Exodus 18:19) through the advice of Jethro to appoint judges. In this part, too, Exodus 13:17 through Exodus 18:27, we have ten sections, which can easily be arranged in groups of two and two. Thus numbers 1 and 2 are connected by their analogous beginnings (Exodus 13:17-18 RE; Exodus 14:1-2 P) and by the cloud of fire (Exodus 13:21 f JE; Exodus 14:19, 24 J); numbers 3 and 4 by the responsive hymn; numbers 5 and 6, which already by the feeling of hunger and thirst are connected in thought, by their reference to the ordinances of Yahweh (15:25 D; 16:4 JE ?; 16:28 R); numbers 7 and 8 by the use made of Moses' staff (17:5,9 JE); numbers 9 and 10 by Jethro's person, and the close connection of their contents in point of time (18:13). Further, the Biblical text of this place is clearly presupposed in the list of stations, expressly stated to have been prepared at the command of Moses (Numbers 33:1-56). This list, as is acknowledged on all sides, has the characteristics of P; and it takes into consideration not only the portions ascribed to this source, but also the text of JE. Compare Numbers 33:9 (Marah and Elim) with Exodus 15:22-27, and Numbers 33:14 (lack of water in Rephidim) with Exodus 17:1 ff.

(b) Over against the analysis into different sources the following data in detail can also be advanced. In P the last demonstration of the power of Yahweh over Pharaoh would be indeed endangered in Exodus 14:4, 15 ff,Exodus 21:11-36a, but afterward would not be related. In Exodus 16:1 we cannot find in the Priestly Code (P), unless we bring in also Exodus 15:27 from JE, how Israel came to be in Elim. On the other hand, in Exodus 16:4 ff (JE?) the promise of bread from heaven is groundless without the preceding verses, which are attributed to P; and without Exodus 17:1 the Priestly Code (P), we do not know to what the word "there" in Exodus 17:3 belonging to JE refers, and how in Exodus 17:8 JE the Israelites had come to Rephidim. How entirely data taken from the language utterly fail here in establishing the separation of sources we see from the fact that in Exodus the distribution of the different portions and verses betweenP andE becomes a matter of doubt, and also in Exodus 16:1-36 a harmony of view has not been gained as to whether only the Priestly Code (P), or in addition also J, E or JE have contributed to the text. The hymn found in Exodus 15:1 ff, which certainly is an old composition, presupposes passages which are assigned to different sources, and in this way speaks for the unity of the text. Compare 15:2 with 14:30 J; 14:13JE (?); 15:3 with 14:14JE (?); 14:25 J; 14:4a with 14:9 P; 14:4b with 14:7JE ; 14:8 with 14:22EP ; 14:29 P; with 14:9.

On the other hand, Exodus 144:1Ex 9:1-35a and b cannot be utilized in favor of a division of sources E and J; but rather the analogous structure of this passage presupposes the same author, and there is only indicated what elsewhere is always a presupposition, namely, that God Himself has taken His abode somewhere in the cloud of fire (Exodus 13:21-22 JE; Exodus 14:24 J; compare Exodus 40:34 ff P) Just as little are the two commands found in Exodus 14:16 to be divided between P and E and J, one stating what Moses does, and the other what Yahweh does, since both rather belong together (compare Exodus 9:22 f with Exodus 9:33; 10:13). At first glance Exodus 16:6 ff does not appear to be in its proper place, as Moses and Aaron in Exodus 16:6-7 have already told Israel what only in Exodus 16:9 ff is revealed through the appearance of Yahweh and His injunction to Moses. But these very verses are in harmony with the character of the whole section (compare under a above), since it is here stated that under all circumstances Israel is to be convinced of this, that Yahweh has proven Himself to be Yahweh, and has heard their murmuring. In addition, the appearance of Yahweh in Exodus 16:10 is clearly announced by Exodus 16:7. Accordingly, Exodus 16:9 ff serve only to confirm and strengthen what is found in Exodus 16:6 ff. The fact that not until in Exodus 18:2 JE Jethro brings the wife and the sons of Moses, while the latter himself according to Exodus 4:20 J had taken them along when he joined Israel, finds a satisfactory explanation in Exodus 188:2b. He sent them back doubtless because of the conduct of Zipporah on the occasion of the circumcision of her son (Exodus 4:25 J). The fact that Jethro comes to Moses at the Mount of God (Exodus 18:5 JE), while the latter does not arrive at Mt. Sinai until Exodus 19:1 ff according to P and J, is no contradiction; for by the Mount of God is meant the whole chain of Horeb, which Moses has already reached according to Exodus 17:6 JE; but Mt. Sinai is a single mountain. The special legal ordinances and decisions mentioned in Exodus 18:20 JE before the giving of the law (19 ff E and JE) are in perfect harmony with 15:25 D; 16:4 JE (?); 16:28 R.

(4) Exodus 19:1 through 24:18a: (a) This fourth section contains the conclusion of the covenant at Mt. Sinai (compare 19:5R at beginning; 24:7,8JE toward the end). The contents cover a period of ten days (compare 19:10,11,16; 24:3,1JE ; 24:16 P). The text of this section can again be divided into ten pericopes. After the introduction (19:1-8), which contains a cardinal feature of Exodus (compare under I, 2 above), numbers 1 and 2 (19:9-19,20-25) report the preparation for the conclusion of the Covenant. Numbers 2:1-34 in Exodus 19:23 refers expressly to number Exodus 1:1-22, but is distinguished from number 1 through the new addition in Exodus 19:20 after Exodus 19:18, as also through the express amplified application of the ordinances referring to purifications and the restriction of the prohibition to the priests (compare Exodus 19:22, 21, 24 with Exodus 19:10, 12). Numbers 3:1-51 and 4 (Exodus 20:1-17, 18-26) contain the Decalogue and the directions for the cults, together with a description of the impression made by the revelation of the law. Numbers 5:1-31 and 6 (Exodus 21:1 through Exodus 23:13 expressly circumscribed by a subscription, Exodus 23:14-19) contain legal ordinances and further directions for the cults. Numbers 3:1-51-6 accordingly contain the laws or the conditions of the Covenant. Now follow in numbers 7 and 8 the promises of the Covenant (Exodus 23:20-26, 27-33), which in verses 20 and 27, 23 and 28 and 24 and 32 f correspond to each other. Numbers 9:1-23 and Numbers 10:1-36 (Exodus 24:3-8, 11-9Ex 8:1-32a, combined more closely by Exodus 24:1-2) describe the conclusion of the Covenant and the Covenant congregation in different stages. Further, typical numbers at this place also appear in the laws, numbers 3-6. Numbers 4:1-49 (Exodus 20:18 ff) contains five directions (Exodus 200:2Ex 3:1-22a,Exodus 23:11-33b,Exodus 24:1-18, 18, 18); number 6 (Exodus 23:14-19) is divided into 2 X 5 ordinances (compare the anaphoristic addition in Exodus 23:14 and 17), namely, verses Exodus 23:144,1Ex 5:1-23a,Exodus 15:11-27b,Exodus 16:11-36a,Exodus 16:11-36b-Exodus 17:1-166,16a,Exodus 18:11-27b,Exodus 19:11-25a,Exodus 19:11-25b. Numbers 3:1-51 (Exodus 20:1 ff, the Decalogue) contains, according to Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4, "ten words" margin, according to the two tables doubtless divided into two groups of five each, no matter how in detail we may divide and number them. In the same way number 5 (21:1 through 23:13) falls into ten sections, separate in form and contents, yet belonging together; and these again are divided into 2 X 5 groups, as will appear presently. Taken altogether then we have in numbers 3-6 (Exodus 20:1 through 23:19) 17 X 5 legal ordinances or groups of laws. While in the historical sections the divisions into 5 X 2 pericopes was made, we here find three times the division into 2 X 5, although here too the beginning of the last five pericopes in the second and third sections is particularly noticeable (compare Exodus 9:8 and Exodus 16:1), and in the same way a new division can be made at Exodus 4:18. Numbers 5:1-31 (Exodus 21:1 through Exodus 23:13) is, however, divided as follows: I and II (Exodus 21:2-6, 7-11) ordinances for the protection of slaves; III and IV (Exodus 21:12-17, 18-27) protection of life, or liberty, of the dignity of parents, and hygienic laws; V (Exodus 21:28 through Exodus 22:3) harm to animals; VI (Exodus 22:4-16) to property; VII (Exodus 22:17-26) against witchcraft, against imitating the Canaanites, and lack of mercy; VIII (Exodus 22:27-30) the relation to God; IX and X (Exodus 23:1-5, 6-12) ethical and humane law practice. I through IV accordingly contain laws pertaining to persons; V and VI those referring to things; VII through X, those referring to religion, morality, and administration of justice. But the chief line of demarcation is to be made after V; for I through V contain each four ordinances, VI through X each seven, which in the original text in almost each case are in their language separated from each other by particular conjunctions or by the construction. Only in VI (Exodus 22:4-16) one command seems to be lacking; for only Exodus 22:4-5, 6 f,Exodus 9:1-35-Exodus 12:1-51, 13 f,Exodus 15:1-27 f are distinguished by the "ki" in the beginning; but the seventh ordinance is found in Exodus 22:8. Here too, in each case, II and I, two and two as a rule are more closely connected, after the manner of the division in the first three sections, Exodus 1:8 through Exodus 7:7-8 through Exodus 13:16-17 through Exodus 18:27; at least this is the case in I and II, III and IV through VII and VIII, IX and X.

(b) In this section, too, Exodus 19:1 through 24:18a, there is no real occasion for a division into sources. It is claimed that P is found only in 19:1,2a; 24:15-18; but 19:1,2a is indispensable for 19:2b on account of the word "there"; and before 24:15 ff there is an omission, if the preceding verses are to be ascribed to a different source. The duplicates 19:8,9; 19:18,20 are best explained by the assumption of a new beginning in 19:9 at 19:20 (compare above); 24:1,2, which at the same time introduces 24:9 ff, is placed before 24:3, because in point of time it belongs here. According to the original text, the translation at this place must read: "To Moses he spoke," in contrast to the ordinances which, in 21:1 ff, are addressed to the congregation of Israel. Certainly 24:3-8 is purposely formulated to show in almost the same words that 24:3 reports the Violation and 24:4 ff the writing of the decision to obey on the part of Israel (24:3b and 24:7b). It is not perfectly clear to the reader where Moses was during the promulgation of the Decalogue, whether upon the mountain or at the foot of the mountain (compare 19:24 f; 20:18 ff; but also Deuteronomy 5:5). In view of the importance of the matter itself and the vividness of the narrative and the continual change in the place where Moses abode, it is psychologically easily understood that the clearness of the account has suffered somewhat.

(5) Exodus 244:18b through 31:18: (a) During the forty days which Moses tarries with God on the mountain, and at the conclusion of which he receives the two tables of the law (31:18), God converses with him seven times (25:1; 30:11,17,22,34; 31:1,12). Numbers 1:1-54 (Numbers 25:1 through Numbers 30:10) contains directions in reference to the building of the Tabernacle, and laws for the priests serving in it. Numbers 2:1-34-6 bring a number of directions supplementing number Numbers 1:1-54, namely, number 2 (Exodus 30:11-16), individual tax; number 3 (Exodus 30:17-21), copper washing vessels; number 4 (Exodus 30:22-33), oil for anointing; number 5 (Exodus 30:34-38), incense; number 6 (Exodus 31:1-11), the calling of Bezalel and Aholiab to be the master builders; additionally and in conclusion, number 7 (Exodus 31:12-17), the Sabbath command. It is probably not accidental that the Sabbath idea is touched upon 7 times, namely, in addition to the present passage, also in (a) Exodus 16:5 JE (?); Exodus 16:23-29 P and R; (b) Exodus 20:8-11 E; (c) Exodus 23:10-12 E; (d) Exodus 24:16 P; (e) Exodus 34:21 J; (f) Exodus 35:1-3 the Priestly Code (P), and that as is the case in this present passage, other passages too, such as Exodus 24:16 P; Exodus 35:1-3 P conclude a main section, and Exodus 22:10-22 a subordinate section, with this reference.

The first more complete pericope itself in Exodus (25:1 through 30:10) is, however, divided into 12 pieces (we cannot at this place enter into details in reference to the typical numbers found so often in the measurements of the Tabernacle, but can refer only to the cubical form of the Holy of Holies on the basis of 10 cubits), namely, (1) contributions for the sanctuary (25:1-9); (2) the holy ark (25:10-22); (3) table of shewbread (25:23-30); (4) golden candlesticks (25:31-40); (5) tabernacle (26:1-37) in which at the same time the articles mentioned from 2 to 4 are placed (compare 26:33 ff); (6) altar for burnt sacrifices (27:1-8); (7) court (27:9-19) in which this altar stood (compare 40:29,33); (8) oil for the lights (27:20,21); (9) sacred garments for the priests (28:1-43); (10) consecration of priests (29:1-37); (11) the burnt sacrifices (29:38-46); (12) incense altar (30:1-10). The five articles included in 8 to 12 are combined into a contrast to the five in 1 to 7 by their express reference to the priests (compare in addition to 9 and 10 also 27:21; 29:44; 30:7 f,10). With the incense altar, which was of great importance, and of equal importance with the great altar on the Day of Atonement (30:10), this section closes (compare (b)).

Thus it will under all circumstances be better to search for an explanation for putting oil in the place of the candlesticks and of the incense altar, which at first seems surprising, than in the case of every difficulty to appeal to a redactor's working without system or order. However, the entire portion Exodus 244:1Ex 8:1-32b through Exodus 31:18 finds its explanation in the promise of Exodus 25:8 that Yahweh will dwell in the midst of Israel (compare Exodus 29:45 f). He is enthroned on the ark, in which the accusing law as the expression of the Divine will is deposited (for this reason called ha-`edhuth; Exodus 25:16, 21; 33, 14), but above the atonement lid, the kapporeth, at which on the Day of Atonement, the atonement ceremony is carried out (compare Exodus 25:17-22; Leviticus 16:1-34; see DAY OF ATONEMENT.

(b) This whole section, with the exception of Exodus 31:18 E (?) is ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), although at this place, though without good reasons, different strata are distinguished. In regard to the contradiction claimed to exist in the different persons to be anointed (high priest, or all the priests; compare Exodus 29:7 over against Exodus 28:41; 29:21), see LEVITICUS. Also the duplicates of the tamidh sacrifice and of the candlesticks (compare I, 3, above) are not at all the decisive factor in proof of a difference of sources within the parts treating of the priests, providing it can be shown that each passage stands where it belongs. With regard to the candlesticks, see LEVITICUS. In addition compare passages like Matthew 10:39 and Matthew 16:25; 10:22 and Matthew 24:1-51, 13; 6:14 ff and Matthew 18:35; 5:29 f and Matthew 18:8 ff; Matthew 19:30 and Matthew 20:16. But as far as attributing certain passages to P in general is concerned, it is self-evident that ordinances referring to the cults make use of technical terms pertaining to the cults, without this fact justifying any conclusion as to a particular author or group of authors. On the other hand, it could not at all be understood how P could so often call the Decalogue ha-`edhuth, without having contained this all-important law itself (compare Exodus 25:16, 21 f; Exodus 26:33 f; Exodus 34:29; 38:21, etc.). On the other hand, as is well known, the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11 E) expressly refers back to Genesis 2:2-3, that is, to P; also Exodus 23:15 to Exodus 12:20.

(6) Exodus 32:1 through 35:3: (a) God's promise to dwell in the midst of Israel, the turning-point in the fifth section, seems to have become a matter of doubt, through the apostasy of Israel, but is nevertheless realized in consequence of the intercession of Moses and of the grace of God, which, next to His primitive holiness, is emphasized very strongly. This entire sixth section is to be understood from this standpoint. As was the case in the preceding section, the forty days are prominent in this too (compare 34:28J with 24:18 P). We can divide the contents here also into ten pericopes. Numbers 1:1-54 (Numbers 32:1-14) reports that Yahweh tells Moses of the idolatry with the golden calf, that He is determined to destroy Israel, but is influenced to change this determination by the intercession of Moses. Numbers 2:1-34 (Numbers 32:15-29) describes the wrath of Moses and the punishment through him. He breaks the tablets into pieces, grinds the golden calf into powder, reproves Aaron, dissolves through the Levites the curse which had for this reason impended over them since Genesis 49:5-7 and causes this to be changed into a blessing: three thousand killed. Numbers 3:1-51 (Numbers 32:30-35) reports that Yahweh at the petition of Moses will send some of His angels, but later on will punish the people for their sins. Numbers 4:1-49 (Numbers 33:1-6) reports that Yahweh Himself no longer accompanies His people, which, on the one hand, is an act of grace, since the presence of God would even harm the people, but on the other hand is a punishment, and is felt as such by Israel. Numbers 5:1-31 (Numbers 33:7-11) declares that God meets Moses only outside of the camp in a tent, but communes with him face to face. Numbers 6:1-27 introduces the last six pericopes in a natural way, since God's grace is appearing in constantly increasing glory (Numbers 33:12-33). Here we have the petition of Moses to Yahweh that He in person should accompany him and show him His glory (Yahweh's grace is made especially prominent in Numbers 33:12-13, 16-17, 19). Numbers 7:1-89 (Numbers 34:1-10) describes the preparation for the new conclusion of the covenant; Yahweh appears to Moses as the gracious, merciful, long-suffering kind, and faithful God, so that Moses again appeals to His grace. Numbers 8:1-26 (Numbers 34:11-28) describes the new establishment of the covenant on the basis of the renewal of the Divine and grandiose promises of ordinances pertaining to religion and cults, and the ten words. Numbers 9:1-23 (Numbers 34:29) describes how, in consequence of his close communion with God, Moses' face shines. Numbers 10:1-36 (Numbers 35:1-3) contains the Sabbath command (see (5a)). Numbers 9:1-23 and Numbers 10:1-36 give expression to the renewed covenant relationship. If we again in the larger group 1 to 8 take two and two together we find that each of these four groups contains a petition of Moses: Exodus 32:11 ff; Exodus 33:23, 12 ff; Exodus 38:8-9. The entire section brings out equally prominently the love and the holiness of God, and does this in such a way that both characteristics find their expression in each group of two of these ten numbers. The progress beyond the third section (leading Israel to Sinai) is noticeable, since the murmuring is in each case followed only by an expression of the love of God; but equally this present section stands in contrast to Numbers 11:1-35 ff, where, on the occasion of the continuous murmuring of Israel the love of God is not indeed ignored, but it must take a place in the background as compared with His punitive holiness, which is particularly apparent in the story of the return of the spies in Numbers 14:11 ff. Here is at once seen the great similarity with the present section of Numbers 14:12, 15-16, 17 ff and with Exodus 32:10, 12; 34:6 f, but at the same time the great difference caused by a divergency of the events (compare Numbers 14:21 ff). In contrast to this, Exodus 32:34 refers back to Numbers 14:1-45, and Exodus 32:35 is a proleptic judgment based on this experience.

(b) It is incomprehensible how critics have found in the renewal of the covenant caused by the apostasy of Israel and in the conditions of this renewal, namely, in the Books of the Covenant and in the Decalogue, duplicates, which are distributed between E and J (Exodus 20:1 ff; Exodus 21:1-36 ff; Exodus 24:8 through Exodus 34:1 ff,Exodus 28:1-43; Exodus 34:11-26, 27). But in Exodus 34:11-26 there is no sign of the number ten being used in connection with the ordinances referring to the religion and the cults. Goethe's attempt to find at this place the original Decalogue, which effort is constantly being repeated, is accordingly without any foundation, even in the use of the number ten. In 34:28 b, according to 34:1 and tradition (compare Deuteronomy 10:2, 4; also Exodus 24:12; 31:18), Yahweh is to be regarded as the subject. Again Exodus 33:4 and 5 ff are not duplicates. In 33:4 the people are described as having laid aside their ornaments a single time as a sign of repentance; according to 33:5,6 the people permanently dispense with these, a state of mind which makes it possible for God again to show His mercy. It is an arbitrary assumption that these ornaments were used in the construction of the Tabernacle, the building of which had been announced beforehand in Exodus 25:1-40 ff, so that in front of 33:7 a parallel account to 35 ff P taken from JE would have been omitted. In 33:7 ff according to the text the author has in mind a tent already in existence, which up to this time had been standing within the camp and now had to be taken without, because Yahweh for the present can no longer dwell in the midst of the people (32:34; 33:3,1), until Moses, through his intercession, again makes this possible (33:15-17; 34:9,10). And the promised tabernacle takes the place of the provisional tent (Exodus 35:1-35 ff), which, as is done by the Septuagint, is probably to be preferred to Moses' own tent. In the Priestly Code (P), to whom Exodus 34:29 ff is attributed, such a provisional arrangement is presupposed in Exodus 34:35, since already at this place, and before the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 35:1-35 ff, mention is made of the fact that Moses entered for the purpose of receiving the revelation of God. This accordingly presupposes what is reported in Exodus 33:7 ff. Even without the facts mentioned and for other reasons, too, an omission must be accepted before Exodus 34:29 ff; for Exodus 34:29 speaks of the tables of the Law, concerning the origin of which P has reported nothing; and in Exodus 34:32 concerning the commandments which Moses received on Mr. Sinai and had imparted to the people, which, however, do not refer to the directions that were given in Exodus 25:1-40 ff, since these, according to Exodus 35:4 ff, are yet to be expressly communicated to the people.

(7) Exodus 35:4 through 40:38: (a) The construction of the Tabernacle. This section is divided into four pericopes, each with four subdivisions (compare Structure of Leviticus 16:1-34 in DAY OF ATONEMENT). The same principle of division is found also in the history of Abraham and in Deuteronomy 12:1-32 through Deuteronomy 26:1-19. Number I (Exodus 35:4 through Exodus 36:7) describes the preparation for the construction: (1) Exodus 35:4-19 appeals for contributions for this purpose; (2) 35:20-29, contributions; (3) 35:30 through 36:1, characterization of the builders; (4) 36:2-7, delivering the contributions to the builders. Numbers II and III (Exodus 36:8 through Exodus 38:31; Exodus 39:1-31) report the construction of the Tabernacle and the preparation of the priests garments (compare Exodus 39:32, 1); number II: (1) Exodus 36:8-38, dwelling-place; (2) 37:1 through 38:9, utensils; (3) 38:10-20, court; (4) 38:24-31, cost of 38:1-3; number III (1) 39:2-7, shoulder garment; (2) 39:8-21, pocket; (3) 39:22-26, outer garment; (4) 39:27-31, summary account concerning coats, miter, bonnets, breeches, girdle, diadem. Number IV (39:32 through 40:38) reports the completion: (1) 39:32-43, consecration of these objects; (2) 40:1-15, command to erect; (3) 40:16-33, carrying out this command; (4) 40:34-38, entrance of the glory of Yahweh. In this way the dwelling of Yahweh, which had been promised in 25:8 the Priestly Code (P), and in Exodus 32:1-35 through Exodus 34:1-35 JE had been uncertain, has become a reality. The whole section is closely connected with Exodus 25:1-40 through Exodus 31:1-18, yet is independent in character. The full details found in both groups are completely justified by the importance of the object. It is self-evident that at this place, too, the language of the cults is demanded by the object itself.

(b) The attempts to distribute this section among different authors are a total failure in view of the unity of the structure, which is independent also over against Exodus 25:1-40 through Exodus 31:1-18. Since the numbers given in Exodus 38:26 agree entirely with the numbers gathered later in Numbers 2:32, it is evident that for the latter the lists for the contributions were used, which in itself is very probable because it was practical. In case this section is ascribed to P it is inexplicable how the writer can in Exodus 40:34 ff speak of the pillar of fire as of something well known, since this has not yet been mentioned in the parts ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), but has been in Exodus 13:21 f JE; Exodus 14:19, 24 J.

Continued in EXODUS, THE BOOK OF, 3-4.

Exodus, the Book Of, 3-4

Exodus, the Book Of, 3-4 - Continued from EXODUS, THE BOOK OF, 2.

III. Historical Character. 1. General Consideration: The fact that extra-Israelitish and especially Egyptian sources that can lay claim to historical value have reported nothing authentic concerning the exodus of Israel need not surprise us when we remember how meager these documents are and how one-sided Egyptian history writing is. Whether the expulsion of the lepers and the unclean, who before this had desolated the country and acquired supremacy over it as reported by Manetho and other historians, is an Egyptian version of the exodus of Israel, cannot be investigated at this place, but is to the highest degree improbable. If Israel was oppressed by the Egyptians for a long period, then surely the latter would not have invented the fable of a supremacy on the part of Israel; and, on the other hand, it would be incomprehensible that the Israelites should have changed an era of prosperity in their history into a period of servitude. Over against this the remembrance of the exodus out of Egypt not only is re-echoed through the entire literature of Israel (compare I, 4, above), but the very existence of the people of God forces us imperatively to accept some satisfactory ground for its origin, such as is found in the story of the exodus and only here. In addition, the Book compare Exodus shows a good acquaintance with the localities and the conditions of Egypt, as also of the desert. It is indeed true that we are still in doubt on a number of local details. But other statements in the book have in such a surprising manner been confirmed by discoveries and geographical researches, that we can have the greatest confidence in regard to the other difficulties: compare e.g. Naville's The Store-city of Pithom (Exodus 1:11). In general, the opening chapters of Ex, especially the narratives of the different plagues, contain so much Egyptian coloring, that this could scarcely have resulted from a mere theoretical study of Egypt, especially since in the narrative everything makes the impression of resulting from recent experience. The fact that Israel from its very origin received ordinances in regard to religion, morality, law and cults, is explained from the very conditions surrounding this origin and is indispensable for the explanation of the later development of the nation. None of the later books or times claim to offer anything essentially new in this respect; even the prophets appear only as reformers; they know of the election of Israel, and, on the other hand, everywhere presuppose as something self-evident the knowledge of a righteous, well-pleasing relation with God and chide the violation of this relation as apostasy. Ethical monotheism as the normal religion of Israel is reflected in the same way in all the sources of Israel's history, as has been proven in my work ("Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit," in the May, 1903, issue of Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie). And the idea that an oriental people, especially if they came out of Egypt, should have had no religious cult, is in itself unthinkable. If all of these norms, also the direction for the cults in the Books of Covenant, of the Priestly Code, or D, at least in the kernel, do not go back to the Mosaic times, then we have to deal with an insoluble problem (compare my work, Are the Critics Right?).

2. The Miraculous Character: The Book of Exodus is as a matter of fact from its first to its last page filled with miraculous stories; but in this characteristic these contents agree perfectly with the whole history of redemption. In this immediate and harmonious activity of God, for the purpose of establishing a chosen people, all these miracles find their purpose and explanation, and this again is only in harmony with other periods of sacred history. The reason is self-explanatory when these miracles are found grouped at the turning-points in this history, as is the case also in the critical age of Elijah and Elisha, and in the experiences and achievements of "Jonah," so significant for the universality of the Biblical religion. Above all is this true in the ministry of Jesus Christ; and also again in His return to judgment. And in the same way, too, we find this at the beginning of Israel as a nation (see my article in Murray's Dictionary). Compare in this respect the rapid numerical growth of the nation, the miracles, the plagues, in the presence of Pharaoh, the passage through the Red Sea, the miraculous preservation of the people in the desert, the many appearances of God to Moses, to the people, to the elders, the protection afforded by the cloud, the providential direction of the people of Israel and of the Egyptians, and of individual persons (Moses and Pharaoh). The fact that the author himself knows that Israel without the special care and protection of God could not have survived in the desert is in complete harmony with his knowledge of the geographical situation already mentioned.

3. The Legislative Portions: If any part of the laws in Exodus is to be accepted as Mosaic, it is the Decalogue. It is true that the ten commandments are found in two recensions (Exodus 20:1-26; Deuteronomy 5:1-33). The original form is naturally found in Exodus 20:1-26. Only Moses could regard himself as inwardly so independent of the Decalogue as it had been written by God, that he did not consider himself bound in Deuteronomy 5:1-33 by its exact wording. The legal ordinances in Exodus 21:1 ff have found an analogy already in Code of Hammurabi, more than 500 years older although moving in a lower sphere. As Israel had lived in Goshen, and according to Genesis 26:12 Isaac had even been engaged in agriculture, and Israel could not remain in the desert but was to settle down in permanent abodes again, the fact of the existence of this law of Israel, which in a religious and ethical sense rises infinitely above the Code of Hammurabi, is in itself easily understood. And again since the sacred ark of the covenant plays an important role also in the other sources of the Pentateuch (Numbers 10:33 ff; Numbers 14:44 JE; Deuteronomy 10:1-8; 9, 25) and in the history of Israel (compare Joshua 3:1-17; Joshua 6:6-8; 8:33; Judges 20:27; 1 Samuel 6:2 ff; 2 Samuel 15:24 f; 1 Kings 3:15; 6:19; 1 Kings 8:1-9), then a suitable tent, such as is announced in Exodus 25:1-40 ff, and was erected according to Exodus 35:1-35 ff, was an actual necessity.

As the Paschal sacrifice, according to Exodus 12:3 ff; Exodus 12:43 ff P; Exodus 12:21 ff JE (?) was to be killed in the houses, and this on the 14th of Nisan in the evening (12:6), and as P directs that a festival assembly shall be held on the next day at the sanctuary (compare Leviticus 23:6 ff; Numbers 28:17 ff), these are conditions which can be understood only in case Israel is regarded as being in the wilderness. For this reason Deuteronomy 16:5 ff changes this direction, so that from now on the Passover is no longer to be celebrated in the houses but at the central sanctuary. In the same way the direction Exodus 22:29, which ordered that the firstborn of animals should be given to Yahweh already on the Exodus 8:11-32th day, could be carried out only during the wanderings in the desert, and is for this reason changed by Deuteronomy 14:23 ff; Deuteronomy 15:19 ff to meet the conditions of the people definitely settled after this wandering. Compare my work, Are the Critics Right? 188-89, 194-95.

4. Chronology: As is well known, the average critic handles the Biblical chronology in a very arbitrary manner and is not afraid of changing the chronology of events by hundreds of years. If we leave out of consideration some details that often cause great difficulties, we still have a reliable starting-point in the statements found in 1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 12:40 f. According to the first passage, the time that elapsed between the exodus of the Israelites and the building of the temple in the 4th year of Solomon was 480 years; and according to the second passage, the time of the stay in Egypt was 430 years. A material change in the first-mentioned figures is not permitted by the facts in the Book of Judges, even if some particular data there mentioned are contemporaneous; and to reduce the 430 years of the stay in Egypt, as might be done after the Septuagint, which includes also the stay of the patriarchs in Canaan in this period, or to reduce the whole period from the entrance into Egypt to the building of the temple, is contrary to the synchronism of Hammurabi and Abraham (Genesis 14:1-24). The first-mentioned could not have lived later than 2100 BC. The 430 years in Exodus 12:40-41 P are also, independently of this passage, expressly supported by the earlier prediction of an oppression of Israel for 400 years from the time of Abraham (Genesis 15:13 J); and the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 are confirmed by Judges 11:26, according to which, at the time of the suppression by the Amorites and of Jephthah as judge, already 30 years must have elapsed since the east Jordan country had been occupied by the Israelites. According to this the exodus must have taken place not long after 1500 BC. And in perfect agreement with this supposition would be the condition of affairs in Palestine as we know them from the Tell el-Amarna Letters dating about 1450-1400 BC, according to which the different Canaanitish cities had been attacked by the Chabiri in the most threatening manner, as this is reported too in the Book of Joshua. As is well known linguistically, too, the identification of the Chabiri with the Hebrews is unobjectionable. Finally, on the well-known Menepthah stele of the 13th century BC, Israel is mentioned in connection with Canaan, Ashkelon, Gezer, Y-nu`m (= Janoah, Joshua 16:6-7?), and accordingly is already regarded as settled in Canaan. A date supported in such different ways makes it impossible for me to find in Rameses II the Pharaoh of the oppression, and in Menepthah the Pharaoh of the exodus (both between 1300 and 1200 BC). A conclusive proof that the name and the original building of the city Rameses (Exodus 1:11 JE; Exodus 12:37 P; Numbers 33:3, 5 P) necessarily leads back to Rameses II can, at least at the present time, not yet be given (compare on this point also, Kohler, Lehrbuch der biblischen Geschichte des Alten Testamentes, I, 238 ff).

5. Unjustifiable Attacks: All these attacks on the historical character of this book which originate only in the denial of the possibility of miracles, the Christian theologian can and must ignore. Such attacks do not stand on the ground of history but of dogma. Let us accordingly examine other objections. Thus, it is claimed that the number of men in Israel, which in Exodus 12:37 is said to have been 600,000, is too high, because not only the desert but Goshen also would not have been able to support two million people, and Israel had been too short a time in Egypt to grow into so populous a nation. Yet Israel, beginning with the time of the oppression, which, according to Exodus 2:23; Exodus 18:1-27 continued many years and hence began before the highest number in population had been reached, had claims for support from the Egyptian corn (grain) granaries; and the 430 years in 12:40 certainly cannot be reduced, as has been shown under (4) above. To this must be added that in Exodus 1:7, 9 f, Exodus 12:1-51, 20 f the rapid numerical growth of Israel is represented as the result of a Divine blessing. Then, too, in the company of Jacob and his descendants, doubtless servants, male and female, came down to Egypt (compare the 318 servants of Abraham alone in Genesis 14:1-24). The figures in Exodus 12:37 P are further confirmed by Numbers 11:21 (according to critics from JE) and by the results of the two enumerations, Numbers 1:1-54 f (Numbers 2:31; compare Exodus 38:26 (603, 550)) and Numbers 26:51 (601, 730). The attacks made also on the existence of the Tabernacle must be rejected as groundless. According to the Wellhauscn school the Tabernacle is only a copy of the temple of Solomon dated back into the Mosaic times; and the fact that there is only one central seat of the cults is regarded as a demand first made by the Deuteronomistic legislation in the 7th century. Against this latter claim militates not only the impossibility of placing Dt at this time (compare my work Are the Critics Right? 1-55), but also the legislation of the Book of the Covenant, which, in Exodus 23:17, 19; 23, 14, 26 presupposes a sanctuary, and which even in the passages incorrectly analyzed by Wellhausen, Exodus 20:24 (compare again, Are the Critics Right ? 19, 48, 161 ff, 189 ff) speaks only of a single altar (compare also Exodus 21:14) and not of several existing at the same time. (The matter mentioned here is the building of an altar, according to a theophany, for temporary use.) Against the critical view we can quote the prophetic utterances of Amos, who condemns the cult in the Northern Kingdom (Exodus 5:4 f), but teaches that God speaks out of Zion (Exodus 1:2; compare probably also, Exodus 9:1); those of Isaiah (Exodus 1:12; 2:2 ff; Exodus 4:5 f; Exodus 6:1-30; 8:18; 18:7; 30:29; 33:20; 14:31; 28:16); also the facts of history (compare especially the central sanctuary in Shiloh, 1 Samuel 1:1-28 through 1 Samuel 4:1-22; Judges 21:19, which is placed on the same level with Zion in Jeremiah 7:12 ff; Jeremiah 26:6; Psalms 78:60-72). To this must be added such statements as 2 Samuel 7:6; Joshua 18:1; 1 Kings 3:4; 8:4; 1 Chronicles 16:39-40; 2 Chronicles 1:3. All these facts are not overthrown by certain exceptions to the rule (compare LEVITICUS). But the whole view leads to conclusions that in themselves cannot possibly be accepted. What a foolish fancy that would have been, which would have pictured the Tabernacle in the most insignificant details as to materials, amounts, numbers, colors, objects, which in Numbers 4:1-49 has determined with exact precision who was to carry the separate parts of the tent, while e.g. for the service of the Tabernacle, so important for later times, only very general directions are given in Numbers 18:2, 4, 6; 8:22 ff. This complete picture would be entirely without a purpose and meaningless, since it would have no connection whatever with the tendency ascribed to it by the critics, but rather, in part, would contradict it. Compare my book, Are the Critics Right? 72 ff, 87 ff.

That particularly in the post-exilic period it would have been impossible to center the Day of Atonement on the covering of the ark of the covenant, since the restoration of this ark was not expected according to Jeremiah 3:16, has already been emphasized in DAY OF ATONEMENT. If God had really determined to give to His people a pledge of the constant presence of His grace, then there can be absolutely no reason for doubting the erection of the Tabernacle, since the necessary artistic ability and the possession of the materials needed for the structure are sufficiently given in the text (compare also Exodus 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8 through Exodus 31:2 ff; Exodus 35:30 ff through Exodus 12:35; Exodus 3:21-22; 11:2 f; Genesis 15:14; Exodus 33:4 ff). The examination of the separate passages in Ex, such as the relation of Exodus 20:24 (see above) to Deuteronomy, or the ordinances concerning the Passover and the firstborn (Exodus 12:1-51 f), and other laws in the different codices, goes beyond the purpose of this article (compare however under 3 above, at the close).

IV. Authorship. 1. Connection with Moses: As the Book of Exodus is only a part of a large work (compare I, 3 above), the question as to authorship cannot be definitely decided at this place, but we must in substance restrict ourselves to those data which we find in the book itself. In several parts it is expressly claimed that Moses wrote them. He sang the hymn found in Exodus 15:1-27, after the passage of the Red Sea, and it breathes the enthusiasm of what the author has himself experienced. Exodus 15:13 ff do not speak against the unity of the hymn, but rather for it, since the perfects here found as prophetic perfects only give expression to the certainty that the Israelites will take possession of the land of promise. In the course of history the nations often acted quite differently from what is here stated and often antagonized Israel (compare Numbers 14:39-45; 20:18 ff; Numbers 21:4, 21-35; 22:6; Joshua 6:1-27 through Joshua 12:1-24; also Exodus 13:17). In Exodus 15:13, 17 not only Zion is meant, but all Canaan; compare Leviticus 25:23; Numbers 35:34; Jeremiah 2:7; for har, "mountain," compare Deuteronomy 1:7, 20 ("hill-country"); Deuteronomy 3:25; Psalms 78:54-55. According to Exodus 17:14 Moses writes in a book the promise of Yahweh to destroy Amalek from the face of the earth. It is absolutely impossible that only this statement should have been written without any connecting thought and without at least a full description of the situation as given in Exodus 17:8 ff. And as Exodus 17:14 linguistically at least can mean merely `to write a sheet,' as Numbers 5:23, it yet appears in the light of the connection of a comparison with related passages, such as Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25, much more natural to think of a book in this connection, in which already similar events had been recorded or could at any time be recorded.

The Ten Words (Exodus 20:1 ff) were written down by God Himself and then handed over to Moses; compare Exodus 24:12; 31:18; 34:1 ff,Exodus 28:1-43 (Deuteronomy 10:2, 4). The laws and judicial ordinances beginning with Exodus 21:1-36, according to Exodus 24:4, were also written down by Moses himself, and the same is true of the ordinances in Exodus 34:11 ff, according to Exodus 34:27.

The proof that formerly had to be furnished, to the effect that the knowledge of the art of writing in the days of Moses was not an anachronism, need not trouble us now, since both in Egypt and Babylon much older written documents have been discovered. But already from the passages quoted we could conclude nothing else than that Moses understood how to make use of different forms of literature--the poetical, the historical and the legal--unless the different statements to this effect by decisive reasons could be shown to be incorrect. In Numbers 33:1-56, in the catalogue of stations, there is a portion ascribed to Moses that bears the express characteristics of the Priestly Code; and, finally Deuteronomy, with its hortatory, pastoral style, claims him as its author. Already in Exodus 17:14 there were reasons to believe that Moses had written not only this statement which is there expressly attributed to him. Thus it becomes a possibility, that in general only in the case of particularly important passages the fact that Moses penned these also was to be made prominent, if it can be shown as probable that he in reality wrote more, as we find in parallel cases in the writings of the prophets (compare Isaiah 8:1; 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Ezekiel 43:11; Habakkuk 2:2). In addition, we notice in this connection that in the catalogue of stations mentioned above and ascribed to Moses (Numbers 33:1-56), the close relation of which to the portions attributed to P is certain, not only this part, but also the other words from JE in the present Bible text from Exodus 12:1-51 through Exodus 19:1-25 (see above) are regarded as self-evident as Mosaic (as is the case also later with the corresponding historical part), and this is an important witness in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the historical parts. But Exodus 25:1-40 through Exodus 31:1-18; Exodus 35:1-35 through Exodus 40:1-38 also claim, at least so far as contents are concerned, to be the product of the Mosaic period. The entire portable sanctuary is built with a view to he wanderings in the desert. Aaron and his sons are as yet the only representatives of the priesthood (Exodus 27:21; Exodus 28:4, 12, 41-43; 29:4 ff, etc.). In view of the relationship which Numbers 33:1-56 shows with the Priestly Code (P), it is clear, if we accept the genuineness of this part, a matter that is in the highest degree probable, that this style was current in Moses' time, and that he had the mastery of it, even if other hands, too, have contributed to the final literary forms of these laws. In favor of the Mosaic authorship of the whole Book of Exodus we find a weighty reason in the unity and the literary construction of the work as shown above. This indeed does not preclude the use and adaptation of other sources of historical or legal statements, either from the author's own hands or from others, if such a view should perhaps be suggested or made imperative by the presence of many hard constructions, unconnected transitions, unexpected repetitions, etc. But even on the presupposition of the Mosaic authorship, a difference in style in the different kinds of matters discussed is not impossible, just as little as this is the case with peculiarities of language, since these could arise particularly in the course of vivid narration of the story (compare the anacolouths in Paul's writings). But still more a reason for accepting the Mosaic authorship of Exodus is found in the grand and deep conception and reproduction of all the events recorded, which presupposes a congenial prophetic personality; and finally, too, the natural and strong probability that Moses did not leave his people without such a Magna Charta for the future. This Mosaic authorship becomes almost a certainty, in case the Book of Deuteronomy is genuine, even if only in its essential parts. For Deuteronomy at every step presupposes not only P (compare Are the Critics Right? 171 ff), but also the history and the Books of the Covenant (Exodus 21:1-36 ff; Exodus 34:11 ff) as recorded in Exodus.

2. Examination of Objections: Against the Mosaic authorship of Exodus the use of the third person should no longer be urged, since Caesar and Xenophon also wrote their works in the third person, and the use of this provision is eminently adapted to the purpose and significance of Exodus for all future times. In Isaiah 20:1 ff Ezekiel 24:24, we have analogies of this in prophetic literature. The statement (Exodus 11:3) that Moses was so highly regarded by the Egyptians is entirely unobjectionable in the connection in which it is found. That the book was not written for the self-glorification of Moses appears clearly in Exodus 4:10-16; 6:12. In itself it is possible that some individual passages point to a later date, without thereby overthrowing the Mosaic authorship of the whole (compare also under (1)). In this case we are probably dealing with supplementary material. Exodus 16:35 declares that Israel received manna down to the time when the people came to the borders of Canaan. Whether it was given to them after this time, too, cannot be decided on the basis of this passage (compare however Joshua 5:12). If the entire Book of Exodus was composed by Moses, then Exodus 16:35 would be a proof that at least the final editing of the book had been undertaken only a short time before his death. This is suggested also by Exodus 166:34b, since at the time when the manna was first given the ark of the covenant did not yet exist; and the statement in Exodus 32:35 takes into consideration the later development as found in Numbers 13:1-33 f. In the same way Exodus 16:36 could be a later explanation, but is not necessarily so, if the `omer was not a fixed measure, of which nothing further is known, and which probably was not to be found in every Israelite household, but a customary measure, the average content of which is given in Exodus 16:36. If we take Exodus alone there is nothing that compels us to go later than the Mosaic period (concerning the father-in-law of Moses, see underII , 2, 1 (1:8 through 7:7) at the close). The question as to whether there are contradictions or differences between the different legal ordinances in Exodus and in later books cannot be investigated at this place, nor the question whether the connection of Exodus with other books in any way modifies the conclusion reached under (1).

LITERATURE.

Books that in some way cover the ground discussed in the article: Against the separation into different sources: Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien, III ("Das Buch Exodus"); Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Moller, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung. In favor of the construction of Exodus 21:1-36 ff: Merx, Die Bucher Moses und Josua ("Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher," II, Series, number 3). For Exodus 21:1-36 ff in its relation to the Code of Hammurabi: A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; J. Jeremias, Moses und Hammurabi (with fuller literature); Histories of Israel by Kittel, Konig, Oettli, Kohler, Klostermann, Hengstenberg; Commentaries of Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack; Introductions to the Old Testament by Strack, Baudissin, Driver, Sellin. Against the Wellhausen hypothesis: Moller, Are the Critics Right? (with fuller literature); Orr (see above). Against the evolutionary theory: Orr (see above); Moller, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit (with fuller literature). Representatives of other schools: The Introductions of Kuenen and Cornill; the Commentaries of Holzinger and Baentsch; the Histories of Israel by Wellhausen and Stade.

Wilhelm Moller

Exorcism; Exorcist

Exorcism; Exorcist - ek'-sor-siz'-m, ek'-sor-sist (Exorkistes, from exorkizo, "to adjure" (Matthew 26:63)):

1. Definition: One who expels demons by the use of magical formulas. In the strict etymological sense there is no exorcism in the Bible. The term "exorcists" is used once (Acts 19:13) in a way to discredit the professional exorcists familiarly known both among Jews and Gentiles.

2. Method of Expelling Demons in the New Testament:

The method of Jesus in dealing with demoniacs was not that of the exorcists. While it is said (Matthew 8:16) that He "cast out the spirits with a word," it is abundantly clear that the word in question was not ritualistic but authoritative.

In Luke 4:35 we have a typical sentence uttered by our Lord in the performance of His cures: "Hold thy peace, and come out of him." In Mark 9:29 we have Christ's own emphasis upon the ethical element in dealing with these mysterious maladies: "This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer." In Matthew 12:28 Jesus gives His own explanation of the method and power used in His cures: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you."

In Luke 9:1 the terms "authority" and "power" are used in such a way as to show the belief of the evangelists that to cure demon-possession an actual power from God, together with the right to use it, was necessary. This group of passages gives the New Testament philosophy of this dread mystery and its cure. The demons are personal evil powers afflicting human life in their opposition to God. It is beyond man unaided to obtain deliverance from them. It is the function of Christ as the redeemer of mankind to deliver men from this as well as other ills due to sin. Miraculous cures of the same kind as those performed by Christ Himself were accomplished by His disciples in His name (Mark 16:17). The power attributed to "His name" supplies us with the opportunity for a most enlightening comparison and contrast.

3. Exorcism in Ethnic and Jewish Writings: Exorcism among ancient and primitive peoples rests largely upon faith in the power of magical formulas, ordinarily compounded of the names of deities and pronounced in connection with exorcistic rites, upon the bodies of the afflicted. The words themselves are supposed to have power over the demons, and the mere recital of the correct list of names is supposed to be efficacious.

Attention should be called again to the incantation texts of the Babylonians and Assyrians (see, for translations and full exposition of texts, Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 146 ff). In this direction the absurdities and cruelties of superstition have carried men to extreme lengths. In the case of Josephus we are amazed to see how even in the case of an educated man the most abject superstition controls his views of such subjects. In Ant, VIII, v, in speaking of the wisdom of Solomon, he says that "God enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and sanitative to him." He also describes, in the same connection, a cure which he alleges to have seen, "in the presence of Vespasian and his sons," performed in accordance with methods of incantation ascribed to Solomon. A ring to which was attached a kind of root mentioned by Solomon was placed at the nostrils of the demoniac and the demon was drawn out through the nostrils. The proof that exorcism had actually taken place was given in the overturning of a basin placed nearby.

The absurdities of this narrative are more than equaled by the story of exorcism told in the Book of Tobit (see Lunge, Apocrypha, 151-53) where the liver and heart of a fish, miraculously caught, are burned upon the ashes of incense, and the resulting smoke drives away a demon. This whole story is well worthy of careful reading for the light it throws upon the unrestrained working of the imagination upon such matters.

In the rabbinical writers the very limit of diseased morbidness is reached in the long and repulsive details, which they give of methods used in exorcism (see Whitehouse,HDB , article "Demon," I, 592b; compare 593b; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,II , 775-76).

4. Contrasts of New Testament and Popular Methods with Demons:

In most striking contrast with this stand the Biblical narratives. The very point of connection which we have noted is also the point of contrast. The mighty and efficacious word with which Jesus rebuked and controlled demons was no exorcistic formula spoken by rote, but His own living word of holy power. "In the name of Jesus" did not mean that the sacred name formally uttered possessed magical power to effectuate a cure. The ancient Semitic formula, "in the name of," given a deep ethical meaning in the Old Testament, had a still deeper meaning in the New Testament. The proper and helpful use of it meant a reliance upon the presence and living power of Christ from whom alone power to do any mighty work comes (John 15:5).

This fundamental difference between the ideas and methods of Jesus and His disciples and current conceptions and usages becomes the more striking when we remember that the lower range of ideas and practices actually prevailed among the people with whom the Lord and His followers were associated. The famous passage (Matthew 12:24 and parallel) in which the Pharisees attribute to demoniacal influence the cures wrought by Jesus upon the demonized, usually studied with reference to our Lord's word about the unforgivable sin, is also remarkable for the idea concerning demons which it expresses. The idea which evidently underlies the accusation against Jesus was that the natural way to obtain control over demons is by obtaining, through magic, power over the ruler of demons. In reply to this Jesus maintains that since the demons are evil they can be controlled only by opposition to them in the power of God.

It is most suggestive that we have in Acts 19:13 ff a clear exposition, in connection with exorcism, of just the point here insisted upon. According to this narrative a group of wandering professional Jewish exorcists, witnessing the cures accomplished by Paul, attempted to do the same by the ritualistic use of the name of Jesus. They failed ignominiously because, according to the narrative, they lacked faith in the living Christ by whose power such miracles of healing were wrought, although they were letter-perfect in the use of the formula. This narrative shows clearly what the New Testament understanding of the expression "in my name" implied in the way of faith and obedience.

Here as elsewhere, the chastened mental restraint under which the New Testament was composed, the high spiritual and ethical results of the intimacy of the disciples with Jesus, are clearly manifest.

Our Lord and His disciples dealt with the demoniacs as they dealt with all other sufferers from the malign, enslaving and wasting power of sin, with the tenderness of an illimitable sympathy, and the firmness and effectiveness of those to whom were granted in abundant measure the presence and power of God.

Louis Matthews Sweet

Expect; Expectation

Expect; Expectation - eks-pekt', eks-pek-ta'-shun: Of the three Greek words, translated in the New Testament by "expect," prosdokao, meaning to look forward toward what will probably occur, whether in hope or dread (Acts 3:5; Luke 3:15), is not as intense as ekdechomai (Hebrews 10:13), meaning to wait for that of the realization of which one is assured ("as the husbandman waits for the processes of Nature (James 5:7), and the patriarchs for the Divine promise," Westcott), or as vivid as the noun apokaradokia (Romans 8:19; Philippians 1:20, "earnest expectation"), which describes the stretching forth of the head toward an object that is anticipated (see Ellicott on Philippians 1:20). In the Old Testament "expectation" always means that which is expected, as Proverbs 10:28, "The expectation of the wicked shall perish."

H. E. Jacobs

Expectation, Messianic

Expectation, Messianic - mes-i-an'-ik.

See CHRISTS, FALSE; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; JESUS CHRIST; MESSIAH.

Expedient

Expedient - eks-pe'-di-ent (sumphero): The Greek word translated "expedient" (sumphero) means literally, "to bear or bring together"; with a personal reference, "to be well or profitable." In the New Testament it never means "profitable" or "convenient" as opposed to what is strictly right. It is translated "expedient" (John 11:50, "it is expedient for us," the Revised Version (British and American) "for you"; John 16:7, "It is expedient for you that I go away," i.e. "profitable," "for your good," John 18:14; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23; 2 Corinthians 8:10; 12:1). In Matthew 19:10, instead of "not good to marry," the Revised Version (British and American) has "not expedient." The modern sense of "expediency" as "hastening" or "acceleration," is not found in the New Testament, any more than its bad sense of "mere convenience." "Nothing but the right can ever be expedient" (Whately).

W. L. Walker

Experience

Experience - eks-pe'-ri-ens: This word is employed 3 times. In Genesis 30:27 the King James Version, Laban says, to Jacob, "I have learned by experience (the Revised Version (British and American) "divined") that Yahweh hath blessed me for thy sake." Here it translates the Hebrew nachash, "to observe diligently," as when one examines the entrails of a bird or animal for the purpose of divination.

In Ecclesiastes 1:16, the writer says, "I have gotten me great wisdom ....; my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." Here the Hebrew (ra'ah) means "hath seen abundantly," and the idea seems to be that of a wide outlook combined with actual trial of the things discovered or known.

In Romans 5:4 the King James Version, the Greek word dokime (the American Standard Revised Version more correctly "approvedness"), means the proof or testing of a thing. We rejoice in tribulation because it works out or produces patience, while the latter develops an experience of God, i.e. it brings out as a proved fact His power and love toward us in our preservation in and deliverance from trial.

Thus it is seen the Bible use of the word is not different from the ordinary, which means "the sum of practical wisdom taught by the events and observations of life," or, to go a little farther, the personal and practical acquaintance with what is so taught. Hebrews 5:13 gives a good practical example. the King James Version says, "Every one that useth milk is unskillful (apeiros) in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe," while the Revised Version (British and American) renders "unskilful" by "without experience of." The thought is that he who fails to search out the deep things of the word of God is so lacking in the exercise of his spiritual senses as to be unable really to know truth from error.

James M. Gray

Experiment

Experiment - eks-per'-i-ment (dokime, "approvedness," "tried character"): "The experiment of this ministration" (2 Corinthians 9:13 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "the proving of you by his ministration"), i.e. the sincerity of their Christian profession was evidenced by their liberal contribution.

Expiation

Expiation - eks-pi-a'-shun: This word represents no Hebrew or Greek word not rendered also by "atonement." In Numbers 8:7 it is employed in the Revised Version (British and American) to translate chaTath and in Deuteronomy 32:43, kipper. This version also employs "expiate" in the margin of several passages, e.g. Psalms 65:3; 79:9. Always its use in English Versions of the Bible is somewhat more narrow and specific than "atonement" and has especial reference to specific uncleanness or sin. It will be sufficient to refer to ATONEMENT; SACRIFICE; PROPITIATION.

Exposure, to Wild Beasts

Exposure, to Wild Beasts - eks-po'-zhur.

See PUNISHMENTS.

Express

Express - eks-pres': In the King James Version of Hebrews 1:3 "express" has the meaning "exactly resembling the original," as the impress of a seal resembles the figure engraved upon the seal. Thus "express image" in the verse referred to is a good translation (Greek charakter, literally, "engraving" and hence, "impression"); the Revised Version (British and American) "the very image."

Exquisite

Exquisite - eks'-kwi-sit (akribes): The Greek word means "accurate" "searched out," equivalent to exquisitus from which "exquisite" is derived. It also means in argument "close," "subtle." In Ecclesiasticus 18:29, we have, "They poured forth exquisite parables," the Revised Version (British and American) "apt proverbs," and 19:25, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "There is an exquisite subtleity, and the same is unjust."

Extinct

Extinct - eks-tinkt': In Job 17:1, "My days are extinct" (za`akh (in Niphal)) and in Isaiah 43:17, "They are extinct" (da`akh), the word "extinct" should be recognized as a form of the participle, equivalent to "extinguished," so that in both passages an action, not merely a state, is indicated.

Extortion

Extortion - eks-tor'-shun: This particular word occurs twice in King James Version: Ezekiel 22:12 (`osheq), and Matthew 23:25 (harpage), and indicates that one who is an extortioner is guilty of snatching away from another by strife, greed and oppression that which does not lawfully belong to him. The element of covetousness and usury is involved in the meaning of this word; for it is greedily gotten gain. The publicans were considered as being specially guilty of this sin; this is clear from the Pharisee's deprecatory remark: "I am not .... an extortioner ..... as this publican" (Luke 18:11). Paul classes extortion (pleonexia, literally, "over-reaching") among a category of the grossest crimes known to humanity (1 Corinthians 5:10-11); indeed, so grievous is it that it closes the door of heaven in the face of the one guilty of it (1 Corinthians 6:10).

William Evans

Extreme; Extremity

Extreme; Extremity - eks-trem', eks-trem'-i-ti We have the adjective "extreme" in 2 Esdras 5:14, "extreme fear," the Revised Version (British and American) "trembling"; in Wisdom of Solomon 12:27, "extreme (terma) damnation," the Revised Version (British and American) "the last end of condemnation"; in 2 Maccabees 7:42, "extreme (huperballousas) tortures," the Revised Version (British and American) "exceeding barbarities"; in Ecclesiasticus 42:8 it is used as an adverb, "the extreme aged" (eschatogeros), the Revised Version (British and American) "of extreme old age."

Extremity: pash; Septuagint paraptoma, occurs only in Job 35:15 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "arrogance," and akme in 2 Maccabees 1:7.

Eye

Eye - i (`ayin; ophthalmos):

(1) The physical organ of sight, "the lamp of the body" (Matthew 6:22), one of the chief channels of information for man. A cruel custom therefore sanctioned among heathen nations the putting out of the eyes of an enemy or a rival, because thus his power was most effectually shattered (Judges 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7; Jeremiah 39:7). Such blinding or putting out of the "right eye" was also considered a deep humiliation, as it robbed the victim of his beauty, and made him unfit to take his part in war (1 Samuel 11:2; Zechariah 11:17).

The eye, to be useful, was to be "single," i.e. not giving a double or uncertain vision (Matthew 6:22 = Luke 11:34). Eyes may grow dim with sorrow and tears (Job 17:7), they may "waste away with griefs" (Psalms 6:7; 31:9; 88:9). They may "pour down" (Lamentations 3:49), "run down with water" (Lamentations 1:16; 3:48). Eyes may "wink" in derision (Psalms 35:19; Proverbs 6:13; 10:10; compare also Proverbs 16:30; 30:17), and the harlot takes the lustling "with her eyelids" (Proverbs 6:25). To `lift up the eyes' (Genesis 13:10 et passim) means to look up or around for information and often for help; to `turn away the eye' or `hide the eyes' indicates carelessness and lack of sympathy (Proverbs 28:27); to `cast about the eyes,' so that they "are in the ends of the earth" (Proverbs 17:24) is synonymous with the silly curiosity of a fool, and with the lack of attention of him who is everywhere but at his work. In the execution of justice the "eye shall not pity," i.e. not be deflected from the dictates of the law by favorable or unfavorable impressions (Deuteronomy 19:13 et passim), nor spare (Ezekiel 5:11 et passim), and the lexicon talionis demanded "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Exodus 21:24; Deuteronomy 19:21).

(2) Figurative: The eye of the heart or mind, the organ of spiritual perception, which may be enlightened or opened (Psalms 119:18). This is done by the law of God (Psalms 19:8) or by the spirit of God (Ephesians 1:18), or it may be "darkened" and "holden" (Luke 24:16; compare Matthew 13:13; 2 Corinthians 4:4).

(3) The eye as an index of the mind and disposition of man. The Bible speaks of the "good" margin, or "bountiful" eye, i.e. the kindly, disposition (Proverbs 22:9); of "proud," haughty," "lofty eyes" (Psalms 18:27; 131:1; Proverbs 6:17); of the `lowly eyes' of the humble (Job 22:29 margin; compare also Luke 18:13); of `adulterous eyes,' "eyes which play the harlot" (Ezekiel 6:9, in the sense of idolatrous inclinations; 2 Peter 2:14). Rage or anger is shown by the "sharpening" of the eyes (Job 16:9).

(4) The eyes of God, as well as the "seven eyes" of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6) and the `many eyes' of the four living creatures of the Apocalypse (Revelation 4:6; also Ezekiel 1:18; 10:12) are figurative expressions for the omniscience of God (compare Hebrews 4:13; Psalms 139:16) and of His watchfulness and loving care (Jeremiah 32:19). As the human eye may, with the slightest glance or motion, give an indication, a command, so God is able to "guide" or "counsel" His obedient child "with his eye" (Psalms 32:8).

(5) Three Hebrew expressions are translated by "apple of the eye": (a) 'ishon, literally, "the little man," which probably means the "pupil of the eye," it being the part of the eye in which the close onlooker may see his image reflected en miniature. Several oriental languages have very similar expressions (Deuteronomy 32:10; Psalms 17:8; Proverbs 7:2). (b) babhah, literally, "the gate of the eye" (Zechariah 2:8). (c) bath-`ayin, literally, "the daughter of the eye" (Psalms 17:8; Lamentations 2:18). All these three phrases seem to indicate the pupil rather than the "apple of the eye," and designate the most sensitive part of the eye, which we protect with the greatest care. Thus the Scriptures declare, for our great comfort, that God will protect and care for those that are His own.

To eye (`awan, "to watch closely," "to look maliciously at"): "Saul eyed David from that day and forward" (1 Samuel 18:9).

See ENVY; EVIL EYE.

H. L. E. Luering

Eyelid

Eyelid - i'-lid: Eyes and eyelids in Hebrew are sometimes used synonymously, as in the parallelism of Proverbs 4:25 (compare Proverbs 6:4; 30:13):

"Let thine eyes look right on,

And let thine eyelids look straight before thee."

(Compare Job 41:18; Psalms 11:4; Jeremiah 9:18.) The alluring power of the wanton woman is conceived of as centered in her eyes (Proverbs 6:25; Isaiah 3:16): "Neither let her take thee with her eyelids." Painting the eyelids was resorted to to intensify the beauty, antimony (which see) being used for darkening the lashes (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30; Ezekiel 23:40).

George B. Eager

Eyepaint

Eyepaint - i'-pant.

See ANTIMONY; EYELID; KEREN-HAPPUCH.

Eyes, Blinding of The

Eyes, Blinding of The - blind'-ing.

See EYE; PUNISHMENTS.

Eyes, Covering, of The

Eyes, Covering, of The - kuv'-er-ing: In Genesis 20:16, means forgetfulness of the past, a willingness to overlook the wrong to which Sarah had been exposed.

Eyes, Diseases of The

Eyes, Diseases of The - di-zez'-is: Blindness, defects of sight and diseases of the eye are frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, but usually in general terms. It is probable that in the period covered by the Bible, ophthalmia was as common in Palestine and Egypt as it is now. See BLINDNESS. The commonest of the diseases at present is the purulent conjunctivitis which is a highly infectious malady affecting people of all ages, but especially children, and whose germs are carried from eye to eye by the flies, which are allowed to walk freely over the diseased eyes. This is one of the most disgusting sights in a Palestine village, but I have been told by mothers that it is esteemed unlucky to drive off the flies. In this manner the disease is propagated. The number of persons in any Palestine village whose eyes are more or less blemished by disease is on this account phenomenally large.

Blindness incapacitated a man from serving in the priesthood (Leviticus 21:16, 18); even a blemish of the eye was regarded as a disqualification (Leviticus 21:20).

The cases in the New Testament of persons blind from their birth (as John 9:1) were probably the results of this ophthalmia, but may have been due to congenital malformation. The interesting psychological record of the difficulty of interpreting the new visual sensations by the blind man healed by our Lord (Mark 8:22) indicates that it was probably not a case of congenital blindness, as the evangelist uses the word apokatestathe ("restored"), but he had been so long blind that he had lost the power of appreciating the sense-impressions. This condition has been often discussed as a psycho-physical problem since the days of Molyneux and Locke (Essay on the Human Understanding, II, 9, 8).

The blindness of Paul was probably a temporary paralysis of the retina from the shock of a dazzling light accentuated by the intense emotion which accompanied his vision on the road to Damascus. The "scales" mentioned in Acts 9:18 were not material, but his sight was restored as if (hosei) scales had fallen from his eyes. How far this left his eyes weak we do not know, but from his inability to recognize the high priest (Acts 23:5) and from his employing an amanuensis for transcribing his epistles (Romans 16:22), as well as from his writing in characters of large size (pelikos; Galatians 6:11), it is probable that his vision was defective, and this it has been conjectured was the "thorn in the flesh" of 2 Corinthians 12:7.

Senile blindness, the result either of cataract or retinal degeneration, is mentioned in the cases of Isaac (Genesis 27:1), Jacob (Genesis 48:10) and Eli (1 Samuel 4:15). The frequency of such senile dimness of sight made the case of Moses the more remarkable that at the age of 120 his eye was not dim (Deuteronomy 34:7).

Tobit's blindness, caused by the irritation of the sparrow's dung (Tobit 2:10), was a traumatic conjunctivitis which left an opacity. It is not said that the whiteness was itself sufficiently large to destroy vision. There was with it probably a considerable amount of conjunctival thickening, and it is possible that the remedy might have removed this. It certainly could not remove a cicatricial white spot of the nature of an albugo. The conjecture of a recent commentator that the gall, by coloring the spot, made the eye look as if sight was restored when it really was not, seems ludicrously inept. In any case the historical accuracy of the narrative is so problematical that explanation is unnecessary.

See BLINDNESS.

Alexander Macalister

Eyes, Tender

Eyes, Tender - See BLINDNESS.

Eyesalve

Eyesalve - i'-sav (kollourion; collyrium; Revelation 3:18): A Phrygian powder mentioned by Galen, for which the medical school of Laodicea seems to have been famous (see Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia), but the figurative reference is to the restoring of spiritual vision.

Eyeservice

Eyeservice - i'-sur-vis (ophthalmodouleia): A term coined by Paul to express the conduct of slaves, who work only when they are watched, and whose motive, therefore, is not fidelity to duty, but either to avoid punishment or to gain reward from their masters (Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 3:22). "A vice which slavery everywhere creates and exhibits. Hence, the need for drivers and overseers" (Eadie).

Ezar

Ezar - e'-zar.

See EZER.

Ezbai

Ezbai - ez'-ba-i, ez'-bi ('ezbay, "shining," "blooming"; Azobai): One of David's "mighty men" (1 Chronicles 11:37; compare 2 Samuel 23:35 margin).

Ezbon

Ezbon - ez'-bon:

(1) ('etsbon; Peshitta, 'etsba`on; Septuagint Thasoban): A son of Gad (Genesis 46:16) = Ozni of Numbers 26:16 (see OZNI).

(2) ('etsbon; Septuagint Asebon): In 1 Chronicles 7:7 is said to be a grandson of Benjamin. Curtis (Ch., 148) holds that the genealogical table there is that of Zebulun and not Benjamin, and says that Ezbon suggests Ibzan (Judges 12:8-10), a minor judge of Bethlehem of Zebulun (Moore, Judges, 310).

Ezechias; Ezecias

Ezechias; Ezecias - ez-e-ki'-as, ez-e-si'-as.

See EZEKIAS (3).

Ezekias

Ezekias - ez-e-ki'-as (Ezekias):

(1) the King James Version Greek form of Hezekiah (thus, the Revised Version (British and American); Matthew 1:9-10). A king of Judah.

(2) the King James Version Ezechiad (1 Esdras 9:14), called Jahzeiah in Ezra 10:15.

(3) the King James Version Ezecias (1 Esdras 9:43), called Hilkiah in Nehemiah 8:4.

Ezekiel, 1

Ezekiel, 1 - e-ze'-ki-el:

I. THE PROPHET AND HIS BOOK

1. The Person of Ezekiel

Name, Captivity and Trials

2. The Book

(1) Its Genuineness

(2) Its Structure

(3) Relation to Jeremiah

(4) Fate of the Book and Its Place in the Canon

II. SIGNIFICANCE OF EZEKIEL IN ISRAEL'S RELIGIOUS HISTORY

1. Formal Characteristics of Ezekiel

(1) Visions

(2) Symbolical Acts

(3) Allegories

(4) Lamentations

2. Ezekiel and the Levitical System

(1) Ezekiel 44:4 ff: Theory That the Distinction of Priests and Levites Was Introduced by Ezekiel

(a) The Biblical Facts

(b) Modern Interpretation of This Passage

(c) Examination of Theory

(i) Not Tenable for Pre-exilic Period

(ii) Not Sustained by Ezekiel

(iii) Not Supported by Development after Ezekiel

(d) The True Solution

(2) Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35: Priority Claimed for Ezekiel as against the Priestly Codex

(a) Sketch of the Modern View

(b) One-Sidedness of This View

(c) Impossibility That Ezekiel Preceded P

(d) Correct Interpretation of Passage

(3) Ezekiel's Leviticism

3. Ezekiel and the Messianic Idea

4. Ezekiel and Apocalyptic Literature

5. Ezekiel's Conception of God

I. The Prophet and His Book. 1. The Person of Ezekiel: The name yehezqe'l, signifies "God strengthens." The Septuagint employed the form Iezekiel, from which the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) took its "Ezechiel" and Luther "Hesekiel." In Ezekiel 1:3 the prophet is said to be the son of a certain Buzi, and that he was a priest. This combination of the priestly and prophetic offices is not accidental at a time when the priests began to come more and more into the foreground. Thus, too, Jeremiah (Ezekiel 1:1) and Zechariah (Ezekiel 1:1; compare Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Nehemiah 12:4, 16, and my article "Zechariah" in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) were priests and prophets; and in Zechariah 7:3 a question in reference to fasting is put to both priests and prophets at the same time. And still more than in the case of Zechariah and Jeremiah, the priestly descent makes itself felt in the case of Ezekiel. We here already draw attention to his Levitical tendencies, which appear particularly prominent in Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 46:1-24 (see underII , 2 below), and to the high-priestly character of his picture of the Messiah (Ezekiel 21:25 f; Ezekiel 45:22; see II , 3 below).

We find Ezekiel in Tel-abib (3:15) at the river Chebar (1:1,3; 3:15) on a Euphrates canal near Nippur, where the American expedition found the archives of a great business house, "Murashu and Sons." The prophet had been taken into exile in 597 BC. This event so deeply affected the fate of the people and his personal relations that Ezekiel dates his prophecies from this event. They begin with the 5th year of this date, in which year through the appearance of the Divine glory (compare II , 1 below) he had been consecrated to the prophetic office (1:2) and continued to the 27th year (29:17), i.e. from 593 to 571 BC. The book gives us an idea of the external conditions of the exiles. The expressions "prison," "bound," which are applied to the exiles, easily create a false impression, or at any rate a one-sided idea. These terms surely to a great extent are used figuratively. Because the Jews had lost their country, their capital city, their temple, their service and their independence as a nation, their condition was under all circumstances lamentable, and could be compared with the fate of prisoners and those in fetters.

The external conditions in themselves, however, seem rather to have been generally tolerable. The people live in their own houses (Jeremiah 29:5). Ezekiel himself is probably the owner of a house (Ezekiel 3:24; 8:1). They have also retained their organization, for their elders visit the prophet repeatedly (Ezekiel 8:1; 14:1; 20:1). This makes it clear why later comparatively few made use of the permission to return to their country. The inscriptions found in the business house at Nippur contain also a goodly number of Jewish names, which shows how the Jews are becoming settled and taking part in the business life of the country.

Ezekiel was living in most happy wedlock. Now God reveals to him on a certain night that his wife, "the desire of his eye," is to die through a sudden sickness. On the evening of the following day she is already dead. But he is not permitted to weep or lament over her, for he is to serve as a sign that Jerusalem is to be destroyed without wailing or lamentation (24:15 ff). Thus in his case too, as it was with Hosea, the personal fate of the prophet is most impressively interwoven with his official activity.

The question at what age Ezekiel had left Jerusalem has been answered in different ways. From his intimate acquaintance with the priestly institutions and with the temple service, as this appears particularly in chapters 40 to 48, the conclusion is drawn that he himself must have officiated in the temple. Yet, the knowledge on his part can be amply explained if he only in a general way had been personally acquainted with the temple, with the law and the study of the Torah. We accept that he was already taken into exile at the age of 25 years, and in his 30th year was called to his prophetic office; and in doing this we come close to the statement of Josephus, according to which Ezekiel had come to Babylon in his youth. At any rate the remarkable statement in the beginning of his book, "in the 30th year," by the side of which we find the customary dating, "in the 5th year" (1:1,2), can still find its best explanation when referred to the age of the prophet. We must also remember that the 30th year had a special significance for the tribe of Levi (Numbers 4:3, 13, 10, 39), and that later on, and surely not accidentally, both Jesus and John the Baptist began their public activity at this age (Luke 3:23).

It is indeed true that the attempt has been made to interpret this statement of Ezekiel on the basis of an era of Nabopolassar, but there is practically nothing further known of this era; and in addition there would be a disagreement here, since Nabopolassar ruled from 625 on, and his 30th year would not harmonize with the year 593 as determined by Ezekiel 1:2. Just as little can be said for explaining these 30 years as so many years after the discovery of the book of the law in 623, in the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 22:1-20 f). For this case too there is not the slightest hint that this event had been made the beginning of a new era, and, in addition, the statement in Ezekiel 1:1, without further reference to this event, would be unthinkable.

As in the case of the majority of the prophets, legends have also grown around the person of Ezekiel. He is reported to have been the teacher of Pythagoras, or a servant of Jeremiah, or a martyr, and is said to have been buried in the tomb of Shem and Arphaxad. He indeed did stand in close relationship to Jeremiah (see 2, 3 below). Since the publication of Klostermann's essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1877, it has been customary, on the basis of Ezekiel 3:14 f,Ezekiel 26:1-21 f; Ezekiel 4:4 ff; Ezekiel 24:27, to regard Ezekiel as subject to catalepsy (compare the belief often entertained that Paul was an epileptic). Even if his condition, in which he lay speechless or motionless, has some similarity with certain forms of catalepsy or kindred diseases, i.e. a temporary suspension of the power of locomotion or of speech; yet in the case of Ezekiel we never find that he is describing a disease, but his unique condition occurs only at the express command of God (Ezekiel 3:24 ff; Ezekiel 24:25 ff); and this on account of the stubbornness of the house of Israel (Ezekiel 3:26). This latter expression which occurs with such frequency (compare Ezekiel 2:5 ff; Ezekiel 3:9, 27, etc.) induces to the consideration of the reception which the prophet met at the hand of his contemporaries.

He lives in the midst of briars and thorns and dwells among scorpions (2:6). Israel has a mind harder than a rock, firmer than adamant (3:8 f). "Is he not a speaker of parables?" is cast up to him by his contemporaries, and he complains to God on this account (20:49); and God in turn sums up the impression which Ezekiel has made on them in the words (33:32): "Thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they hear thy words, but they do them not." They consequently estimate him according to his aesthetic side (compare II , 1, below), but that is all.

2. The Book: (1) Its Genuineness. When compared with almost every other prophetic book, we are particularly favorably situated in dealing with the genuineness of the Book of Ezekiel (compare my work, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, zugleich ein Protest gegen moderne Textzersplitterung), as this is practically not at all called into question, and efforts to prove a complicated composition of the book are scarcely made.

Both the efforts of Zunz, made long ago (compare Zeitschrift der deutsch-morgenlandishchen Gesellschaft, 1873, and Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden), and of Seinecke (Geschichte des Volkes Israel,II , 1 ff) to prove a Persian or even a Greek period as the time of the composition of the book; as also the later attempt of Kroetzmann, in his Commentary on Ezekiel, to show that there are two recensions of the book, have found no favor. The claim that Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35 were written by a pupil of Ezekiel was made as a timid suggestion by Volz, but, judging from the tendency of criticism, the origin of these chapters will probably yet become the subject of serious debate. But in general the conviction obtains that the book is characterized by such unity that we can only accept or reject it as a whole, but that for its rejection there is not the least substantial ground. This leads us to the contents.

(2) Its Structure. The parts of the book are in general very transparent. First of all the book is divided into halves by the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 33:1-33; of which parts the first predominantly deals with punishments and threats; the other with comfort and encouragement. Possibly it is these two parts of the book that Josephus has in mind when he says (Ant., X) that Ezekiel had written two books. That the introduction of prophecies of redemption after those of threats in other prophetical books also is often a matter of importance, and that the right appreciation of this fact is a significant factor in the struggle against the attacks made on the genuineness of these books has been demonstrated by me in my book, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Prophelen (compare 39-40 for the case of Amos; 62 ff, 136 f, for the case of Hosea; 197 ff for Isaiah 7:112:1 for Micah; see also my article in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary).

Down to the time when Jerusalem fell, Ezekiel was compelled to antagonize the hopes, which were supported by false prophets, that God would not suffer this calamity. Over against this, Ezekiel persistently and emphatically points to this fact, that the apostasy had been too great for God not to bring about this catastrophe. There is scarcely a violation of a single command--religious, moral or cultural--which the prophet is not compelled to charge against the people in the three sections, 3:16 ff; 8:1 ff; 20:1 ff, until in 24:1 ff, on the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year (589 BC) the destruction of Jerusalem was symbolized by the vision of the boiling pot with the piece of meat in it, and the unlamented destruction of the city was prefigured by the unmourned and sudden death of his wife (see 1 above). After the five sections of this subdivision I, referring to Israel--each one of which subdivisions is introduced by a new dating, and thereby separated from the others and chronologically arranged (1:1 ff, with the consecration of the prophet immediately following it; 3:16 ff; 8:1 ff; 20:1 ff; 24:1 ff)--there follow as a second subdivision the seven oracles against the Ammonites (25:1 ff); the Moabites (25:8 ff); the Edomites (25:12 ff); the Philistines (25:15 ff); Tyre (26:1 ff); Sidon (28:20 ff); Egypt (29:1 ff), evidently arranged from a geographical point of view.

The most extensive are those against Tyre and the group of oracles against Egypt, both provided with separate dates (compare 26:1 through 29:1; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1,17). The supplement in reference to Tyre (29:17 ff) is the latest dated oracle of Ezekiel (from the year 571 BC), and is found here, at a suitable place, because it is connected with a threat against Egypt (Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35 date from the year 573 according to Ezekiel 40:1). The number seven evidently does not occur accidentally, since in other threats of this kind a typical number appears to have been purposely chosen, thus: Isaiah 13:1-22 through Isaiah 22:1-25, i.e. ten; Jeremiah 46:1-28 through Jeremiah 51:1-64, also ten; which fact again under the circumstances is an important argument in repelling attacks on the genuineness of the book.

Probably the five parts of the first subdivision, and the seven of the second, supplement each other, making a total of twelve (compare the analogous structure of Exodus 25:1 through Exodus 30:10 under EXODUS, and probably the chiastic structure of Ezekiel 34:1-31 through Ezekiel 48:1-35, with 7 and 5 pieces; see below). The oracles against the foreign countries are not only in point of time to be placed between Ezekiel 24:1-27 and Ezekiel 33:21, but also, as concerns contents, help splendidly to solve the difficulty suggested by chapter Ezekiel 24:1-27, and in this way satisfactorily fill the gap thus made. The arrival of the news of the fall of Jerusalem, in 586 BC (compare 33:21 ff), which had already been foretold in chapter 24, introduced by the mighty watchman's cry to repentance (33:1 ff), and followed by a reproof of the superficial reception of the prophetic word (see 1 above), concludes the first chief part of the book.

The second part also naturally fails into two subdivisions, of which the first contains the development of the nearer and more remote future, as to its inner character and its historical course (Ezekiel 34:1-31 through Ezekiel 39:1-29): (1) the true shepherd of Israel (Ezekiel 34:1-31); (2) the future fate of Edom (Ezekiel 35:1-15); (3) Israel's deliverance from the disgrace of the shameful treatment by the heathen, which falls back upon the latter again (Ezekiel 36:1-15); (4) the desecration of the name of Yahweh by Israel and the sanctification by Yahweh (Ezekiel 36:15-38); (5) the revival of the Israelite nation (Ezekiel 37:1-14); (6) the reunion of the separated kingdoms, Judah and Israel (Ezekiel 37:15-28); (7) the overthrow of the terrible Gentilepower of the north (Ezekiel 38:1-23 f).

The second subdivision (Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35) contains the reconstruction of the external affairs of the people in a vision, on the birthday of 573, "in the beginning of the year" (beginning of a jubilee year? (Leviticus 25:10); compare also DAY OF ATONEMENT). After the explanatory introduction (Ezekiel 40:1-4), there follow five pericopes: (1) directions with reference to the temple (compare the subscription Ezekiel 43:12) (Ezekiel 40:5 through Ezekiel 43:12); (2) the altar (Ezekiel 43:13 through Ezekiel 46:24); (3) the wonderful fountain of the temple, on the banks of which the trees bear fruit every month (Ezekiel 47:1-12); (4) the boundaries of the land and its division among the twelve tribes of Israel (Ezekiel 47:13 through Ezekiel 48:29); (5) the size of the holy city and the names of its twelve gates (Ezekiel 48:30-35).

In (3) to (5) the prominence of the number twelve is clear. Perhaps we can also divide (1) and (2) each into twelve pieces: (1) would be Ezekiel 40:5 ff,Ezekiel 17:1-24 ff,Ezekiel 28:1-26 ff,Ezekiel 39:1-29 ff,Ezekiel 48:1-35 ff; Ezekiel 41:1 ff,5 ff,Ezekiel 12:1-28 ff,Ezekiel 15:1-8 ff; Ezekiel 42:1 ff,Ezekiel 15:1-8 ff; Ezekiel 43:1 ff; for (2) it would be 43:13 ff,18 ff; 44:1 ff,4 ff,15 ff; 45:1 ff,9 ff,13 ff,18 ff; 46:1 ff,16 ff,19 ff.

At any rate the entire second chief part, Ezekiel 34:1-31 through Ezekiel 48:1-35, contains predictions of deliverance. The people down to 586 were confident, so that Ezekiel was compelled to rebuke them. After the taking of Jerusalem a change took place in both respects. Now the people are despairing, and this is just the right time for the prophet to preach deliverance. The most important separate prophecies will be mentioned and examined in another connection (II below).

The transparent structure of the whole book suggests the idea that the author did not extend the composition over a long period, but wrote it, so to say, at one stretch, which of course does not make it impossible that the separate prophecies were put into written form immediately after their reception, but rather presupposes this. When the prophet wrote they were only woven together into a single uniform book (compare also EXODUS,IV , 1, 2).

(3) Relation to Jeremiah. As Elijah and Elisha, or Amos and Hosea, or Isaiah and Micah, or Haggai and Zechariah, so too Jeremiah and Ezekiel constitute a prophetic couple (compare 1 above); compare e.g. in later time the sending out of the disciples of Jesus, two by two (Luke 10:1), the relation of Peter and John in Acts 3:1-26 ff; of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-52 ff; of Luther and Melanchthon, Calvin and Zwingli. Both prophets prophesy about the same time; both are of priestly descent (compare 1 above), both witness the overthrow of the Jewish nation, and with their prophecies accompany the fate of the Jewish state down to the catastrophe and beyond that, rebuking, threatening, warning, admonishing, and also comforting and encouraging.

In matters of detail, too, these two prophets often show the greatest similarity, as in the threat against the unfaithful shepherds (Ezekiel 34:2 ff; Jeremiah 23:1 ff); in putting into one class the Northern and the Southern Kingdom and condemning both, although the prediction is also made that they shall eventually be united and pardoned (Ezekiel 23:1-49; Ezekiel 16:1-63; Jeremiah 3:6 ff; Ezekiel 37:15 ff; Jeremiah 3:14-18; 23:5 f; Jeremiah 30:1-24 f); in the individualizing of religion (compare the fact that both reject the common saying: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," Ezekiel 18:2; Jeremiah 31:29); in their inwardness (Ezekiel 36:25 ff; Jeremiah 24:7; Jeremiah 31:27-34; 32:39; 33:8); in their comparisons of the coming judgment with a boiling pot (Ezekiel 24:1 ff; Jeremiah 1:13 ff); and finally, in their representation of the Messiah as the priest-king (see 1 above; namely, in Ezekiel 21:25 f; Ezekiel 45:22; compare Jeremiah 30:21; 33:17 ff; see II , Jeremiah 3:1-25, and my work Messianische Erwartung, 320 ff, 354 ff). Neither is to be considered independently of the other, since the prophetical writings, apparently, received canonical authority soon after and perhaps immediately after they were written (compare the expression "the former prophets" in Zechariah 1:4; 7, 12, also the constantly increasing number of citations from earlier prophets in the later prophets, and the understanding of the "exact succession of the prophets" down to Artaxerxes in Josephus, CAp, I, Zechariah 8:1-23), it is possible that Ezekiel, with his waw consecutivum, with which the book begins, is to be understood as desiring to connect with the somewhat older Jeremiah (compare a similar relation of Jonah to Obadiah; see my articles "Canon of theOT " and "Jonah" in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary).

(4) Fate of the Book and Its Place in the Canon. With Jeremiah and Ezekiel, many Hebrew manuscripts, especially those of the German and French Jews, begin the series of "later prophets," and thus these books are found before Isaiah; while the Massorah and the manuscripts of the Spanish Jews, according to the age and the size of the books, have the order, Isa, Jer, Ezk. The text of the book is, in part, quite corrupt, and in this way the interpretation of the book, not easy in itself, is made considerably more difficult. Jerome, Ad Paul., writes that the beginning and the end of the book contained many dark passages; that these parts, like the beginning of Gen, were not permitted to be read by the Jews before these had reached their 30th year. During the time when the schools of Hillel and Shammai flourished, Ezekiel belonged to those books which some wanted "to hide," the others being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Esther and Canticles. In these discussions the question at issue was not the reception of the book into the Canon, which was rather presupposed, nor again any effort to exclude them from the Canon again, which thought could not be reconciled with the high estimate in which it is known that Est was held, but it was the exclusion of these books from public reading in the Divine service, which project failed. The reasons for this proposal are not to be sought in any doubt as to their authenticity, but in reference to their contents (compare my article "Canon of the Old Testament," in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary). Possibly, too, one reason was to be found in the desire to avoid the profanation of the most sacred vision in the beginning of the book, as Zunz suggests. There is no doubt, however, that the difference of this book from the Torah was a reason that made it inadvisable to read it in public. It was hoped that these contradictions would be solved by Elijah when he should return. But finally, rabbinical research, after having used up three hundred cans of oil, succeeded in finding the solution. These contradictions, as a matter of fact, have not yet been removed, and have in modern times contributed to the production of a very radical theory in criticism, as will be shown immediately under II, 2.

Continued in EZEKIEL, 2.

Ezekiel, 2

Ezekiel, 2 - Continued from EZEKIEL, 1.

II. Significance of Ezekiel in Israel's Religious History.

Under the first head we will consider the formal characteristics and significance of the book; and the examination of its contents will form the subject under the next four divisions.

1. Formal Characteristics of Ezekiel: It is not correct to regard Ezekiel merely as a writer, as it is becoming more and more customary to do. Passages like 3:10 f; 14:4 ff; 20:1 ff,27; 24:18 ff; 43:10 f show that just as the other prophets did, he too proclaimed by word of mouth the revelations of God he had received. However, he had access only to a portion of the people. It was indeed for him even more important than it had been for the earlier prophets to provide for the wider circulation and permanent influence of his message by putting it into written form. We will, at this point, examine his book first of all from its formal and its aesthetic side. To do this it is very difficult, in a short sketch, to give even a general impression of the practically inexhaustible riches of the means at his command for the expression of his thoughts.

(1) Visions. Thus, a number of visions at once attract our attention. In the beginning of his work there appears to him the Divine throne-chariot, which comes from the north as a storm, as a great cloud and a fire rolled together. This chariot is borne by the four living creatures in the form of men, with the countenances of a man, of a lion, of an ox and of an eagle, representing the whole living creation. It will be remembered that these figures have passed over into the Revelation of John (Revelation 4:7), and later were regarded as the symbols of the four evangelists. In Ezekiel 10:1-22 f this throne-chariot in the vision leaves the portal of the temple going toward the east, returning again in the prediction of deliverance in Ezekiel 43:1-27. Moreover, the entire last nine chapters are to be interpreted as a vision (compare Ezekiel 40:2). We must not forget, finally, the revivification of the Israelite nation in Ezekiel 37:1-28, represented in the picture of a field full of dead bones, which are again united, covered with skin, and receive new life through the ruach (word of two meanings, "wind" and "spirit").

As a rule the visions of Ezekiel, like those of Zechariah (compare my article "Zechariah" in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary), are not regarded as actual experiences, but only as literary forms. When it is given as a reason for this that the number of visions are too great and too complicated, and therefore too difficult of presentation, to be real experiences, we must declare this to be an altogether too unsafe, subjective and irrelevant rule to apply in the matter. However, correct the facts mentioned are in themselves they do not compel us to draw this conclusion. Not only is it uncertain how many visions may be experiences (compare e.g. the five visions in Amos 7:1-17 ff, which are generally regarded as actual experiences), but it is also absolutely impossible to prove such an a priori claim with reference to the impossibility and the unreality of processes which are not accessible to us by our own experience. As these visions, one and all, are, from the religious and ethical sides, up to the standards of Old Testament prophecy, and as, further, they are entirely unique in character, and as, finally, there is nothing to show that they are only literary forms, we must hold to the conviction that the visions are actual experiences.

(2) Symbolical Acts. Then we find in Ezekiel, also, a large number of symbolical acts. According to Divine command Ezekiel sketches the city of Jerusalem and its siege on a tile (4:1 ff); or he lies bound on his left side, as an atonement, 390 days, and 40 days on his right side, according to the number of years of the guilt of Israel and Judah (4:4 ff). During the 390 days the condition of the people in exile is symbolized by a small quantity of food daily of the weight of only 20 shekels, and unclean, being baked on human or cattle dung, and a small quantity of water, which serves as food and drink of the prophet (4:9 ff).

By means of his beard and the hair of his head, which he shaves off and in part burns, in part strikes with the sword, and in part scatters to the wind, and only the very smallest portion of which he ties together in the hem of his garment, he pictures how the people shall be decimated so that only a small remnant shall remain (Ezekiel 5:1 ff). In Ezekiel 12:1-28, he prepares articles necessary for marching and departs in the darkness. Just so Israel will go into captivity and its king will not see the country into which he goes (compare the blinding of Zedekiah, 2 Kings 25:7). In Ezekiel 37:15 ff, he unites two different sticks into one, with inscriptions referring to the two kingdoms, and these picture the future union of Israel and Judah. It is perhaps an open question whether or not some of these symbolical actions, which would be difficult to carry out in actuality, are not perhaps to be interpreted as visions; thus, e.g. the distributing the wine of wrath to all the nations, in Jeremiah 25:15, can in all probability not be understood in any other way. But, at any rate, it appears to us that here, too, the acceptance of a mere literary form is both unnecessary and unsatisfactory, and considering the religio-ethical character of Ezekiel, not permissible.

(3) Allegories. In regard to the numerous allegories, attention need be drawn only to the picture of the two unfaithful sisters, Oholah and Oholibah (i.e. Samaria and Jerusalem), whose relation to Yahweh as well as their infidelity is portrayed in a manner that is actually offensive to over-sensitive minds (Ezekiel 23:1-49; compare Ezekiel 16:1-63). In Ezekiel 17:1-24, Zedekiah is represented under the image of a grapevine, which the great eagle (i.e. the king of Babylon) has appointed, which, however, turns to another great eagle (king of Egypt), and because of this infidelity shall be rooted out, until God, eventually, causes a new tree to grow out of a tender branch.

(4) Lamentations. Of the lamentations, we mention the following: according to Ezekiel 19:1-14, a lioness rears young lions, one after the other, but one after the other is caught in a trap and led away by nose-rings. The ones meant are Jehoahaz and certainly Jehoiachin. The lion mother, who before was like a grapevine, is banished (Zedekiah). Another lamentation is spoken over Tyre, which is compared to a proud ship (compare Ezekiel 27:1 ff); also over the king of Tyre, who is hurled down from the mountain of the gods (Ezekiel 28:11-19); and over Pharaoh of Egypt, who is pictured as a crocodile in the sea (Ezekiel 32:1 ff).

That his contemporaries knew how to appreciate the prophet at least from the aesthetic side, we saw above (I, 1). What impression does Ezekiel make upon us today, from this point of view? He is declared to be "too intellectual for a poet"; "fantastic"; "vividness in him finds a substitute in strengthening and repetition"; "he has no poetical talent"; "he is the most monotonous prose writer among the prophets." These and similar opinions are heard. In matters of taste there is no disputing; but there is food for reflection in the story handed down that Frederick yon Schiller was accustomed to read Ezekiel, chiefly on account of his magnificent descriptions, and that he himself wanted to learn Hebrew in order to be able to enjoy the book in the original. And Herder, with his undeniable and undenied fine appreciation of the poetry of many nations, calls Ezekiel "the Aeschylus and the Shakespeare of the Hebrews" (compare Lange's Commentary on Ezk, 519).

2. Ezekiel and the Levitical System: (1) Ezekiel 44:4 ff: Theory That the Distinction of Priests and Levites Was Introduced by Ezekiel.

(a) The Biblical Facts: In the vision of the reconstruction of the external relations of the people in the future (Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35), in the second pericope, which treats of the cult (Ezekiel 43:13 through Ezekiel 46:24; compare I, Ezekiel 2:1-10, Ezekiel 2:1-10), it is claimed that Ezekiel, at the command of Yahweh, reproaches the Israelites that they engage in their room strangers, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to take charge of the service of Yahweh in the sanctuary, instead of doing this service themselves, and thus desecrate the temple (Ezekiel 44:4-8). From now on the Levites, who hitherto have been participating in the service of the idols on the high places and had become for Israel an occasion for guilt, are to attend to this work. They are degraded from the priesthood as a punishment of their guilt, and are to render the above-mentioned service in the temple (Ezekiel 44:9 ff), while only those Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who had been rendering their services in the sanctuary in the proper way, while Israel was going astray, are to be permitted to perform priestly functions (Ezekiel 44:15 ff).

(b) Modern Interpretation of This Passage: The modern interpretation of this passage (Ezekiel 44:4 ff) is regarded as one of the most important proofs for the Wellhausen hypothesis. Down to the 7th century BC it is claimed that there are no signs that a distinction was made between the persons who had charge of the cults in Israel, and this is held to be proved by the history of the preceding period and by the Book of Deuteronomy, placed by the critics in this time. It is said that Ezekiel is the first to change this, and in this passage introduces the distinction between priests and the lower order of Levites, which difference is then presupposed by the Priestly Code. According to this view, the high priest of the Priestly Code, too, would not yet be known to Ezekiel, and would not yet exist in his time. More fully expressed, the development would have to be thought as follows: the Book of Deuteronomy, which abolished the service on the high places, and had introduced the concentration of the cults, had in a humane way provided for the deposed priests who had been serving on the high places, and, in 18:6 ff, had expressly permitted them to perform their work in Jerusalem, as did all of their brethren of their tribe, and to enjoy the same income as these. While all the other Deuteronomic commands had in principle been recognized, this ordinance alone had met with opposition: for in 2 Kings 23:9 we are expressly told that the priests of the high places were not permitted to go up to Jerusalem. Ezekiel now, according to Wellhausen's statement, "hangs over the logic of the facts a moral mantle," by representing the deposition of the priests of the high places as a punishment for the fact that they were priests of the high places, although they had held this position in the past by virtue of legal right.

It is indeed true, it is said, that these priests did not submit to such a representation of the case and such treatment. The violent contentions which are said to have arisen in consequence are thought to have their outcome expressed in Numbers 16:1-50 f (the rebellion of Korah, the budding staff of Aaron). The Priestly Code, however, continued to adhere to the distinction once it had been introduced, and had become a fact already at the return in 538 BC (compare Ezra 2:36 ff), even if it was found impossible to limit the priesthood to the Zadokites, and if it was decided to make an honorable office out of the degraded position of the Levites as given by Ezekiel. The fact that, according to Ezra 2:36-39, in the year 538 BC, already 4,289 priests, but according to verse 40, only 74 Levites, returned, is also regarded as proving how dissatisfied the degraded priests of the high places had been with the new position, created by Ezekiel, to which they had been assigned. With the introduction of the P Codex in 444 BC, which made a distinction between high priest, priests and Levites within the tribe of Levi, this development reached an end for the time being. While Deuteronomy speaks of the "Levitical priests," which expression is regarded as confirming the original identity of the priests and the Levites, it is claimed that since the days of Ezekiel, priests and Levites constitute two sharply distinguished classes.

(c) Examination of Theory: Both the exegesis of Ezekiel 44:4 ff and the whole superstructure are in every direction indefensible and cannot be maintained (compare also my work, Are the Critics Right? 30 ff, 124 ff, 196 ff).

(i) Not Tenable for Preexilic Period: Proof that the hypothesis cannot be maintained for the preexilic period. The claim that down to the 7th century BC there did not exist in Israel any distinction among the persons engaged in the public cults is in itself an absurdity, but has in addition against it the express testimony of history. In preexilic times the high priest is expressly mentioned in 2 Kings 12:9 ff; 2 Kings 22:4, 8; 23:4. Accordingly he cannot have been a product of the post-exilic period. The rank of an Eli (1 Samuel 1:1-28 ff), Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-15 f), Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26 f), Zadok (1 Kings 2:35), is vastly above that of an ordinary priest. The fact that the expression "high priest" does not happen to occur here is all the less to be pressed, as the term is found even in the Priestly Code only in Leviticus 21:10; Numbers 35:25-28. From Deuteronomy 10:6; Joshua 24:33; Judges 20:28, we learn that the office of high priest was transmitted from Aaron to his son, Eleazar, and then to his son, Phinehas (compare also Numbers 25:11). Before the time of Eli, according to 1 Chronicles 24:3, it had passed over to the line of the other surviving son of Aaron, that of Ithamar, but, according to 1 Kings 2:26 f,35, at the deposition of Abiathar and the appointment of Zadok, it returned again to the line of Eleazar (compare 1 Samuel 2:27-28, 35 f with 1 Chronicles 24:3). Distinctions within the tribe are also expressly presupposed by Jeremiah 20:1; 29:25 f,Jeremiah 29:1-32; 52:24; 2 Kings 25:18. In the same way Levites are expressly mentioned in history (compare Judges 17:1-13 f; Judges 19:1-30 through Judges 21:1-25; 1 Samuel 6:15; 2 Samuel 15:24; 1 Kings 8:3 ff). This very division of the priestly tribe into three parts possibly suggested the three parts of the temple of Solomon (the holy of holies, the holy place, the forecourt). According to all this, it is not possible that this distinction is not found in Deuteronomy, especially if this book was not written until the 7th century BC and throughout took into consideration the actual condition of affairs at that time, as is generally claimed. But this difference is found in Deuteronomy, the false dating of which we can here ignore, and is probably suggested by it; for, if this were not the case, then the addition of the words "the whole tribe of Levi" to the words "Levitical priests" in Deuteronomy 18:1 would be tautology. But as it is, both expressions already refer to what follows: namely, Deuteronomy 18:3-5 to the priests and Deuteronomy 18:6 ff to the rest of the Levites. In the same way, the Levites are in Deuteronomy 12:12, 18 f; Deuteronomy 14:27, 29; 11, 14 the objects of charity, while Deuteronomy 18:3 ff prescribes a fixed and not insignificant income for the priests. Then, finally, such general statements as are found in Deuteronomy 10:8; 18:2 ff; Deuteronomy 33:8 ff, not only demand such specific directions as are found only in the Priestly Code (P), but in Deuteronomy 10:9; 18:2 there is a direct reference to Numbers 18:20, 24 (from P). On the other hand, Deuteronomy, in harmony with its general tendency of impressing upon Israel in the spirit of pastoral exhortation the chief demands of the law, does not find it necessary, in every instance, to mention the distinctions that existed in the tribe of Levi.

In Numbers 18:7 we have in P even an analogon to Deuteronomy 10:8; 33:8 ff; since here, too, no distinction is made between priests and high priests separately, but the whole priestly service is mentioned in a summary manner (compare further Leviticus 6:22 in comparison with Leviticus 6:25; Numbers 35:1-34 in comparison with Joshua 21:1-45). That Deuteronomy cannot say "Aaron and his sons," as P does, is certainly self-evident, because Aaron was no longer living at the time when the addresses of Deuteronomy were delivered. And how the expression "Levitical priests," which Deuteronomy uses for the expression found in the Priestly Code (P), and which was entirely suitable, because under all circumstances the priests were of the tribe of Levi, is to be understood as excluding the subordinate members of the cults-officers belonging to the same tribe, is altogether incomprehensible (compare the emphasis put on the Levitical priesthood inP itself, as found in Numbers 17:1-13; Joshua 21:4, 10 ff). So are other passages which originated at a time after the introduction by Ezekiel, or, according to the critics, are claimed to have been introduced then (compare Malachi 2:1, 4, 8 ff, Malachi 3:3; Jeremiah 33:18; Isaiah 66:21; 2 Chronicles 5:5; 23:18; 29:4 ff; 2 Chronicles 30:27), and even in Ezek (44:15). The claims that Dt is more humane in its treatment of the priests who had engaged in the worship in high places (compare e.g. 2 Kings 22:1-20 f) cannot at all be reconciled with Deuteronomy 13:1-18, which directs that death is to be the punishment for such idolatry. If, notwithstanding this, it is still claimed that Deuteronomy 18:6 ff allows the priests of the high places to serve in Jerusalem, then it is incomprehensible how in 2 Kings 23:9 these men did not appeal directly to Dt in vindication of their rights over against all hindrances, since Dt was regarded as the absolute norm in carrying out the cult tradition.

(ii) Not Sustained by Ezekiel:

Examination of the hypothesis on the basis of Ezekiel: No less unfavorable to the view of the critics must the judgment be when we examine it in the light of the contents of Ezekiel itself. The prophet presupposes a double service in the sanctuary, a lower service which, in the future, the degraded priests of the high places are to perform and which, in the past, had been performed in an unlawful manner by strangers (44:6-9), and a higher service, which had been performed by the Zadokites, the priests at the central sanctuary, in the proper way at the time when the other priests had gone astray, which service was for this reason to be entrusted to them alone in the future (compare, also, 40:45,46; 43:19). Since in 44:6 ff the sharpest rebukes are cast up to Israel (according to the reading of the Septuagint, which here uses the second person, even the charge of having broken the covenant), because they had permitted the lower service to be performed by uncircumcised aliens, it is absolutely impossible that Ezekiel should have been the first to introduce the distinction between higher and lower service, but he presupposes this distinction as something well known, and, also, that the lower service has been regulated by Divine ordinances. As we have such ordinances clearly given only in Numbers 18:2 ff (from P) it is in itself natural and almost necessary that Ezekiel has reference to these very ordinances, but these very ordinances direct that the Levites are to have charge of this lower service. This is confirmed by Ezekiel 48:12 f, where the designation "Levites" in contradistinction from the priests is a fixed and recognized term for the lower cult officials. For Ezekiel has not at all said that he would from now on call these temple-servants simply by the name "Levites," but, rather, he simply presupposes the terminology of P as known and makes use of it. He would, too, scarcely have selected this expression to designate a condition of punishment, since the term "Levites" is recognized on all hands to be an honorable title in the sacred Scriptures. And when he, in addition, designates the Zadokites as "Levitical priests" (Ezekiel 44:15), this only shows anew that Ezekiel in his designation of the lower temple-servants only made use of the terminology introduced by P.

But, on the representation of the critics, the whole attitude ascribed to Ezekiel cannot be upheld. It is maintained that a prophet filled with the highest religious and ethical thoughts has been guilty of an action that, from an ethical point of view, is to be most sharply condemned. The prophet is made to write reproaches against the people of Israel for something they could not help (Ezekiel 44:6 ff), and he is made to degrade and punish the priests of the high places, who also had acted in good faith and were doing what they had a right to do (Ezekiel 44:9 ff; compare "the moral mantle" which, according to Wellhausen, "he threw over the logic of facts"). Ezekiel is accordingly regarded here as a bad man; but at the same time he would also be a stupid man. How could he expect to succeed in such an uncouth and transparent trick? If success had attended the effort to exclude from the service in Jerusalem the priests of the high places according to 2 Kings 23:9, and notwithstanding Deuteronomy 18:6 ff, which according to what has been said under (a) is most improbable, then this would through the action of Ezekiel again have been made a matter of uncertainty. Or, was it expected that they would suffer themselves to be upraided and punished without protesting if they had done no wrong? Finally, too, the prophet would have belonged to that class whose good fortune is greater than their common sense. This leads us to the following:

(iii) Not Supported by Development after Ezekiel:

Examination of the development after the time of Ezekiel: Ezekiel's success is altogether incomprehensible, if now the distinction between priests and Levites has, at once, been introduced and at the return from captivity, in the year 538 (Ezra 2:36 ff), certainly was a fact. It is true that we at once meet with a host of difficulties. Why do only 74 Levites return according to Ezra 2:40 if their degradation from the ranks of the priesthood through Ezekiel had not preceded? asks the Wellhausen school. Why did any Levites, at all, return, if they had been so disgraced? is our question. But, how is it at all possible that so many priests could return (4,289 among 42,360 exiles, or more than one-tenth of the whole number; compare Ezra 2:36-38 with verse 64; but many more than one-tenth if women are included in the 42,360), if, since the times of Ezekiel, there were none other than Zadokite priests? In examining the writers claimed as the authors of the Priestly Code (P), all those difficulties recur again which are found in the case of Ezekiel himself. That Numbers 16:1-50 f indicates and reflects the opposition of the degraded is nothing but an unproved assertion; but if they had revolted, which was probable enough, then there would have been no worse and more foolish means than to change the degraded position of the Levites according to Ezekiel into the honorable position assigned them in the Priestly Code (P). This would only have made the matter worse. The Levites would again have been able to claim their old rights and they would have acquired the strongest weapons for their opposition. The fact that Ezekiel's restoration of the priesthood to the Zadokites would have been ignored by the Priestly Code (P), as also the descent of Aaron through Eleazar and Ithamar, according to the account of the Priestly Code (P), that is, that in reality also others were admitted to the priesthood, would only have the effect of making those who still were excluded all the more rebellious, who could appeal to each case of such an admission as a precedent and accordingly as a violation of the principle. What possible purpose the authors of P could have had in the creation of those products of imagination, Nadab and Abihu, and the portrayal of the terrible fate of these sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10:1-20) remains incomprehensible (compare the purposeless and constructive imagination in the description of the details of the Ark of the Covenant, which stands in no connection with the tendency of P; see EXODUS,III , 5). Nor can it be understood why the creators of the Priestly Code would have had assigned other duties to the Levites than Ezekiel had done; the slaying of the burnt offerings and the sacrifices (44:11) and the cooking of the latter (46:24) is lacking in the Priestly Code (P), in which document the transportation of the imaginary tabernacle would have exhausted the duties of the priests (Numbers 4:1-49), while in other respects, their services would be described only in such general notices as in Numbers 8:23 ff; Numbers 18:2 ff (compare for this reason the very credible account in Chronicles, which through Ezekiel 44:11; 46:24 only becomes all the more trustworthy, where we are told of the enlargement of the duties of the Levites already by David in 1 Chronicles 23:25 ff). In short, the critical views offer one monstrosity after another, and each greater than its predecessor. We will only mention further that, if the critics are right in this matter, then of the directions found in Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35 nothing else has ever been carried out in reality, even when these chapters are correctly understood (see 2 (d) below), and at first nothing was intended to be carried out, so that it would be all the more surprising if this one feature of the program of Ezekiel had alone been picked out and had been carried out with an inexplicable haste, and that too at a time when the whole cult was not at all observed (573, according to 40:1).

(d) The True Solution: The text as it reads in Ezekiel 44:9 ff actually does speak of a degradation. If the matter involved only a mere putting back into the status quo ante, of the Levites, who on the high places, contrary to the law, had usurped the prerogatives of the higher priestly offices, as this could easily be understood, then the expression in Ezekiel 44:10, 12, "They shall bear their iniquity," would lose much of its significance. On the other hand, the whole matter finds its explanation if, in the first place, the lower order of Levites did not put a high estimate on their office, so that they transferred their service to aliens (Ezekiel 44:6 ff), and if, in the second place, by those Levites who departed from Yahweh, when Israel was going astray, not all the Levites are to be understood, but only a certain group of priests, who by these words were for themselves and their contemporaries clearly enough designated: namely, the descendants of Aaron through Ithamar and Eleazar in so far as they were not Zadokites, that is, had not officiated at the central sanctuary. The non-Zadokite priests had permitted themselves to be misled to officiate in the idolatry in the services of the high places, and for this reason were for the future to be degraded to the already existing lower order of the Levites.

The fact that in the ranks of lower participants in the cults, already in the days of David, according to Chronicles, a still further division had taken place (1 Chronicles 23:1-32 through 1 Chronicles 26:1-32), so that by the side of the Levites in the most narrow sense of the word, also the singers and the gate watchmen were Levites of a lower rank (Nehemiah 12:44-47; 13:10), is again in itself entirely credible, and, in addition, is made very probable by Ezra 2:40 ff. This too at once increases the small number of Levites who returned from the exile from 74 to 341. In comparison to the number of priests (4,289) the number yet remains a small one, but from Ezekiel 44:6 ff we learn further that the Levites also before the days of Ezekiel had not appreciated their office, for then they would not have given it over to aliens. In this way not only does everything become clear and intelligible, but the weapon which was to serve for the defense of the Wellhausen school has in every respect been turned against these critics. The historical order can only be: first, the Priestly Code, and after that Ezekiel; never vice versa.

(2) Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35: Priority claimed for Ezekiel as against the Priest Codex

(a) Sketch of the modern view: The entire vision of what the external condition of affairs would be in the future in Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35, and not only what is particularly stated in Ezekiel 44:4 ff, is made a part of Israel's religious development in accordance with the scheme of the Wellhausen school. For this hypothesis, this section is one of the chief arguments, besides the opposition which it claims exists on the part of the prophets against the sacrifices, in addition to the proof taken from the history of the people and from the comparison of the different collections of laws with each other. In Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35 many things are different from what they are in the Priestly Code, and in Ezek much is lacking that is found in P. How now would a prophet dare to change the legislation in P? Hence, P is regarded as later than Ezk. This is, briefly, the logic of the Wellhausen school.

(b) One-Sidedness of This View: If we first state the facts in the case and complete the observations of the modern school, the picture will at once assume quite a different form and the conclusions drawn will in their consequences prove very embarrassing. It is a fact that in Ezekiel the high priest so prominent in P is lacking. No mention is made of the equipment of the holy of holies, and in the holy place the table of the shewbread and the candlesticks, old utensils that are mentioned in the tabernacle of the Priestly Code (P), and in part play an important role there. But the differences in Ezekiel are not found only in comparison with the Priestly Code (P), but just as much, too, in features which belong to the legislation of Deuteronomy, as also of the Book of the Covenant, accepted at all hands as preexilic (Exodus 21:1-36 through Exodus 23:1-33; Exodus 34:1-35). Thus there is lacking in Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35 not only the tithes of P (Leviticus 27:30-33), also the laws with reference to the firstborn from P (Leviticus 27:26 f; Numbers 18:15 f), the ordinances with reference to the portions of the redemption sacrifice to be given to the priests from P (Leviticus 7:31 ff), but equally the ordinance with reference to the tithes, firstborn and sacrificial gifts from Dt (compare Leviticus 14:22 ff; Leviticus 26:12 ff; Leviticus 14:23-26; Leviticus 15:19-23; 18:3). The feast of weeks is wanting, which is demanded not only by P in Leviticus 23:15 ff; Numbers 28:26 ff, but also by the older legislation (Exodus 23:16; 34:22; Deuteronomy 16:9 ff); and in the place of the three parallel feasts demanded everywhere, only the Passover and the Feast of the Tabernacles are prescribed (Ezekiel 45:21). Thus too the direction with regard, e.g. to the Day of Atonement in Ezekiel 45:18 ff is different in regard to number, time and ritual from P in Leviticus 16:1-34, etc. (compare DAY OF ATONEMENT, sec. I, 1), but also the command found in Exodus 20:26 (from E) that it was not permitted to ascend on steps to the altar of Yahweh is overthrown by Ezekiel 43:17. And, according to what has been described under (1), criticism itself accepts (although without reason) that Ezekiel had changed the commandment of Deuteronomy 18:6 ff, according to which all the Levites in Jerusalem could perform priestly service, so that he not only forbade this, as did 2 Kings 23:9, but that he also degraded these priests of the high places as a punishment and reduced them to a lower service.

As is the case in reference to the law, Ezekiel also disagrees with the facts of history. He changes the dimensions of the Solomonic temple entirely (40:5 through 42:20); he gives an entirely different distribution of the Holy Land (47:13 through 48:29) from that which was carried out in actual history. What sheer arbitrariness and short-sightedness it would be, to pick out of this condition of affairs only those features in which he differs from the Priestly Code (P), in order, for this reason, to force the composition of the Priestly Code into the postexilic period, and at the same time to close one's eyes to the necessary conclusion that if this principle of interpretation is correct, then the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy, the temple and the migration into Canaan must also be post-exilic. "The prophet is not allowed to change the Priestly Code (P)," we are told; but as a matter of fact he has changed P no more than he changed the older laws and history. Hence, the claim is false. And then, too, P is not to be regarded as unchangeable. Even the writer of Chronicles, who writes from the standpoint of the Priestly Code (P), has changed P; for he narrates in 1 Chronicles 23:24, 27 that the age of the Levites since the time of David had been reduced from 30 or 1 Chronicles 25:1-31 years (Numbers 4:3, 13, 10, 35; 8:23 ff) to 20 years (compare also the participation of the Levites in the burnt sacrifices and the Passover under Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:34; 17, 19)), and in P itself, according to Numbers 9:6-12, the observation of the Passover after the regular time was permitted, and in general if such changes and adaptations of the law on the part of Ezek could not be demonstrated elsewhere, the difficulties for the advocates of the Wellhausen hypothesis would be exactly as great as they are for the adherents of the Biblical views, only that the problem would be inverted to explain how the author of P could have ventured to deviate so far from the will of God as this had been revealed to Ezekiel.

(c) Impossibility That Ezekiel Preceded P: While the description of the temple in 40:5 ff and of the future dwelling-places of the people (47:13 ff) is comparatively complete, it is the very legislation of the ritual in 43:13 through 46:24, in which it is maintained that the authors of P followed the precedent of the prophet, that is in itself so full of omissions in Ezek, that it could not possibly have been a first sketch, but must presuppose the Priestly Code (P), if it is not to be regarded as suspended in the air. Ezek presupposes not only burnt offerings, peace offerings and food offerings, but also sin offerings (40:39; 42:13; 43:19,21,22,25; 44:27,29; 46:20). Ezekiel is indeed the first and the only prophet who mentioned sin offerings, just as the guilt offerings are found outside of Ezek only in Isaiah 53:10. But this reference is of such a kind that he presupposes on the part of his readers an acquaintance also with these two kinds of sacrifices; hence, it is, in itself, a natural conclusion, that the sacrificial legislation of the Priestly Code (P), that is, chiefly Leviticus 1:1-17 to Leviticus 7:1-38, is older, and as the guilt offerings and the sin offerings are prescribed only by the Priestly Code (P), and in Leviticus 4:1-35 f appear to be emphasized anew, this conclusion becomes a necessity.

If this is not the case then Ezek is without any foundation. In the same way the injunctions with reference to what is clean and unclean are presupposed as known in 44:23,15 f (compare 22:26). How long the uncleanness described in 22:26 continued can be seen only from Numbers 19:11 ff. Since in Ezekiel 22:26 there is presupposed a definitely fixed Torah or Law, which it is possible to violate, then it is only natural to conclude that such commands existed before the days of Ezekiel, especially such as are found in Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33. In the same way the general character of the ordinances (Ezekiel 444:30a), concerning the tithes due to the cult officials, demand such further developments as are found especially in Numbers 18:1-32 in P. The high priests, too, although Ezekiel makes no mention of them, belong to the period earlier than Ezekiel, as was proved under (1). If there had been no high priest before the days of Ezekiel, it would have been a perfect mystery, in addition, how he would be found after 520 BC (Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 3:8; 6:10 ff), without a word having been mentioned of the establishment of such an important institution. In addition, if the office had been created just at this time, this would make it very uncomfortable for the contentions of the Wellhausen school, since the other ordinances of P were introduced only in 444 BC, and should here be regarded as innovating.

That Ezekiel presupposed the ordinances of P in reference to the cult officials has been demonstrated under (1). Accordingly, there yet remains to be discussed the universally recognized relationship that exists between Ezek and the so-called Law of Holiness (H) in Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46 (compare LEVITICUS), which is so great, that for a time Ezekiel was regarded as the author or the editor of this law, a view which, however, has been dropped, because a number of the peculiarities of Ezekiel do not admit of its acceptance. The more advanced critics then went farther, and claimed that the Law of Holiness (H, Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46) is later than Ezekiel, which is the only possible and defensible position. For practical reasons we here examine, in addition to Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35, also the older parts of the book. Especially do we take into consideration, in addition to chapter 44, also chapters 18, 20 and 22; but in the end the contents of H are suggested by the entire Book of Ezekiel. Especially Leviticus 26:1-46 has been very fully used by Ezekiel; compare for the details, Driver's Introduction to the Old Testament; or, Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese. That Ezekiel could not be the earlier of the two can be concluded as far as P in general is concerned, and for H in particular, especially from this, that Ezkekiel is just as closely connected with Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, as with P; while, on the other hand, in the passage in question, P is connected only with Ezekiel, while the expressions which Ezekiel has in common with Deuteronomy and those Ezekiel has in common with Jer are not found in P (compare the exceedingly interesting and instructive proof in Hoffmann, op. cit.). Equally striking is the proof of Kohler, Biblische Geschichte, III, 154 ff, who shows that the contents of the Torah (Law) presupposed and recognized by Jeremiah and Ezekiel as dating from the Mosaic period, take into consideration not only the Books of the Covenant (Exodus 21:1-36 ff; Exodus 34:1-35) and Deuteronomy, but especially P in general and H in particular. Further, if we place P in a later period, it would be incomprehensible that this body of laws, in which the systematic feature is so important, can differ from the still more systematic ordinances of Ezekiel, and thus become more unsystematic. Thus the sacrifices on the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles are in number of the same kind in Ezekiel 45:21 ff; but not so in P in Numbers 28:16 ff; Numbers 29:12 ff. In the same way in the food offerings on the feasts as far as oxen, rams, lambs, and the amount of oil to be given are concerned, there is everywhere the proper proportion in Ezekiel 45:18 through Ezekiel 46:15, while in Numbers 28:1-31 this is regulated according to a different principle. Then in Ezekiel are found in the description of the sanctuary (42:15 through Numbers 20:1-29; 45:2), of the inner and outer courts (40:23,17,47; compare also 40:19; 48:16 f), square figures in places where they are not found in the tabernacle according to P. To this must be added that no other ordinances of Ezekiel would be carried out in actual practice. Even the ordinances in 44:4 ff, according to the views of the critics, would be changed in the Priestly Code (P), in so far as the establishment and work of the lower cult officials and the enlargement of the powers of the higher cult officials are concerned (compare (1)). The Day of Atonement, whose roots are said to be found in Ezekiel 45:18 ff, would be materially changed in number, length and ritual (compare ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. I, 1 and III, 1). When the Israelites returned from captivity, they did not think at all of building the temple or the tabernacle in accordance with Ezekiel's scheme, or dividing the land according to the directions of his book (both of these subjects have great prominence in Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35; compare Ezekiel 40:5 through Ezekiel 43:12; 47:13 through Ezekiel 48:29), or of harmonizing Ezekiel with the Priestly Code (P), or of carrying out the latter practically. The Wellhausen hypothesis is then in conflict with all ritual legislation, whether real or constructed by Wellhausen himself.

(d) Correct Interpretation of Passage

Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35: These chapters dare not be made a part of the development of the law in the Old Testament. Ezekiel's was not a program that was under all circumstances to be carried out or even could be carried out, for it presupposes conditions that were beyond the control of Israel. For in Ezekiel 40:2 ff, a new geographical or geological situation is presupposed, which the country up to this time did not possess (compare the "very high mountain," Ezekiel 40:2), and the same is true in Ezekiel 47:1 ff in reference to the miraculous temple fountain with its equally miraculous powers, and in Ezekiel 47:13 ff in the division of the land. Only after these changes had been effected in the character of the localities by Yahweh, and Yahweh should again have entered the holy city according to Ezekiel 43:1 if, would it be possible to carry out also the other injunctions. It is impossible, either, to interpret these chapters as an allegory. This interpretation is out of the question on account of a large number of directions and measurements. It is, however, true that the whole is an ideal scheme, which portrays to the eye the continuation of the kingdom of God, and represents symbolically the presence of Yahweh, which sanctifies all around about it and creates for itself a suitable outward form. This is particularly apparent in the new name which is assigned to Jerusalem, namely, "Yahweh at that place," or the conclusion of this section and at the same time of the entire book. This, finally, leads us to a brief account of the views presented.

(3) Ezekiel's Leviticism. In (1) and (2) above, it has been shown that Ezekiel was not the starting-point of Leviticism in Israel: it rather represents the extreme development of this tendency. It was in harmony with the elementary stage of the Old Testament to give the thoughts and demands of God, not in a purely abstract form, but to clothem in objective and external materials, in order to prepare and educate Israel to understand Christianity. (The negative side of Leviticism, which is not to be overlooked by the side of the positive, is discussed in the article LEVITICUS) It is a matter of utmost importance for the correct understanding of the Old Testament, that we recognize that the prophets too throughout think Levitically; in their discourses, too, sacred trees, sacrifices, times, persons, tithes, play a most important role, notwithstanding all the spiritualization of religion on their part; and where it is thought possible to show an absolute opposition on the part of the prophets to the Levitical system, namely, in the matter of sacrifices, a close consideration, but especially, too, the analogy of the other external institutions, shows that we have in these cases only a relative antithesis (compare Are the Critics Right? 99 ff; Messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 333 ff). Thus e.g. Jeremiah who, in 6:20; 7:21 ff, engages as sharply as possible in polemics against the sacrificial system, and in 31:31 ff, in the passage treating of the new covenant, spiritualizes religion as much as possible, has assigned to sacrifices a place in his predictions of the future (compare 17:19 ff,26; 31:14; 33:18), just as the abiding-place and the revelation of God for this prophet too, are always found connected with the Holy Land, Jerusalem or Zion (compare 3:17; 12:15; 30:18; 31:6,11,12; 32:36 ff; 33:9). That in this the ultimate development of the kingdom of God has not yet been reached, but that the entire Old Testament contains only a preliminary stage, cannot be too sharply emphasized. In so far Ezekiel, in whose book Leviticism appears in its most developed state, more than others, shares in the limitations of the Old Testament. But just as little can it be denied that the Levitical system was really one stage, and that, too, an important and indispensable stage in the development of the kingdom of God; and that in this system, the question at issue is not only that of a change of a religion into a stereotyped formalism or externalism, which is the case if this system loses its contents, but the fact that it contained a valuable kernel which ripened in this shell, but would not have ripened if this shell had been prematurely discarded. The external conditions, their harmonious arrangement, the ceremonial ordinances, keeping clean from external pollution, are indeed only forms; but in them valuable contents succeed in finding their expression; through these Israel learned to understand these contents. The kernel could not be given without the shell nor the contents without the form, until in Christianity the time came when the form was to be broken and the shell discarded. This significance of the Levitical system becomes more evident in Ezek than is the case, e.g. in the Priestly Code (P), where indeed a few passages like Exodus 25:8; 29:45 ff; Exodus 40:34 ff; Leviticus 16:1-34; 19:18; 31, 41 clearly show in what sense the entire legislation is to be understood; but the mere fact that there are so few of these passages makes it easy to overlook them; while in Ezekiel, in addition to the purely Levitical utterances, and in part more closely connected with these, the entire work is saturated with the emphasis put on the highest religious and ethical thoughts, so that both must be in the closest harmony with each other (compare on this subject also Ezekiel's conception of God under 5 below). That Ezekiel and the Law of Holiness stand in such close relations to each other is not to be explained from this, that Ezekiel is in any way to be connected with the composition of the law in Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46, but on the ground of the tendency common to both. The fact that Ezekiel shows a special liking for these chapters in P does not, accordingly, justify the conclusion that Leviticus 17:1-16 ff ever existed as a separate legal codex. We must in this connection not forget the close connection of the prophets with the rest of P mentioned under (2) above (compare LEVITICUS). We close this part of the discussion with the statement that Ezekiel constructed his system on the basis of the Levitical ordinance, but as priest-prophet (compare under I, 1) utilized this material independently and freely.

3. Ezekiel and the Messianic Idea: Chs 40 through 48 treat of the future, and furnish us the transition to another matter, in which Ezekiel by modern theology has been forced into a wrong light, namely, in regard to the Messianic idea. After the critics had, as a matter of fact, eliminated from the entire preexilic prophetical writings nearly all of the passages speaking of the Messiah on the ground that they were not genuine (e.g. Amos 9:8 ff; Hosea 1:10-11; 3:5; Micah 2:12 f; 4 f; Isaiah 4:2-6; 7:14; Isaiah 9:1-7; Isaiah 11:1-10, etc.), Marti and Volz have now completed this task. While the former declared as not genuine all the Messianic predictions down to Deutero-Isaiah, the latter has, in his work, Die vorexilische Jahwe-Prophetic und der Messias, halted at Ezekiel, but for this works up the entire material into a uniform fundamental conception with pronounced characteristics. He declares that prophecy and the Messianic idea are two mutually exclusive phenomena, by regarding the Messiah as a purely political and national fact, but the prophetic expectation of the future as something purely religious. Ezekiel he regards as the first prophet with whose views on other matters the Messianic idea indeed did not harmonize, but who, nevertheless, yielded to the tendencies of his times and to the general national feelings, and submitted to the influence of the false prophets, who had created the carnal national expectation of a Messiah and constantly fed this, and accordingly received into his book the Messiah passages in Isaiah 17:14; 21:17 f; Isaiah 34:17 f; Isaiah 37:22, 24-25. But this too is, all in all, simply a monstrous assumption. It is exegetically incorrect to regard the Messiah merely as a political, national and particularistic person, whenever the religious and ethical and universalistic characteristics of the Messiah are portrayed by prophecy; and it is also incorrect to regard prophecy as abstractly religious, when the national and external side of the kingdom of God is ignored. It is impossible to eliminate the different Messianic passages preceding the time of Ezekiel, as these are proved to be genuine by their contents and form, their close connection with the context, the structure of the prophetic writings, and by the mutual relation of these passages to each other. But we must here refer to our book, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten. We draw attention to this only because since the publication of Gressmann's book, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, the critics have begun to be a little less skeptical in reference to the genuine character of the Messianic passages in the older prophetical writings. We here point to the fact, that the positive contentions of Volz, which ascribe to Ezek the introduction of the Messianic idea out of the popular faith, are exceedingly inconsiderate. The different passages mentioned above, which in Ezekiel speak of the Messiah, can scarcely be said to add any new features to the picture of the Messiah as it is found in earlier literature (of one exception to this we will speak later). If the Messiah was not yet portrayed in the earlier prophetic literature, then Ezekiel had the less occasion to introduce this new feature, if this feature did not harmonize with his other views, as Volz claims. And, if this is only a mistake, it is yet a fact that in Ezekiel the Messianic idea is not relatively a prominent feature; he, as it were, only recalls the pictures known from the predictions of the earlier prophets; he accepts these pictures as revealed truth, because they, in his conviction, evidently originated in the development of prophecy. Compare for the idea that the Messiah is to come forth from small origins and from a lowly station Ezekiel 17:22-24; Isaiah 10:33, 14; 11:1; Micah 5:1 ff. Ezekiel 21:32 only hints at the general expectation of a Messiah; Ezekiel 34:23 f; Ezekiel 37:22, 24-25 connect especially with the promises given to David in 2 Samuel 7:1-29. Then the reunion of the two kingdoms into one scepter is found also in Amos 9:11; Hosea 2:2; 3:5; Isaiah 8:22 through Isaiah 9:1 ff; Isaiah 11:13 f; Micah 5:2; Jeremiah 3:18; 23:5 f; 1 Kings 11:39; the blessing of Nature, Isaiah 11:6-8; Amos 9:13 ff; Hosea 2:20 ff; Hosea 14:6 ff. At all events the Messianic expectations of Ezekiel exhibit too few peculiar features and are too little prominent in the body of his prophecies to justify the belief that he was the first prophet to have introduced this so important Messianic figure. On the other hand, let us remember too that Ezekiel opposes the national feelings as sharply as possible by representing the entire past history of Israel as an unbroken chain of heathenish abominations (Ezekiel 1:1-28 through Ezekiel 24:1-27; Ezekiel 33:1-33, especially Ezekiel 16:1-63 and Ezekiel 23:1-49), and remember it was just he who like Jeremiah saw his most bitter opponents in the false prophets (Ezekiel 13:1 ff; Ezekiel 14:9; 22:28), and that in the most pronounced antithesis to these he proclaimed before the fall of Jerusalem that this fall would and must come. And now it is claimed that he borrowed his Messianic idea from these very people, although this Messianic conception is everywhere represented as being a Divine revelation and not a natural product of the popular consciousness. A greater blunder in theological thought could scarcely be imagined.

In one point, however, we do find in Ezek a further development of the Messianic idea, namely, that in His work, in addition to His characteristics as a king, the Messiah has also those of a high priest, as this is shown at the same period by Jeremiah (see under I, 1, and 2, 3; compare later Zechariah 3:1-10 f, and possibly Zechariah 6:9 ff). The mitsnepheth, which the Messiah bears according to Ezekiel 21:26, is in other connections always the mitre of the high priest (compare Exodus 4:1-31, 31; 29:6; 28, 31; see aboveII , Exodus 2:1-25, Exodus 1:11-22a and Exodus 2:11-25c). At the Passover feast, at least, the prince conducts a purification through a bullock for a sin offering, which, through the fact that this is done for himself and for the entire people of the land, reminds us of the ceremony of the high priest on the day of atonement (Ezekiel 45:22; Leviticus 16:17, 24, 33; compare DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, Leviticus 1:1-17, and Messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 356 ff). Over against the current view, we finally emphasize the fact that Ezekiel's expectations of a Messianic feature are not confined to Israel, but like those of Isaiah (Leviticus 2:2 ff; Leviticus 11:10: Micah 5:3, 1) and of other prophets are universal in their scope (compare Ezekiel 17:23; 53, 11; 34:26).

4. Ezekiel and Apocalyptic Literature: Ezekiel is also, finally, regarded as the creator of apocalyptic literature, which in prophetic garment sought to satisfy the curiosity of the people and picture the details of the last times. In this connection the critics have in mind especially Ezekiel 38:1-23; Ezekiel 39:1-29, that magnificent picture of the final onslaught of the nations under Gog and Magog, which will end with the certain victory of the Divine cause and the terrible overthrow of the enemies of Yahweh. On the mountains of Israel the hosts will fall (Ezekiel 39:4); seven years it will be possible to kindle fires with the weapons of the enemies (Ezekiel 39:9); it takes seven months to bury the dead (Ezekiel 39:12); a great feast is prepared for the birds (Ezekiel 39:17 ff).

In reply to this there are two things to be said. First of all Ezekiel is not the creator of these thoughts. There is a whole list of passages in the Prophets that already before his time picture how matters will be after and beyond the Messianic age (compare Micah 22:1Mic 2:1-13b f; Micah 4:11 f; Micah 5:4 f,Micah 7:1-20, 20; Joel 3:2, 12 f; Isaiah 11:4; 28:6; Hosea 2:2). These are, however, all regarded by the critics as not genuine, or as the product of a later period, but they forget in this to observe that Ezekiel in these passages refers to older prophets (38:17; 39:8), and thus they saw off the branch upon which he sits. In regard, however, to painting the fullest details of the picture, Ezekiel is equaled by none of his predecessors. In this matter, too, he represents the highest point of development, in which he is followed by Zechariah 12:1-14; 13:7 ff; Zechariah 14:1 ff, and Daniel, and with direct dependence on Ezekiel 38:1-23 f by the Apocalypse of John (Revelation 19:17 ff). On the other hand, Ezekiel is entirely different from the later Jewish apocalyptic literature. The latter borrowed the prophetic form but possesses neither the Divine contents nor the Divine inspiration of the prophet. For this reason the apocalyptic literature appears anonymously or under a pseudonym. Ezekiel, however, openly places his name over his prophecies. In Ezekiel the eschatology is a part of his prophetic mission, and as he in his thoughts throughout remains within the bounds of the religious and ethical ideals of prophecy, this feature, too, of his work is to be regarded as a Divine revelation in a form in harmony with the Old Testament stage of the development of the kingdom of God. We are here indeed considering a matter in connection with which it is especially difficult to determine how much in reality belongs to the eternally valid contents, and how much to the temporary forms. Here too, as is the case in the exegesis of Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35, Christian theology will vacillate between the extremes of spiritualism and realism, one extreme constantly correcting the other, and in this way constantly approaching the correct middle course, until at some time in the future we will reach the full truth in the matter.

5. Ezekiel's Conception of God: A prophet who, from the aesthetic side, enjoyed the highest appreciation of a Schiller and a Herder (see 1 above), who has brought the Leviticism of the Old Testament to the highest stage of development (compare 2 above), who in his portrait of the Messiah has introduced the high-priestly characteristics (compare 3 above), who in eschatology developed new features and laid the foundation for the development that followed in later times (compare 4 above), can scarcely with any right or reason be termed a "secondary character among the prophets." This fact becomes all the more sure when we now finally examine the conception of God as taught in Ezk. In grandeur and variety of thought, in this respect only, Isaiah and Moses can be compared with Ezekiel. Already in the visions, we are struck by the sublimity of God as there pictured, especially in the opening vision, where He appears as the absolute ruler of all creation, over which He sits enthroned (compare II , 1, above). He is constantly called "the Lord Yahweh," over against whom the prophet is at all times only "the son of man." More than fifty times it is said that the purpose of the prophecy was that the heathen nations, as well as the Israelites, shall by His judgments and His promises recognize that He is Yahweh.

On this side Ezekiel stands in an especially close relation to the description of the exodus from Egypt (compare Exodus 7:5, 17; 10, 22; Exodus 9:14, 29-30; 10:2; 11:7; 4, 18, and see EXODUS,II , Exodus 2:1-25, on Exodus 7:8 through Exodus 13:16). Above everything Yahweh's honor must be defended (Ezekiel 36:23, 12). Here again there is a place where the evolutionist hypothesis of the development of the idea of God is thoroughly put to shame. For in the preprophetic times it is claimed that God is, in the Old Testament, merely placed by the side of other gods and was regarded only as the God of Israel, with which He was indissolubly connected, because His existence had depended on the existence of the nation. As a proof, reference is made to the defense of His honor; and now we find the same thought in Ezekiel, in whose case it is impossible that any doubt as to his absolute monotheism can any longer arise (compare my Entwicklung der Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 138 ff 152 ff). The sublimity of this conception of God also appears in its universality. He is declared to be punishing the nations (compare Ezekiel 25:1-17 ff; Ezekiel 35:1-15 f); He uses them for His purposes (compare Ezekiel 38:1-23 f; Ezekiel 17:1-24; Ezekiel 19:1-14; Ezekiel 24:1-27; Ezekiel 33:1-33); He intends to give them salvation (Ezekiel 17:1-24; Ezekiel 23:1-49; 53, 11; 34:26; compare 3 above).

Most of all, Ezekiel's conception of God, according to the preceding sketch, reminds us of that of Calvin. By the exalted character of God we find also a second feature. On the one side we find the holy God; on the other, sinful man. The entire development of the people is from the beginning a wrong one. Ezekiel's thoughts are to be regarded as those for days of penance when he, on the one hand, emphasizes the great guilt of the people as such (compare Ezekiel 16:1-63 and Ezekiel 23:1-49), and by the side of this maintains the principle that each one must be punished on account of his own sins (Ezekiel 18:2), so that the individual cannot excuse himself, and the individual cannot be freed through the guilt of the people as a totality.

But now comes the highest conception. The exalted and holy God comes to be a God of love. What is it but love, that He does not reject His people forever, but promises them a future (compare Ezekiel 34:1-31 through Ezekiel 48:1-35, in which also the divided kingdoms are to be reunited, Ezekiel 37:15 ff)? As Exodus finds its culmination point in the indwelling of God among His people, which He promised in Exodus 25:1-40 ff (Exodus 25:8; 29:45 f), but seems to have become a matter of doubt again in Exodus 32:1-35 ff through the apostasy of the people, and nevertheless is finally realized in Exodus 35:1-35 ff (Exodus 40:34 ff), thus too in Ezekiel 10:1-22 f, Yahweh leaves the city, but in Ezekiel 43:1 ff He again returns, and now the name of the city is "Yahweh is there" (Ezekiel 48:35). But as every single member participates in the sin and the punishment of the people, so too he takes part in the deliverance.

Ezekiel is indeed, as little as is Jeremiah, the creator of individualism, which he has often been declared to be. Against this claim, e.g. the character of the patriarchs can be appealed to. But a deeper conception of individualism has actually been brought about by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The national organization as such was for the present dissolved. Accordingly, these prophets have now to deal more with the individual (compare 1, 2, 3, above). Ezekiel is actually the pastor of those in exile. He has been appointed the watchman of the house of Israel (3:16 ff and 33:1 ff). He can bear the responsibility for the individual souls (compare also Ezekiel 18:1-32). The wicked man who dies without having been warned is demanded from his hand by God. Yahweh does not wish the death of the sinner, but that he should repent and live.

Here such a clear mirror is given, that before it conscientious Christian preachers must all feel ashamed. Yahweh is the gracious God, who does not treat men simply according to the principle of retaliation, else what would become of man? God rather desires to bestow all things out of free grace; he that repents shall live. This is the highest ideal of the prophet, and with it we close.

The Feast of Weeks, the Pentecost of the Israelites, Ezekiel does not mention (compare II , 2, 2b, above). This festival has come to be one of higher importance since on Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out, and this Spirit Ezekiel knows. Besides, such passages as Jeremiah 32:15; Jeremiah 44:1-6; Psalms 51:12 ff; Joel 2:28 ff; Jeremiah 31:31 ff, it is Ezekiel which contains the clearest predictions of Pentecost. It is the Spirit who in Ezekiel 37:1-28 awakens to new life the dead bones of Israel.

And in Ezekiel 38:23 we read: "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."

LITERATURE.

Comm. of Keil, Havernick, Hengstenberg, von Orelli, Smend, Bertholet, Kraetzschmar.

For the Messianic Prophecies, the works of von Orelli, Riehm, Delitzsch, Hengstenberg. Compare also Volz, Die vorexilische Jahwe-Prophetie und der Messias; Moller, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, zugleich ein Protest gegen moderne Textzersplitterung; Cornill, The Prophet Ezekiel; Klostermann, Studien und Kritken, 1877.

Introductions of Kuenen, Strack, Baudissin, Konig, Cornill, Driver.

Histories of Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Klostermann, Oettli, Stade, Wellhausen.

Bible Lexicons, see under "Ezekiel."

Against the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? In this Encyclopedia, for further literature compare also the article LEVITICUS: Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, and The Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Kegel, Wilhelm Vatke u. die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden; Seinecke, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II.

Wilhelm Moller

Ezel

Ezel - e'-zel (ha-'azel; Septuagint para to ergab ekeino): As it stands, the narrative in 1 Samuel 20:19 records the tryst of Jonathan with David at the stone Ezel. The name occurs only here. There is general agreement that the text is corrupt, but there is no agreement as to how it should be restored. The Septuagint reads "this mound" (the Revised Version (British and American), margin), or "yonder cairn"; and in 1 Samuel 20:41 instead of "out of a place toward the South" it reads "from beside the mound" or "cairn." Dr. Cheyne suggests "yonder juniper tree" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, under the word).

Ezem

Ezem - e'-zem (`etsem, "bone"; Boosal, Boasom): A city in the extreme South of Judah, assigned to Simeon. Some identify it with Azmon (Joshua 15:29; 19:3; 1 Chronicles 4:29).

Ezer

Ezer - e'-zer (`ezer, "help"):

(1) A Horite chief (Genesis 36:21; 1 Chronicles 1:38).

(2) A Judahite (1 Chronicles 4:4).

(3) An Ephraimite, slain by men of Gath (1 Chronicles 7:21).

(4) A Gadite who followed David while in exile on account of the wrath of Saul (1 Chronicles 12:9).

(5) One of those who under direction of Nehemiah repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3:19).

(6) A musician in one of the great companies appointed by Nehemiah to give thanks at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 12:42).

Ezerias

Ezerias - ez-e-ri'-as (Ezerias): 1 Esdras 8:1 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "Zechrias," the Azariah of Ezra 7:1.

Ezias

Ezias - e-zi'-as: the Revised Version (British and American) OZIAS (which see).

Ezion-geber

Ezion-geber - e-zi-on-ge'-ber ('etsyon gebher; Gasion Gaber): Always mentioned along with Elath ("Eziongaber," Numbers 33:35 f the King James Version). When the children of Israel left "the way of the Arabah," having come from the Northwest, they seem to have turned to the Northeast from the neighborhood of `Aqaba, passing up by Wady el-Ithm toward the eastern desert (Deuteronomy 2:8). Elath and Ezion-geber were evidently not far apart. They are named together again in connection with the maritime enterprises of Solomon and Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 9:26, etc.). They therefore both lay on the shore of the sea. No trace of Ezion-geber is to be found on the present coast line. It is probable, however, that in ancient times the sea covered a considerable stretch of the mud flats at the South end of Wady el-`Arabah, and the site of Ezion-geber may be sought near the spring `Ain el-Ghudyan, about 15 miles North of the present head of the Gulf of `Aqaba.

W. Ewing

Eznite

Eznite - ez-'nit (`etsni or `etsno).

See ADINO.

Ezora

Ezora - e-zo'-ra (Ezora, the King James Version Ozora): He and his six sons "gave their hands to put away their strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:20, 34 = "Machnadebai" of Ezra 10:40).

Ezra

Ezra - ez'-ra (Aramaic or Chaldee, `ezra', "help"; a hypocoristicon, or shortened form of Azariah, "Yahweh has helped." The Hebrew spells the name `ezrah, as in 1 Chronicles 4:17, or uses the Aramaic spelling of the name, as in Ezra 7:1. The Greek form is Esdras):

(1) A priest who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon (Nehemiah 12:1). In Nehemiah 10:2, Azariah, the full form of the name, is found.

(2) A descendant of Judah and father of Jethro and other sons (1 Chronicles 4:17).

(3) The distinguished priest who is the hero of the Book of Ezra and co-worker with Nehemiah.

1. Family: The genealogy of Ezra is given in Ezra 7:1-6, where it appears that he was the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the high priest. Since Seraiah, according to the Book of Kings, was killed by Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (2 Kings 25:18-21), and since he was the father of Jehozadak, the high priest who was carried into captivity by Nebuchadrezzar (1 Chronicles 6:14-15 (Hebrews 5:14), etc.) in 588 BC, and since the return under Ezra took place in 458 BC, the word "son" must be used in Ezra 7:2 in the sense of descendant. Since, moreover, Joshua, or Jeshua, the high priest, who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel, was the son of Jehozadak and the grandson of Seraiah, Ezra was probably the great-grandson or great-great-grandson of Seraiah. Inasmuch as Jehozadak is never mentioned as one of his forefathers, Ezra was probably not descended from Jehozadak, but from a younger brother. He would thus not be a high priest, though he was of high-priestly descent as far as Seraiah. For the sake of shortening the list of names, six names are omitted in Ezra 7:2-7 between Azariah and Meraioth, and one between Shallum and Ahitub from the corresponding list found in 1 Chronicles 6:4-14 (Hebrews 5:14).

Being a priest by birth, it is to be supposed that Ezra would have performed the ordinary functions of a member of his order, if he had been born and had lived in Palestine.

2. Occupation: Jos, indeed, says that he was high priest of his brethren in Babylon, a statement that in view of the revelation of the Elephantine papyri may not be without a foundation in fact. According to the Scriptures and Jewish tradition, however, Ezra was pre-eminently a scribe, and especially a scribe of the law of Moses. He is called "a ready scribe in the law of Moses," a "scribe of the words of the commandments of Yahweh, and of his statutes to Israel," "the scribe of the law of the God of heaven." As early as the time of Jeremiah (compare Jeremiah 8:8), "scribe" had already attained the meaning of one learned in the Scriptures, one who had made the written law a subject of investigation. Ezra is the first who is called by the title of "the scribe," the title by which Artaxerxes designates him in his letter of instructions in Ezra 7:6, 11.

3. His Commission: In the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (459-458 BC) Ezra requested permission of the king to go up to Jerusalem; for "Ezra had set his heart to seek the law of Yahweh, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances." Artaxerxes granted his request, and gave him a letter permitting as many of the people of Israel and of the priests and Levites as so desired to accompany him to Jerusalem, and commissioning him to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, and to carry a gift of money from the king and his counselors, and all the money to be found in the province of Babylon, and the freewill offerings of the people and priests, with which to buy offerings to offer upon the altar of the house of God which was in Jerusalem. He was commissioned also to carry vessels for the service of the house of God, and to do at the expense of the royal treasury whatever was needful for the house of God. The king decreed, moreover, that the treasurers of the king should assist Ezra with a tribute of wheat, wine, oil and salt, and that they should impose no tribute, custom or toll upon any of those employed in the service of the house of God. Moreover, Ezra was authorized to appoint judges to judge the people according to the law of God and the law of the king, and to inflict punishments upon all who would not obey these laws.

Ascribing this marvelous letter of the king to the lovingkindness of his God, and strengthened by this evidence of God's power, Ezra proceeded to gather together out of Israel the chief men and teachers and ministers of the house to go up with him to Jerusalem. He gathered these men in camp at Casiphia, on the river Ahava. Here he proclaimed a time of fasting and prayer, that God might prosper their journey (Ezra 8:15-23). Then, having delivered the treasures into the hands of the priests, the assembled company departed for Jerusalem, where by the help of God they arrived in safety, delivered over the money and gifts by number and weight, offered burnt offerings and sin offerings, delivered the king's commissions and furthered the people and the house of God.

Shortly after Ezra's arrival at Jerusalem, the princes accused the people, the priests, and the Levites of having intermarried with the peoples of the land, even asserting that the princes and rulers had been leaders in the trespass. Upon hearing this, Ezra was confounded, rent his garments, plucked off his hair, fell upon his knees and prayed a prayer of confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God. While he prayed the people assembled and wept, acknowledged their sin and promised to do according to the law. The whole people were then assembled in counsel, and in spite of some opposition the strange wives were put away.

In Nehemiah 8:1-18, Ezra appears again upon the scene at the Feast of Tabernacles as the chief scribe of the law of Moses, the leader of the priests and Levites who read and explained the law to the people. On his advice the people ceased from their mourning and celebrated the festival according to the law of Moses with joy and thanksgiving and giving of gifts, dwelling also in booths in commemoration of the manner of their fathers' sojourning while in the wilderness.

4. Traditions: The traditions with regard to Ezra found in Josephus and in the Talmud are so discrepant that it is impossible to place reliance upon any of their statements which are not found also in the. canonical Scriptures.

R. Dick Wilson

Ezrahite

Ezrahite - ez'-ra-hit ('ezrachi; Asebon): Found in 1 Kings 4:31; Psalms 88:1-18; Psalms 89:1-52, titles; from which it appears that the word is a patronymic for Ethan and Heman. It may be derived from Zerah, instead of Ezrah, seeing that there were an Ethan and a Heman who were descendants of Zerah, head of a Judahite family (1 Chronicles 2:6). There were also an Ethan and a Heman who were Levites (1 Chronicles 15:17).

Ezra-nehemiah

Ezra-nehemiah - 1. Name. 2. Object

3. Plan

4. Unity

5. Sources

6. Literary Character

7. Languages

8. Historicity

9. Text

LITERATURE

1. Name: The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, by whomsoever written, are properly so named according to analogy from the principal persons mentioned in them. In the Hebrew Bibles, the former is headed simply, Ezra, and the latter, Nehemiah. The two books are counted in the Talmud, in Josephus, and in the Canon of Melito, 171 AD, as one, and are so treated also in the subscription of the Massoretic Text, which reads: "The totality of the verses of Ezra and Nehemiah is 688, and its sign is `Remember, Yahweh, the reproach of thy servants,' and its two parts (are at the sentence) `unto the ascent of the corner' (Nehemiah 3:31) and its chapters (sedharayw) are ten, and its sign is `Upon a high mountain get thee up, O thou that announcest good tidings to Zion.' " In the Septuagint, Ezra-Nehemiah is called Esdras B, while an apocryphal Book of Ezra is called Esdras A (see below). In the catalogues of the Old Testament writings handed down to us by the Fathers (Origen, Cyril, Melito, Jerome and the Council of Laodicea) our Ezra is called 1 Ezra; Nehemiah, 2 Ezra; the apocryphal Greek Ezra, 3 Ezra; and an apocalyptic book, falsely called a book of Ezra, is denominated 4 Ezra.

2. Object: The object of the books is to show that God fulfilled His promise, or prophecy, to restore His exiled people to their inheritance, through the instrumentality on the one hand of the great heathen monarchs, Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, and on the other hand by stirring up the spirit of such great men among the chosen people as Joshua and Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah, and Ezra and Nehemiah, through whom the altar, the temple, the houses and walls of Jerusalem, and finally the worship and ceremony of the Jewish people were reestablished, the people being separated from foreign admixtures, customs and idolatry, and their religious observances purified and fixed for all time.

3. Plan: The object of the work justifies the selection and arrangement of the material and the plan pursued by the composer, or composers; all matter being stringently excluded which does not bear directly upon the purpose in view. However much we may wish that other historical records had been included, it is not proper to criticize the work because of these omissions, nor is it fair to argue that the writer was ignorant of what he has not seen fit to record.

4. Unity: The unity of the combined work is shown by the fact that they have the same common object, the same plan, and a similarity of language and style; that they treat, for the most part, of the same period of time; and that Ezra is one of the most prominent persons in both. It is not fair to deny the essential unity on the ground that the list of priests and others found in Ezra 2:1-70 is repeated in Nehemiah 7:1-73; for there is no doubt that Ezra was the compiler of parts at least of the book called after him, and that Nehemiah also was the original writer of parts of the book that bears his name. Whoever was the final editor of the whole work, he has simply retained the two almost identical lists in their appropriate places in the documents which lay before him.

5. Sources: The Books of Ezr and Neh are a compilation of genealogical lists, letters and edicts, memoirs and chronicles. We cannot be certain as to who was the composer of either or both books. Many think that Ezra compiled both the books out of preexisting materials, adding parts of his own composition. Others, suppose that Ezra wrote the book named after him, while Nehemiah composed the Book of Nehemiah. Others, again, are of the opinion that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah, but some other unknown editor, most probably the compiler of the Books of Chronicles, put together the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, using largely the memoirs of the two great men who are the principal persons in the records. While there is still much difference of opinion as to who was the final redactor, there is a general agreement as to the composite character of the whole, and that the person who wrote the parts that bind together the original sources was the same as he who wrote the canonical books of Chronicles.

6. Literary Character: The diversified character of the style, languages and other literary peculiarities of the books is accounted for by the large number and the variety of sources. From the style and contents of the first chapter it has been argued with great plausibility that it was written by Daniel; for similar reasons it has been argued that the portion of Ezra from 3:2 to 4:22 inclusive was written by Haggai the prophet. All admit that the parts of Ezra and Nehemiah in which the 1st person is employed were written by Ezra and Nehemiah respectively. As to who it was who added the other connecting portions there is and must always be great doubt arising from the fact that the author is not mentioned. The style points to the same hand as that which composed the Book of Chronicles. Those who believe that Ezra compiled the Book of Chronicles will believe that he most probably composed also the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The principal objection to his authorship arises from the inexplicable change from the 1st to the 3rd person occurring in both Ezr and Neh. Inasmuch as the 3rd person is the proper form to use in the best style of Biblical historical composition; inasmuch as Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon often employ it in their histories; inasmuch as some of the Bah monuments mingle the 1st and 3rd persons in the same document; and finally, inasmuch as the prophets and psalmists of Israel likewise interchange the persons in what is for us often an unaccountable manner: this characteristic of the style of Ezra-Nehemiah seems an insufficient reason upon which to base the denial of the claim that Ezra may have been the author.

The facts that there is unevenness in the treatment of the history, and that there are long periods on which the narrator is silent, do not militate against the authorship of Ezra nor do they imply a date long after his age; for the author is perfectly consistent in his purpose to stick to the object and plan which he had in view for himself, that is, to give an account of the reestablishment of the Israelite people and of their Divinely given institutions. That he has omitted other matters-does not imply that he was ignorant of them.

7. Languages: The language of the books is Hebrew, except Ezra 4:7 through Ezra 6:18 and Ezra 7:12-26, which is written in Aramaic. The Hebrew closely resembles that of Daniel, Haggai and Chronicles, much more so than it does that of Ecclesiasticus, which was written probably about 180 BC. The Aramaic (formerly called Chaldee) is very much like that of the Egyptian papyri which are dated in the 5th century BC. It closely resembles also the Aramaic in Daniel.

8. Historicity: Neither language nor style can be assigned as a ground for asserting a date later than the 5th century BC as the time of the composition of the book. A much stronger reason against placing the final redaction of the books at so early a time is the mention of a Jaddua among the high priests in Nehemiah 12:11, 22, it being assumed that this is the same Jaddua whom Josephus mentions (Ant., XI, viii, 4) as having filled the high-priestly office in the time of Alexander the Great. In view of the fact that Josephus is the only source of information as to the period between 400 and 300 BC, it seems unfair to accept what he says as to the existence of this Jaddua, while rejecting substantially all the rest of the same chapter in Josephus which tells about Sanballat, Manasseh and Alexander's meeting with Jaddua. Inasmuch as the Sachau papyri, written in the 17th year of Darius Nothus, that is, in 410-408 BC, mention the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria, the Sanballat who was their father must have lived about 450 BC. The same papyrus mentions Jehohanan (Johnnan of Nehemiah 12:22) as the high priest of the temple at Jerusalem, and Bagohi (Bagoas) was the Persian governor of Jerusalem in 410-408 BC. Since, according to Nehemiah 13:6, Nehemiah was governor in 434-433 BC, the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, Bagoas would be perhaps his immediate successor. If we are to put any confidence in the story of Josephus, then there must have been at least two Sanballats, and probably two Jadduas, and at two different times a son of a high priest must have married a daughter of a Sanballat. While this is not impossible, it seems better to suppose that Josephus has confused matters beyond any possibility of disentanglement, and we might be justified in throwing over entirely his account of a Sanballat, a Manasseh, and a Jaddua as living in the year 330 BC, when Alexander conquered Syria. As far, of course, as the Jaddua of Nehemiah 12:11, 22 is concerned, he may well have been high priest as early as 406 BC, and have continued to serve till 330 BC. On the other hand, another of the same name, probably a grandson, may, for all we know to the contrary, have been high priest in 330 BC. In view of the numerous Oniases, Simons, and Johns who served in that position between 600 and 150 BC, and in view, further, of our almost absolute lack of information as to the history of this period, it will be a bold man who will dare to deny, on the ground of the Jaddua of Josephus, that Ezra-Nehemiah might have been written as early as 4OO BC.

The objection against the books having been composed in the Persian period, based upon the use of the titles of the kings of Persia, is fully answered by the fact that the same titles as those used in these books are found to have been used by the Persian kings themselves. (See the articles of the present writer in the Presbyterian Reformed Review for 1905-6.) The "Darius the Persian" of Nehemiah 12:22 is shown by the Sachau papyri to have been Darius Notbus, as Keil long ago suggested. The author may have called him "the Persian" to distinguish him from Darius the Mede. At any rate, it is best for us to remember that our inability to explain why the author called him by this title does not prove that he did not do so. Of all the Dariuses known to history, any one might have been called "the Persian," except Darius the Mede, because all but he were Persians. The assertion that a king of Persia could only have been called a Persian "after the Persian period was past" involves, on the one hand, the assumption of such thorough knowledge of the possibilities of the usus loquendi of that time, and, on the other hand, such real ignorance of the usage of all times in such matters, as well as of the usage of the Persian and Babylonian monuments of the Persian era, as almost to cause one to believe that it can scarcely have been seriously made. (See the writer's articles cited above.) Josephus, it is true, apparently confuses in his account Darius II and Darius III.

The phrase "the days of Nehemiah" (Nehemiah 12:26) certainly implied that the final redactor "looked back upon them as past." But there is no intimation as to how long they were past. According to Nehemiah 5:14, Nehemiah returned to Babylon in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, that is, in 434 BC. As Bagoas was already governor of Jerusalem, and Johnnan high priest in 408 BC, a writer living about 400 BC can very well have referred to what happened "in the days of Joiakim .... and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest and the scribe" as having occurred "in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah" (Nehemiah 12:47). From all we know it appears that these were the only Jews who were ever governors of Jerusalem under the Persian domination. Certainly Bagoas is not a Hebrew name any more than Sanballat, and it looks as if on the death of Nehemiah his place as governor of Jerusalem had been filled by a native Persian just as the governorship of Samaria was held by Sanballat, a Cuthean. If we can trust Josephus, Bagoas treated the Jews with harshness and even desecrated the temple itself (Ant., XI, vii, 1). Already, then, in 405 BC, any patriotic and pious Israelite may have justly looked back upon the days of their native governors with longing and pride, and have written with appropriate eulogy of the days of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah and Ezra--the time of his people's semi-independence and of the glorious and unforgetable restoration of the temple and city, just as we today refer to the time of Bismarck, Victoria, or Lincoln (compare 1 Chronicles 13:3). Waiving the discussion of the probability of Ezra's having called himself "a ready scribe in the law of Moses," and one who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, etc., it certainly cannot be denied that someone writing in 405 BC may have employed the language here used. There is not the slightest proof that any of Ezra-Nehemiah is unhistorical, nor the least indication that all of it may not have been written as early as 405 BC.

The section Ezra 4:1-6 presents difficulties of date and composition. The section may have been misplaced. It may be episodical. It may be explained, as suggested by Klostermann, as having been inserted here as a sort of resume which is later expanded. But however explained, it is a literary rather than a historical or linguistic problem which it presents, and may safely be left for solution to those who think that everything in literature whose purpose or meaning they cannot perceive is therefore inexplicable.

In conclusion, we Would say in the words of Professor Cornill, that since Ed. Meyer's demonstration of the authenticity of the documents in Ezra 4:1-24 through Ezra 7:1-28, the hypercritical reconstruction of the books "has lost all claim to serious consideration, and we may rest assured that in Ezra-Nehemiah we have every reason to recognize an essentially trustworthy recital of the events narrated therein."

9. Text: The most thorough investigation of the text of Ezra-Nehemiah has been made by Professor A. Klostermann, his results being published in the 3rd German edition of RE. After an examination of the Arabic, Syriac, Greek and Latin versions and a comparison of them with the Hebrew Massoretic Text, he comes to the conclusion that our Hebrew text as a whole is of more value than that represented by the versions. The writer of this article has noted a wonderful accuracy in the transmission of the Aramaic part of Ezra, the spelling or writing of the words resembling in many of the smallest particulars that of the Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, which date from the 5th century BC.

LITERATURE.

Commentaries and Introductions: A, Introductions: Sayce, Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Angus-Suen, The Cyclopedic Hand-Book to the Bible; Rarnu, Introduction to the Old Testament; Keil, Old Testament Intro. B, Commentaries: Keil, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; Rawlinson, in the Speaker's Comm., and in the Pulpit Commentary; and in Ezra and Nehemiah ("Men of the Bible" series); Lange's Comm.; Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums; OTJC2; Revelation 2.

R. Dick Wilson

Ezri

Ezri - ez'-ri (`ezri, "my help"; Ezrai, or Ezdri): "Ezri, the son of Chelub," appointed by David to be superintendent of agriculture (1 Chronicles 27:26).