International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
L
Laadah — Lees
Laadah
Laadah - la'-a-da (la`dah): A descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:21).
Laadan
Laadan - la,'-a-dan.
See LADAN.
Laban
Laban - la'-ban: The person named Laban, labhan; (Laban, possibly connected with the root meaning "to be white," from which in Hebrew the adjective meaning "white" has just this form) is first introduced to the reader of Genesis in the story of the wooing of Rebekah (Genesis 24:1-67). He belonged to that branch of the family of Terah that was derived from Abraham's brother Nahor and his niece Milcah. The genealogy of this branch is traced in Genesis 22:20-24; but, true to its purpose and the place it occupies in the book, this genealogy brings the family down to Rebekah, and there stops without mentioning Laban. Accordingly, when Rebekah is introduced in the narrative of Genesis 24:1-67, she is referred to (Genesis 24:15, 24) in a way that recalls to the reader the genealogy already given; but when her brother Laban is introduced (Genesis 24:29), he is related to his sister by the express announcement, "And Rebekah had brother, and his name was Laban." In this chapter he takes prominent part in the reception of Abraham's servant, and in the determination of his sister's future. That brothers had an effective voice in the marriage of their sisters is evident, not only from extra-Biblical sources, but from the Bible itself; see e.g. Song of Solomon 8:8. In Genesis 24:1-67, however, Laban is perhaps more prominent than even such custom can explain (compare Genesis 24:31, 50, 55), and we are led to see in him already the same forcefulness and egotism that are abundantly shown in the stories from his later life. The man's eager hospitality (verse 31), coming immediately after his mental inventory of the gifts bestowed by the visitor upon his sister (24:30), has usually, and justly, been regarded as a proof of the same greed that is his most conspicuous characteristic in the subsequent chapters.
The story of that later period in Laban's life is so interwoven with the career of Jacob that little need here be added to what is said of Laban in JACOB, III, 2 (which see). By the time of Jacob's arrival he is already a very old man, for over 90 years had elapsed since Rebekah's departure. Yet even at the end of Jacob's 20 years' residence with him he is represented as still energetic and active (Genesis 31:19, 23), not only ready for an emergency like the pursuit after Jacob, but personally superintending the management of his huge flocks.
His home is in Haran, "the city of Nahor," that is, the locality where Nahor and his family remained at the time when the rest of Terah's descendants emigrated to Canaan (Genesis 11:31; 12:5). Since Haran, and the region about it where his flocks fed, belonged to the district called Aram (see PADDAN-ARAM; MESOPOTAMIA), Laban is often called "the Aramean" (English Versions of the Bible, "the Syrian," from Septuagint 5 ho Suros); see Genesis 25:20; 28:5; 20, 24. It is uncertain how far racial affinity may be read into this term, because the origin and mutual relationships of the various groups or strata of the Sere family are not yet clear. For Laban himself it suffices that he was a Semite, living within the region early occupied by those who spoke the Sere dialect that we call Aramaic. This dialect is represented in the narrative of Genesis as already differentiated from the dialect of Canaan that was Jacob's mother-tongue; for "the heap of witness," erected by uncle and nephew before they part (Genesis 31:47), is called by the one Jegar-saha-dutha and by the other Galeed--phrases which are equivalent in meaning, the former Aramaic, the latter Hebrew. (Ungnad, Hebrdische Grammatik, 1912, section 6 puts the date of the differentiation of Aramaic from "Amurritish" at "about 1500 BC"; Skinner, "Genesis," ICC, argues that Genesis 31:47 is a gloss, following Wellhausen, Dillmann, et al.)
The character of Laban is interesting to observe. On the one hand it shows a family likeness to the portraits of all his relations in the patriarchal group, preeminently, however, to his sister Rebekah, his daughter Rachel, and his nephew Jacob. The nearer related to Laban such figures are, the more conspicuously, as is fitting, do they exhibit Laban's mingled cunning, resourcefulness, greed and self-complacency. And, on the other hand, Laban's character is sui generis; the picture we get of him is too personal and complex to be denominated merely a "type." It is impossible to resolve this man Laban into a mythological personage--he is altogether human--or into a tribal representative (e.g. of "Syria" over against "Israel" = Jacob) with any degree of satisfaction to the world of scholarship. Whether a character of reliable family tradition, or of popular story-telling, Laban is "a character"; and his intimate connection with the chief personage in Israel's national recollections makes it highly probable that he is no more and no less historical than Jacob himself (compare JACOB,VI ).
J. Oscar Boyd
Labana
Labana - lab'-a-na (Labana, 1 Esdras 5:29): Called Lebanah in Ezra 2:45.
Labor
Labor - la'-ber (yeghia`, `amal; kopos): The word (noun and verb) denoting hard work or "toil" (thus in the Revised Version (British and American) of Deuteronomy 26:7; Joshua 7:3; Revelation 2:2) represents several Hebrew and Greek words, chiefly those above. Occasionally, as in Habakkuk 3:17 (ma`aseh), it stands for "fruit of labor." Sometimes, in conjunction with "travail," it refers to childbirth (Genesis 35:16-17, yaladh; compare 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). Examples of the word in the ordinary sense are: of yeghia`, Genesis 31:42; Job 39:11, 16; Psalms 128:2; of `amal, common in Ecclesiastes 1:3, 8; Ecclesiastes 2:10-11, 18, etc.; of kopos, 1 Corinthians 15:58 ("your labor is not vain," etc.); 1 Thessalonians 1:3 ("work of faith and labor of love"; compare Hebrews 6:10); 1 Timothy 5:17 ("labor in the word and in teaching").
See WORK;SLAVERY .
James Orr
Laccunus
Laccunus - lak'-u-nus (Lakkounos; the King James Version Lacunus): One of the sons of Addi who returned with Ezra and had married a foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:31). The name does not, as might have been expected, occur in Ezra 10:30. See note on the passage (in Lange's Commentary) as to the reconciliation of the lists in 1esdras and Ezra.
Lace
Lace - las (pathil, variously rendered in Genesis 38:18, 25; Exodus 39:3; Numbers 15:38; 19:15; Judges 16:9; Ezekiel 40:3): In modern English the noun "lace" usually denotes a delicate ornamental fabric, but in the word in the sense of "that which binds" is still in perfectly good use, especially in such combinations as "shoelace" etc. It is this latter significance that is found in Exodus 28:28 ("They shall bind .... with a lace of blue"); 28:37; 39:21,31, and in Sirach 6:30 the King James Version, klosma (the Revised Version (British and American) "riband").
Lacedaemonians
Lacedaemonians - las-e-de-mo'-ni-anz (Spartidtai; once only Lakedaimonioi, 2 Maccabees 5:9): The inhabitants of Sparta or Lacedaemon with whom the Jews claimed some kinship and formed alliances (1 Maccabees 12:2, 5, 6, 20, 21; 20, 23; 15:23; 2 Maccabees 5:9). The alliance mentioned in 1 Maccabees 12:5-23 is based, among other grounds, on that of a common descent of Jews and Lacedaemonians from Abraham, for which the only probable presumption--suggested by Ewald--is the similarity of names, "Pelasgi" and Peleg son of Eber (Genesis 10:25; 11:16). This has been reasonably objected to, and perhaps the most that can be said on this point is that the belief in some relationship between the Jews and the Lacedaemonians seems to have prevailed when 1macc was written. The alliance itself is said to have been formed (1 Maccabees 12:20) between Areus, king of the Lacedaemonians and Onias the high priest; but it is not easy to make out a consistent chronology for the transaction. For the renewal of the alliance (circa 144 BC) by Jonathan (1 Maccabees 12:5-18) and again by Simon (1 Maccabees 14:16-23), something can be said, as the Greeks had finally been deprived of independence in 146 BC, and Sparta was only obliged to lend assistance to Rome and may be supposed to have been doing so in helping the Jews against Syria. It is possible, too, that as against Syrian Hellenism the Jews were anxious to show that they had the assistance of distinguished Greeks, though the actual power of Sparta was much reduced from that of former times. The facts, at least of the alliance and the correspondence, seem to be sufficiently attested, though it is not easy to reconcile all the particulars. Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 10; XIII, v, 8; XIV, xii, 2,3) gives the correspondence at greater length than the writer of the Maccabees.
J. Hutchison
Lachish
Lachish - la'-kish (lakhish; Septuagint Lachis (Joshua 15:39), Maches):
1. Location: A town in the foothills of the Shephelah on the border of the Philistine plain, belonging to Judah, and, from the mention of Eglon in connection with it, evidently in the southwestern portion of Judah's territory. Eusebius, Onomasticon locates it 7 miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin) toward Daroma, but as the latter place is uncertain, the indication does not help in fixing the site of Lachish. The city seems to have been abandoned about 400 BC, and this circumstance has rendered the identification of the site difficult. It was formerly fixed at Umm Lakis, from the similarity of the name and because it was in the region that the Biblical references to Lachish seem to indicate, but the mound called Tell el-Hesy is now generally accepted as the site. This was first suggested by Conder in 1877 (PEFS, 1878, 20), and the excavations carried on at the Tell by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1890-93 confirmed his identification. Tell el-Hesy is situated on a wady, or valley, of the same name (Wady el Hesy), which runs from a point about 6 miles West of Hebron to the sea between Gaza and Askelon. It is a mound on the very edge of the wady, rising some 120 ft. above it and composed of debris to the depth of about 60 ft., in which the excavations revealed the remains of distinct cities which had been built, one upon the ruins of another. The earliest of these was evidently Amorite, and could not have been later than 1700 BC, and was perhaps two or three centuries earlier (Bliss, Mound of Many Cities). The identification rests upon the fact that the site corresponds with the Biblical and other historical notices of Lachish, and especially upon the discovery of a cuneiform tablet in the ruins of the same character as the Tell el-Amarna Letters, and containing the name of Zimridi, who is known from these tablets to have been at one time Egyptian governor of Lachish. The tablets, which date from the latter part of the 15th or early part of the 14th century BC, give us the earliest information in regard to Lachish, and it was then an Egyptian dependency, but it seems to have revolted and joined with other towns in an attack upon Jerusalem, which was also an Egyptian dependency. It was perhaps compelled to do so by the Khabiri who were then raiding this region. The place was, like Gaza, an important one for Egypt, being on the frontier and on the route to Jerusalem, and the importance is seen in the fact that it was taken and destroyed and rebuilt so many times.
2. History: We first hear of it in the history of Israel when Joshua invaded the land. It was then an Amorite city, and its king, Japhia, joined the confederacy formed by Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, to resist Joshua. They were defeated in the remarkable battle at Gibeon, and the five confederate kings were captured and put to death at Makkedah (Joshua 10:1-43 passim; Joshua 12:11). Lachish was included in the lot of Judah (Joshua 15:39), and it was rebuilt, or fortified, by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:5, 9). It was besieged by Sennacherib in the reign of Hezekiah and probably taken (2 Kings 18:13) when he invaded Judah and besieged Jerusalem, but the other references to the siege leave it doubtful (2 Kings 18:14, 17; 19:8; 2 Chronicles 32:9; Isaiah 36:2; 37:8). The Assyrian monuments, however, render it certain that the place was captured. The sculptures on the walls of Sennacherib's palace picture the storming of Lachish and the king on his throne receiving the submission of the captives (Ball, Light from the East, 190-91). This was in 701 BC, and to this period we may assign the enigmatical reference to Lachish in Micah 1:13, "Bind the chariot to the swift steed, O inhabitant of Lachish: she was the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion." The cause of the invasion of Sennacherib was a general revolt in Phoenicia, Palestine, and Philistia, Hezekiah joining in it and all asking Egypt for aid (Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, chapter ix). Isaiah had warned Judah not to trust in Egypt (Isaiah 20:5-6; Isaiah 30:1-5; 31:1), and as Lachish was the place where communication was held with Egypt, being a frontier fortress, perhaps even having an Egyptian garrison, it would be associated with the "sin" of the Egyptian alliance (HGHL, 234).
The city was evidently rebuilt after its destruction by Sennacherib, for we find Nebuchadnezzar fighting against it during his siege of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 34:7). It was doubtless destroyed by him, but we are informed by Nehemiah (Jeremiah 11:23) that some of the returned Jews settled there after the captivity. It is very likely that they did not reoccupy the site of the ruined city, but settled as peasants in the territory, and this may account for the transference of the name to Umm Lakis, 3 or 4 miles from Tell el-Hesy, where some ruins exist, but not of a kind to suggest Lachish (Bliss, op. cit). No remains of any importance were found on the Tell indicating its occupation as a fortress or city later than that destroyed by the king of Babylon, but it was occupied in some form during the crusades, Umm Lakis being held for a time by the Hospitallers, and King Richard is said to have made it a base of operations in his war with Saladin (HGHL). The Tell itself, if occupied, was probably only the site of his camp, and it has apparently remained since that time without inhabitants, being used for agricultural purposes only.
See further, PALESTINE EXPLORATION,III , 1.
H. Porter
Lack
Lack - (forms of chacer, "to lack," ayin, "nought"): This word in its various forms has the usual meaning of "want," "need," "deficiency." There is but little change in the use of the word in the different versions. Sometimes one of the common synonyms is exchanged for the word itself, e.g. in the Old Testament, 1 Samuel 21:15 the Revised Version (British and American) has "lack" ("Do I lack madmen?") where the King James Version has "need of"; Proverbs 5:23, "for lack," instead of "without"; Proverbs 6:32, "void of" for "lacketh"; Proverbs 10:21, "lack" for "want"; Proverbs 31:11, "lack" for "need"; Isaiah 59:15, "lacking" for "faileth." In the New Testament "lack" is the translation of hustereo, literally, "to be behind," and endees, "in want." In Luke 8:6, the Revised Version (British and American) reads "had no" instead of "lacked" in the King James Version. In 2 Corinthians 11:9, the Revised Version gives "my want" for "which was lacking to me" in the King James Version; in Colossians 1:24 "that which is lacking" for "that which is behind"; James 2:15 "lack" for "destitute." It will readily be seen that sometimes the slight variation helps to explain the meaning.
G. H. Gerberding
Lacunus
Lacunus - la-ku'-nus.
See LACCUNUS.
Lad
Lad - In the Old Testament this word occurs as the translation of na`ar, "young person," "child," "servant," the Revised Version (British and American) properly substituting "servant" in 2 Kings 4:19; Judges 16:26 is another passage where either sense of the original word may be intended. The word occurs in the New Testament in John 6:9 as the translation of paidarion; in Acts 20:12, pais (the King James Version "young man").
Ladan
Ladan - la'-dan (la`dan, the King James Version, Laadan):
(1) A descendant of Ephraim, and an ancestor of Joshua (1 Chronicles 7:26).
(2) A Levite of the family of Gershon (1 Chronicles 23:7-8, 9; 26:21), also called LIBNI (which see).
Ladanum
Ladanum - lad'-a-num (loT): Genesis 37:25 the Revised Version margin; elsewhere MYRRH (which see).
Ladder
Ladder - lad'-er.
See SIEGE, 4, (e).
Ladder of Tyre
Ladder of Tyre - (He klimax (apo tes klimakos) Turou): Not mentioned in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but in Apocrypha (1 Maccabees 11:59), where it is said that Antiochus VI, after having confirmed Jonathan in the high-priesthood, appointed his brother Simon captain over the territory included between the Ladder of Tyre and the borders of Egypt. The Ladder has been located at different points on the coast between Tyre and Acre, such as the Ras el-`Abyadh ("Promontorium Album" of the ancient geographers), about 7 miles South of Tyre, and Ras en-Naqurah, about 6 miles farther South, and Ras el-Musheirifeh, a little farther on. These are capes jutting westward into the sea from the ridge which runs parallel to the general line of the coast. These capes project more than a mile into the sea, and present a very bold and precipitous front from 200 to 300 ft. in height. The ascent on either side of the promontory is very steep, and at Ras el-`Abyadh steps were cut in the white rock, which led to the identification of this point with the Ladder, but a reference to Josephus (B J, II, x, 2) leads to a different conclusion. He locates it 100 stadia North of Acre, which corresponds fairly well with the southern limit of the whole promontory, which is about 12 miles North of Acre, but not at all with Ras el-`Abyadh. The altitude of el Musheirifeh is greater than that of el-`Abyadh and may have had steps cut in it similar to the latter. It is more probable that the Ladder of Tyre was here, or at en-Naqurah, but the term applied to the whole promontory, which offered a serious obstacle to the passage of armies, or even caravans, since the approach is precipitous on either side, and at Ras el-`Abyadh the road skirts the edge of a sheer precipice, where a misstep would hurl one into the sea some 200 ft. below. The application of the term to the whole promontory seems to be indicated by Josephus, since he speaks of it as one of the mountains which encompass the plain of Ptolemais (Acre) and the highest of all. This would not be true of any one of the three capes mentioned, but would be if the hills behind, which form their base, were included. That it was designated as the Ladder of Tyre rather than of Acre was probably due to the fact that the promontory is nearer the former city (see Thomson,LB ,II , edition 1882;SWP , name-lists, under the word).
H. Porter
Lade; Lading
Lade; Lading - lad, lad'-ing: "To lade" in the sense of "to load" is retained by the Revised Version (British and American) in nearly all passages where the word occurs in the King James Version (but compare the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) reading of Psalms 68:19; Isaiah 46:1), "They laded us with such things" (Acts 28:10 the King James Version). The epithithemi, "to put on," is rendered by the Revised Version (British and American), "They put on board such things." Luke 11:46 the Revised Version (British and American) reads "ye load" instead of the King James Version "ye lade."
Lading (phortion) is found in Acts 27:10 in its usual meaning, "the lading of a ship."
Lady
Lady - la'-di: This word should be taken in the sense of "mistress" in Isaiah 47:5, 7 (Hebrew gebhereth) (so the American Standard Revised Version). In Judges 5:29; Eat 1:18 it is the translation of another Hebrew word (sarah), best rendered "princess" (so the Revised Version (British and American) in Esther, but not in Judges). In 2 John 1:1, 5 it is the translation of kuria, which some interpreters regard as a proper name.
See CYRIA; JOHN,THE EPISTLES OF ; ELECT LADY.
Lael
Lael - la'-el (la'el, "belonging to God"): Father of Eliasaph, the prince of the father's house of the Gershonites (Numbers 3:24).
Lahad
Lahad - la'-had (lahaah): A descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:2).
Lahai-roi
Lahai-roi - la-hi'-roi, la-hi-ro'-i, la'hi-roi (lachay ro'i).
See BEER-LAHAI-ROI.
Lahmam
Lahmam - la'-mam (lachmam): A town in the Judean Shephelah (Joshua 15:40, the Revised Version margin "Lahmas") possibly the modern el-Lachm, 2 1/2 miles South of Beit Jibrin.
Lahmas
Lahmas - la'-mas.
See LAHMAM.
Lahmi
Lahmi - la'-mi (lachmi): According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the brother of Goliath of Gath.
See ELHANAN.
Laish
Laish - la'-ish (layish):
(1) A city in the upper Jordan valley, apparently colonized by the Sidonians, which was captured by the Danires and called DAN (which see) (Judges 18:7, etc.; Isaiah 10:30 the King James Version). In Joshua 19:47 the name appears as "Leshem."
(2) A Benjamite, father of Palti or Paltiel, to whom Michal, David's wife, was given by Saul (1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:15).
Laishah
Laishah - la-i'-sha, la'-ish-a (layshah, the King James Version, Laish): A place named in Isaiah 10:30 with Gallim and Anathoth. It should apparently be sought on the North of Jerusalem. Some would identify Gallim with Beit Jala, near Bethlehem. Conder suggests `Isawiyeh on the eastern slope, to the North-Northeast of the Mount of Olives.
Lake
Lake - lak (limne): The word is used (Luke 5:1-2; Luke 8:22-23, 33) of the Lake of Gennesaret or Sea of Galilee, and (Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10, 14-15; 21:8) of the "lake of fire and brimstone." Lakes are not abundant in Syria and Palestine. The Dead Sea, which might be called a lake, is in most places in English Versions of the Bible called the Salt Sea. It is called by the Arabs Bachr Lut, Sea of Lot. It is a question whether the Waters of Merom (Joshua 11:5, 7) can be identified with the Chuleh, a marshy lake in the course of the Upper Jordan, North of the Sea of Galilee. East of Damascus on the edge of the desert there are saltish lakes in which the water of the rivers of Damascus (see 2 Kings 5:12) is gathered and evaporates. In the Lebanon West of Ba`albek is the small Lake Yammuneh, which is fed by copious springs, but whose water disappears in the latter part of the summer, being drained off by subterranean channels. The Lake of Kums on the Orontes is artificial, though ancient. On the lower Orontes is the Lake of Antioch.
Alfred Ely Day
Lake of Fire
Lake of Fire - (limne tou puros): Found in Revelation 19:20; 10, 14(bis),15. Revelation 21:8 has "the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone." The brimstone in connection with "the lake of fire" occurs also in Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 10:1-11, the latter being a backward reference to the former passage. In Revelation 20:14 the words, "This is the second death, even the lake of fire" are either a gloss originally intended to elucidate Revelation 20:15 through a reference to Revelation 20:6, or, if part of the text, formed originally the close of Revelation 20:15, whence they became displaced on account of the identity of the words once immediately preceding them in Revelation 20:15 with the words now preceding them in Revelation 20:14. The "lake of fire" can be called "the second death" only with reference to the lost among men (Revelation 20:15), not with reference to death and Hades (Revelation 20:14). In all the above references "the lake of fire" appears as a place of punishment, of perpetual torment, not of annihilation (Revelation 20:10). The beast (Revelation 19:20); the pseudo-prophet (Revelation 19:20; 20:10); the devil (Revelation 20:10); the wicked of varying description (Revelation 20:15; 21:8), are cast into it. When the same is affirmed of death and Hades (Revelation 20:14), it is doubtful whether this is meant as a mere figure for the cessation of these two evils personified, or has a more realistic background in the existence of two demon-powers so named (compare Isaiah 25:8; 1 Corinthians 15:26, 54 ff; 2 Esdras 7:31). The Scriptural source for the conception of "the lake of fire" lies in Genesis 19:24, where already the fire and the brimstone occur together, while the locality of the catastrophe described is the neighborhood of the Dead Sea. The association of the Dead Sea with this fearful judgment of God, together with the desolate appearance of the place, rendered it a striking figure for the scene of eschatological retribution. The two other Old Testament passages which have "fire and brimstone" (Psalms 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22) are dependent on the Gen passage, with which they have the figure of "raining" in common. In Revelation 21:8, "their part" seems to allude to Psalms 11:6, "the portion of their cup." In Enoch 67:4 ff the Dead Sea appears as the place of punishment for evil spirits. Of late it has been proposed to derive "the lake of fire" from "the stream of fire" which destroys the enemies of Ahura in the Zoroastrian eschatology; so Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 1906, 433, 434. But the figures of a stream and a lake are different; compare 2 Esdras 13:9-11, where a stream of fire proceeds from the mouth of the Messiah for the destruction of His enemies. Besides, the Persian fire is, in part, a fire of purification, and not of destruction only (Bousset, 442), and even in the apocalyptic Book of Enoch, the fires of purification and of punishment are not confounded (compare Enoch 67:4 with 90:20). The Old Testament fully explains the entire conception.
Geerhardus Vos
Lake of Gennesaret
Lake of Gennesaret - ge-nes'-a-ret.
Lakkum
Lakkum - lak'-um (laqqum; the King James Version, Lakum): An unidentified town on the border of Naphtali, named with Adami, Nekeb and Jabneel, apparently nearer the Jordan (Joshua 19:33).
Lama
Lama - See ELI, ELI, LAMA, SABACHTHANI.
Lamb
Lamb - lam: (1) The most used word is kebhes, "a young ram"; compare Arabic kebsh, "ram"; often of sacrifices; (feminine) kabhsah, or kibchsah, "ewe lamb" (2 Samuel 12:3); by transposition kesebh, and feminine kisbah (Genesis 30:40; Leviticus 3:7; 5:6). (2) kar, "lamb" (Deuteronomy 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:9; 2 Kings 3:4). (3) seh, "one" of the flock (Genesis 22:7; Leviticus 5:7). (4) tso'n, "sheep," "goats," "flock"; compare Arabic da'n, "sheep" (Exodus 12:21); and ben tso'n (Psalms 114:4). (5) Taleh, "young lamb"; compare Arabic Tali, "young lamb"; and Tela'im (1 Samuel 7:9; Isaiah 40:11; 65:25). (6) 'immerin (Ezra 6:9, 17; 7:17). (7) arnas, accusative plural (Luke 10:3); diminutive arnion (John 21:15; Revelation 5:6, etc.). (8) amnos (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19).
See SHEEP.
Alfred Ely Day
Lamb of God
Lamb of God - (ho amnos tou theou): This is a title specially bestowed upon our Lord by John the Baptist (John 1:29-36), "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" In Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs an apocryphal book, probably of the 2nd century--we have the term used for the Messiah, "Honor Judah and Levi, for from them shall arise for you the Lamb of God, saving all nations by grace." But the term does not seem to have been of any general use until it received its distinctly Christian significance. It has been generally understood as referring to the prophetic language of Jeremiah 11:19, and Isaiah 53:7.
1. Sacrificial Sense of the Term: It is far more probable, however, that the true source of the expression is to be found in the important place which the "lamb" occupies in the sacrifices, especially of the Priestly Code. In these there was the lamb of the daily morning and evening sacrifice. How familiar this would be to the Baptist, being a member of a priestly family! On the Sabbath the number of the offerings was doubled, and at some of the great festivals a still larger number were laid upon the altar (see Exodus 29:38; Numbers 28:3, 9, 13). The lamb of the Passover would also occupy a large place in the mind of a devout Israelite, and, as the Passover was not far off, it is quite possible that John may have referred to this as well as to other suggested ideas connected with the lamb. The sacrificial significance of the term seems to be far more probable than the mere comparison of the character of our Lord with meekness and gentleness, as suggested by the words of the prophets, although these contain much more than the mere reference to character (see below). That this became the clearly defined conception of apostolic teaching is clear from passages in Paul and Peter (1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18 f). In the Book of Revelation the reference to the Lamb occurs 27 times. The word here used differs from that in John. The amnos of the Gospel has become the arnion of the Apocalypse, a diminutive form suggestive of affection. This is the word used by our Lord in His rebuke and forgiveness of Peter (John 21:15), and is peculiarly touched therefore with an added meaning of pathetic tenderness. Westcott, in his Commentary on John 1:29, refers to the conjecture that there may have been flocks of lambs passing by on their way to Jerusalem to be used at the feast. This is possible, but fanciful. As applied to Christ, the term certainly suggests the meekness and gentleness of our Lord's nature and work, but could not have been used by John without containing some reference to the place which the lamb bore in the Judaic ritualism.
2. As Variously Understood: The significance of the Baptist's words has been variously understood. Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, among the ancients, Lucke, DeWette, Meyer, Ewald, Alford, among the moderns, refer it to Isaiah 53:7; Grotius, Bengel, Hengstenberg, to the paschal lamb; Baumgarten-Crusius, etc., to the sin offering; Lange strongly urges the influence of the passage in Isaiah 53:1-12, and refers to John's description of his own mission under the influence of the second part of Isaiah, in which he is supported by Schaff. The importance of the Isaiah-thought is found in Matthew 8:17; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 2:22-25.
3. As Set Forth by Isaiah: It is to be observed that the Septuagint in Isaiah 53:7 translates the Hebrew word for sheep (seh), by the Greek word for lamb. In 53:10, the prophet's "suffering one" is said to have made "his soul an offering for Isaiah sin," and in 53:4 "he hath borne our griefs," where bearing involves the conception of sin offering, and as possessing justifying power, the idea of "'taking away." John indeed uses not the Septuagint word (pherein), but (airein), and some have maintained that this simply means "put away" or "support," or "endure." But this surely loses the suggestion of the associated term "lamb," which John could not have employed without some reference to its sacrificial and therefore expiatory force. What Lange calls a "germ perception" of atonement must certainly have been in the Baptist's mind, especially when we recall the Isaiah-passages, even though there may not have been any complete dogmatic conception of the full relation of the death of Christ to the salvation of a world. Even the idea of the bearing of the curse of sin may not be excluded, for it was impossible for an Israelite like John, and especially with his surroundings, to have forgotten the significance of the paschal lamb, both in its memorial of the judgment of Egypt, as well as of the deliverance of Israel. Notwithstanding every effort to take out of this striking phrase its deeper meanings, which involve most probably the combination of all the sources above described, it must ever remain one of the richest mines of evangelical thought. It occupies, in the doctrine of atonement, a position analogous to that brief word of the Lord, "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), in relation to the doctrine of God.
The Lamb is defined as "of God," that is, of Divine providing. See Isaiah 53:1-12; Revelation 5:6; 13:8. Its emphatic and appointed office is indicated by the definite article, and whether we refer the conception to a specific sacrifice or to the general place of a lamb in the sacrificial institution, they all, as being appointed by and specially set apart for God, suggest the close relation of our Lord to the Divine Being, and particularly to His expiatory sacrifice.
L. D. Bevan
Lame
Lame - lam (piceach, nakheh; cholos):
(1) The condition of being unable or imperfectly able to walk, which unfitted any descendant of Aaron so afflicted for service in the priesthood (Leviticus 21:18), and rendered an animal unsuitable for sacrifice (Deuteronomy 15:21). The offering of animals so blemished was one of the sins with which Malachi charges the negligent Jews of his time (Malachi 1:8-13).
(2) Those who suffered from lameness, such as Mephibosheth, whose limbs were injured by a fall in childhood (2 Samuel 4:4; 9:3). In the prophetic description of the completeness of the victory of the returning Israelites, it is predicted that the lame shall be made whole and shall leap like a hart (Jeremiah 3:18; Isaiah 35:6). The unfitness of the lame for warfare gives point to the promise that the lame shall take the prey (Isaiah 33:23). Job in his graphic description of his helpfulness to the weak before his calamity says, "And feet was I to the lame" (Job 29:15). The inequality of the legs of the lame is used in Proverbs 26:7 as a similitude of the ineptness with which a fool uses a parable.
In the enigmatical and probably corrupt passage describing David's capture of Jerusalem, the lame and blind are mentioned twice. In 2 Samuel 5:6 it was a taunt on the part of the Jebusites that even a garrison of cripples would suffice to keep out the Israelites. The allusion in 5:8 may be read, "Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites let him .... slay both the lame and blind, which hate David's soul" as it is in Septuagint. The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) says, "David had offered a reward on that day to the man who should smite the Jebusite and reach the water pipes of the houses, and remove the blind and lame who hated David's soul." It is possible, however, that Budde's emendation is more correct and that it is a threat against the indiscriminate slaughter of the Jebusites: "Whoso slayeth a Jebusite shall bring his neck into peril; the lame and blind are not hated of David's soul." The proverbial saying quoted in 5:8 cannot be correct as rendered in the King James Version, for we read in Matthew 21:14 that the lame came to our Lord in the temple and were healed.
The healing of the lame by our Lord is recorded in Matthew 11:5; Matthew 15:30-31; 21:14; Luke 7:22; 14:13. For the apostolic miracles of healing the lame, see CRIPPLE. In Hebrews 21:13 the Christians are counseled to courage under chastisement, lest their despair should cause that which is lame to be "turned out of the way."
Alexander Macalister
Lamech
Lamech - la'-mek (lemekh; Lamech, "a strong youth"?):
(1) The name is first mentioned in Genesis 4:18-24. Here Lamech, the son of Methushael, is named as the last of the descendants of Cain. He was the father of Jabel, Jubal, Tubal-cain, and Naamah. As the husband of two wives, namely, Adah and Zillah, he furnishes the first recorded instance of polygamy. It is very instructive to note that this "father of polygamy" at once becomes the first blustering tyrant and a braggadocio; we are fully permitted to draw this conclusion from his so-called "swordlay" (Genesis 4:23 f). He does not put his trust in God, but in the weapons and implements invented by his sons, or rather these instruments, enhancing the physical and material powers of man, are his God. He glories in them and misconstrues the Divine kindness which insured to Cain freedom from the revenge of his fellow-men.
(2) Another Lamech. is mentioned in Genesis 5:25, 28 (compare 1 Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:36), the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah. His words (Genesis 5:29) show the great difference between this descendant of Seth and the descendant of Cain. While the one is stimulated to a song of defiance by the worldly inventions of his sons, the other, in prophetical mood, expresses his sure belief in the coming of better times, and calmly and prayerfully awaits the period of comfort and rest which he expected to be ushered in by his son Noah.
William Baur
Lamedh
Lamedh - la'-meth: The 12th letter of Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "1". It came also to be used for the number 30. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.
Lament
Lament - la-ment'.
See MUSIC.
Lamentation
Lamentation - lam-en-ta'-shun.
See BURIAL,III , 2;IV , 4, 5, 6.
Lamentations, Book of
Lamentations, Book of - lam-en-ta'-shunz,--The Lamentations of Jeremiah:
1. Name: This is a collective name which tradition has given to 5 elegies found in the Hebrew Canon that lament the fate of destroyed Jerusalem. The rabbis call this little book 'Ekhah ("how"), according to the word of lament with which it begins, or qinoth. On the basis of the latter term the Septuagint calls it threnoi, or Latin Threni, or "Lamentations."
2. Form: The little book consists of 5 lamentations, each one forming the contents of a chapter. The first 4 are marked by the acrostic use of the alphabet. In addition, the qinah ("elegy") meter is found in these hymns, in which a longer line (3 or 4 accents) is followed by a shorter (2 or 3 accents). In Lamentations 1:1-22 and 2 the acrostic letters begin three such double lines; in Lamentations 4:1-22, however, two double lines. In Lamentations 3:1-66 a letter controls three pairs, but is repeated at the beginning of each line. In Lamentations 5:1-22 the alphabet is wanting; but in this case too the number of pairs of lines agrees with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, i.e. 22. In Lamentations 2:1-22;, 3 and Lamentations 4:1-22, the letter `ayin (`) follows pe (p), as is the case in Psalms 34:1-22. Lamentations 1:1-22, however, follows the usual order.
3. Contents: These 5 hymns all refer to the great national catastrophe that overtook the Jews and in particular the capital city, Jerusalem, through the Chaldeans, 587-586 BC. The sufferings and the anxieties of the city, the destruction of the sanctuary, the cruelty and taunts of the enemies of Israel, especially the Edomites, the disgrace that befell the king and his nobles, priests and prophets, and that, too, not without their own guilt, the devastation and ruin of the country--all this is described, and appeal is made to the mercy of God. A careful sequence of thought cannot be expected in the lyrical feeling and in the alphabetical form. Repetitions are found in large numbers, but each one of these hymns emphasizes some special feature of the calamity. Lamentations 3:1-66 is unique, as in it one person describes his own peculiar sufferings in connection with the general calamity, and then too in the name of the others begins a psalm of repentance. This person did not suffer so severely because he was an exceptional sinner, but because of the unrighteousness of his people. These hymns were not written during the siege, but later, at a time when the people still vividly remembered the sufferings and the anxieties of that time and when the impression made on them by the fall of Jerusalem was still as powerful as ever.
4. Author: Who is the author of these hymns? Jewish tradition is unanimous in saying that it was Jeremiah. The hymns themselves are found anonymously in the Hebrew text, while the Septuagint has in one an additional statement, the Hebrew style of which would lead us to conclude that it was found in the original from which the version was made. This statement reads: "And it came to pass, after Israel had been taken away captive and Jerusalem had been laid waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and uttered this lamentation over Jerusalem and said." The Targum also states that Jeremiah was the author. The rabbis and the church Fathers have no doubts on the subject. Jerome (compare on Zechariah 12:11) thinks that 2 Chronicles 35:25 refers to these hymns. The same is said by Josephus (Ant., X, v, 1). If this were the case, then the writer of Chronicles would have regarded Lam as having been written because of the death of Josiah. But this misunderstanding is not to be ascribed to him. It was easily possible that he was acquainted with lamentations of such a nature, but which afterward were lost. At all events, Jeremiah was by nature adapted to the composition of such elegies, as is proved by his book of prophecies.
Only in modern times has the authorship of these hymns by Jeremiah been seriously called into question; and it is now denied by most critics. For this they give formal and material reasons: The language of these lamentations shows many similarities to the discourses of Jeremiah, but at the same time also many differences. The claim that the alphabetical scheme is not worthy of Jeremiah is a prejudice caused by the taste of our times. Hebrew poets had evidently been making use of such methods for a long time, as it helps materially in memorizing. At the time of the first acute suffering on account of the destruction of Jerusalem, in fact, he would probably not have made use of it. But. we have in this book a collection of lamentations' written some time after this great catastrophe. The claim has also been made that the views of Jeremiah and those of the composer or the composers of these poems differ materially. It is said that Jeremiah emphasizes much more strongly the guilt of the people as the cause of the calamity than is done in these hymns, which lament the fate of the people and find the cause of it in the sins of the fathers (Lamentations 5:7), something that Jeremiah is said not to accept (Jeremiah 31:29 f). However, the guilt of the people and the resultant wrath of God are often brought out in these hymns; and Jeremiah does not deny (Jeremiah 31:29 f) that there is anything like inherited guilt. He declares rather that in the blessed future things would be different in this respect. Then, too, we are not to forget that if Jeremiah is the author of these patriotic hymns, he does not speak in them as the prophet and the appointed accuser of his people, but that he is at last permitted to speak as he humanly feels, although there is no lack of prophetical reminiscences (of Lamentations 4:21 f). In these hymns he speaks out of the heart that loves his Jerusalem and his people, and he utters the priestly prayer of intercession, which he was not allowed to do when announcing the judgment over Israel. The fact that he also evinces great reverence for the unfortunate king and his Divinely given hereditary dignity (Lamentations 4:20), although as a prophet he had been compelled to pronounce judgment over him, would not be unthinkable in Jeremiah, who had shown warm sympathies also for Jehoiachim (22:24,28). A radical difference of sentiment between the two authors is not to be found. On the other hand, a serious difficulty arises if we claim that Jeremiah was not the author of Lamentations in the denunciations of Lamentations over the prophets of Jerusalem (Lamentations 2:14; 4:13). How could the great prophet of the Destruction be so ignored if he himself were not the author of these sentiments? If he was himself the author we can easily understand this omission. In his book of prophecies he has spoken exactly the same way about the prophets. To this must be added, that Lamentations 3:1-66 forces us to regard Jeremiah as the author, because of the personal sufferings that are here described. Compare especially Lamentations 3:14, 37 f,53 ff,61,63. What other person was during the period of this catastrophe the cynosure of all eyes as was the prophet, especially, too, because he was guiltless? The claim that here, not an individual, but the personified nation is introduced as speaking, is altogether improbable, and in some passages absolutely impossible (Lamentations 3:14, 48).
This little book must accordingly be closely connected with the person of Jeremiah. If he himself is the author, he must have composed it in his old age, when he had time and opportunity to live over again all the sufferings of his people and of himself. It is, however, more probable, especially because of the language of the poems, that his disciples put this book in the present shape of uniform sentential utterances, basing this on the manner of lamentations common to Jeremiah. In this way the origin of Lamentations 3:1-66 can be understood, which cannot artificially be shaped as his sayings, as in this case the personal feature would be more distinctly expressed. It was probably compiled. from a number of his utterances.
In the Hebrew Canon this book is found in the third division, called kethabhim, or Sacred Writings, together with the Psalms. However, the Septuagint adds this book to Jeremiah, or rather, to the Book of Baruch, found next after Jerusalem. The Hebrews count it among the 5 meghilloth, or Rolls, which were read on prominent anniversary days. The day for the Lamentation was the 9th of Abib, the day of the burning of the temple. In the Roman Catholic church it is read on the last three days of Holy Week.
LITERATURE.
Comms. of Thenius, Ewald, Nagelsbach, Gerlach, Keil, Cheyne, Oettli, Lohr, Budde; article by Robertson Smith on "Lamentations" in EB.
C. von Orelli
Lamp; Lampstand
Lamp; Lampstand - lamp'-stand (nir, ner, lappidh, Phoenician lampadh, whence lampas; luchnos is also used): Ner or nir is properly "light" or "a light-giving thing," hence, "lamp," and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), but often "candle" in the King James Version. Its use in connection with the tabernacle and the temple (Exodus 25:37 ff; 2 Chronicles 4:20 f), where oil was employed for light (Exodus 35:14; Leviticus 24:2), shows that this is its proper meaning. Lappidh is properly "a torch" and is thus rendered generally in the Revised Version (British and American), but "lamp" in Isaiah 62:1, where it is used as a simile. the King James Version renders it "lamp" usually, but "torch" in Nahum 2:3 f; Zechariah 12:6. In Job 12:5 the Revised Version (British and American) renders it "for misfortune," regarding it as composed of the noun pidh, and the preposition l-. Lampas in Greek corresponds to it, but luchnos is also rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "lamp," while the King James Version gives "candle," as in Matthew 5:15 and corresponding passages in the other Gospels.
1. Forms and History: Lamps were in use in very remote times, though we have few allusions to them in the early history of Egypt. There are indications that they were used there. Niches for lamps are found in the tombs of Tell el-Amarna (Archaeological Survey of Egypt, Tell el-Amarna Letters, Part IV, 14). Lampstands are also represented (ibid., Part III, 7). Torches were of course used before lamps, and are mentioned in Gen (15:17 the Revised Version (British and American)), but clay lamps were used in Canaan by the Amorites before the Israelites took possession. The excavations in Palestine have furnished thousands of specimens, and have enabled us to trace the development from about 2000 BC onward. The exploration carried out at Lachish (Tell Hesy) and Gezer (Tell Jezer) by the Palestine Exploration Fund has given ample material for the purpose, and the numerous examples from tombs all over Palestine and Syria have supplied a great variety of forms.
2. Figurative Use: "Lamp" is used in the sense of a guide in Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 6:23, and for the spirit, which is called the lamp of Yahweh in man (Proverbs 20:27), and it of course often signifies the light itself. It is used also for the son who is to succeed and represent his father (1 Kings 15:4), and it perhaps is employed in this sense in the phrase, "The lamp of the wicked shall be put out" (Job 21:17; Proverbs 13:9; and perhaps Job 18:6).
The early Canaanite or Amorite lamp was a shallow, saucer-like bowl with rounded bottom and vertical rim, slightly pointed or pinched on one side where the lighted end of the wick was placed. This form continued into Jewish times, but was gradually changed until the spout was formed by drawing the rim of the sides together, forming a narrow open channel, the remainder of the rim being rolled outward and flattened, the bottom being also flattened. This was the early Hebrew pattern and persisted for centuries. The open bowl was gradually closed in, first at the spout, where the rim of one side was lapped over the other, and finally the whole surface was closed with only an orifice in the center for receiving the oil, and at the same time the spout was lengthened. This transformation is seen in lamps of the Seleucid period, or from around 300 BC. These lamps have usually a circular foot and sometimes a string-hole on one side. The next development was a circular bowl with a somewhat shorter spout, sometimes being only a bulge in the rim, so that the orifice for the wick falls in the rim, the orifice for filling being quite small at the bottom of a saucer-like depression in the center of the bowl. There is sometimes a loop handle affixed on the side opposite to the spout. Sometimes the handle is horizontal, but commonly vertical. This form is called Roman, and the bowl is often ornamented with mythological human or animal figures (Fig. 5). Other forms are elongated, having numerous wick holes (Fig. 6). The mythological and animal forms were rejected by the Jews as contrary to their traditions, and they made lamps with various other designs on the bowl, such as vine leaves, cups, scrolls, etc. (Figs. 7-11). One very marked Jewish design is the seven-branched candlestick (Exodus 25:32) of the temple (Fig. 12). The lamps of the parable of the Ten Virgins were probably similar to these (Matthew 25:1 ff). The latest form of the clay lamp was what is called Byzantine, the bowl of which has a large orifice in the center and tapers gradually to the spout (Fig. 13); they are ornamented commonly with a palm branch between the central orifice and the wickhole, or with a cross. Sometimes there is an inscription on the margin (Fig. 13). The words on this read Phos ku(riou) pheni pasin kale,"The light of the Lord shines to all (beautifully?)." Others read, "The Lord is my light"; "beautiful light," etc. These inscriptions determine the period as being Christian. In Roman times, and earlier also, bronze was much used for the finer lamps, often with covers for the orifice and sometimes with chain and ring for hanging. Very elaborate designs in this material occur.
These terra-cotta lamps are found in the tombs and burial places throughout Palestine and Syria, and they were evidently deposited there in connection with the funeral rites. Very few are found in Canaanite tombs, but they become numerous in later times and especially in the early Christian centuries. The symbolism in their use for funeral purposes is indicated by the inscriptions above mentioned (see PEFS , 1904, 326 ff; Explorations in Palestine, by Bliss. Maclister and Wunsch, 4to, published by the Palestine Exploration Fund). These lamps were used by the peasants of the country down to recent times, when petroleum has superseded olive oil for lighting. The writer has seen lamps of the Jewish and Roman period with surface blackened with recent usage. Olive oil was commonly used, but terebinth oil also (Thomson, LB, III, 472).
H. Poster
Lampsacus
Lampsacus - lamp'-sa-kus.
See SAMPSAMES.
Lance; Lancer; Lancet
Lance; Lancer; Lancet - lans, lan'-ser, lan'-set. See ARMOR,III , 4, (3); 1 Kings 18:28 the Revised Version (British and American) "lances."
Land
Land - ((1) 'erets; (2) 'adhamah; (3) sadheh, "a piece of land"; (4) ge, "earth"; (5) agros, "field"; (6) chora, "region"; (7) chorion, diminutive of chora; (8) xeros, "dry land"; (9) 'ezrach, "native" the King James Version "born in the land," "born among you," the Revised Version (British and American) "home-born" (Leviticus 19:34; 14:16; Numbers 15:30); "like a green tree in its native soil" (Psalms 37:35)): 'Erets occurs hundreds of times and is used in much the same way as 'adhamah, which also occurs often: e.g. "land of Egypt," 'erets mitsrayim (Genesis 13:10), and 'adhmath mitsrayim (Genesis 47:20). The other words occur less often, and are used in the senses indicated above.
Alfred Ely Day
LAND-CROCODILE (Revised Version (British and American))]
land-crok'-o-dil (koach; Septuagint chamaileon, Leviticus 11:30; the King James Version Chameleon): Koach is found only here, meaning an animal, the fifth in the list of unclean "creeping things." Elsewhere is it translated "strength" or "power," and it has been thought that here is meant the desert monitor, Varanus griseus, a gigantic lizard, which is common in Egypt and Palestine, and which attains the length of 4 ft. "Chameleon," which the King James Version has here, is used by the Revised Version (British and American) for tinshemeth (the King James Version "mole"), the eighth in the list of unclean "creeping things" (compare nasham, "to breathe"; translated "swan" in Leviticus 11:18 margin). While it is by no means certain what animal is meant, there could be no objection to "monitor" or "desert monitor." "Land-crocodile" is objectionable because it is not a recognized name of any animal.
Alfred Ely Day
Land Laws
Land Laws - See AGRARIAN LAWS.
Landmark
Landmark - land'-mark (gebhul, literally, "boundary"): The boundary may have been marked, as at present, simply by a furrow or stone. The iniquity of removing a landmark is frequently insisted on (Deuteronomy 19:14; 27:17; Proverbs 22:28; 23:10; Job 24:2 gebhulah), its removal being equivalent to theft.
Lane
Lane - lan (rhume): An alley or bypath of a city. Occurs once in Luke 14:21, "Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city"; elsewhere translated "street," e.g. Matthew 6:2; Acts 9:11; Ecclesiastes 9:7; Tobit 13:18.
Language of the New Testament
Language of the New Testament - lan'-gwaj (Greek).
See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE also:
I. THE VERNACULAR "KOINE" THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. The Old Point of View
2. The Revolution
3. The Proof of the New Position
(1) The Papyri
(2) The Ostraka
(3) The Inscriptions
(4) Modern Greek
(5) Historical and Comparative Grammar
4. Characteristics of the Vernacular "Koine"
II. LITERARY ELEMENTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
III. THE SEMITIC INFLUENCE
IV. INDIVIDUAL PECULIARITIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS
V. THE "KOINE" GREEK SPOKEN BY JESUS
LITERATURE
I. The Vernacular "Koine" the Language of the New Testament.
1. The Old Point of View: The ghost of the old Purist controversy is now laid to rest for good and all. The story of that episode has interest chiefly for the historian of language and of the vagaries of the human intellect. See Winer-Thayer, Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1869, 12-19, and Schmiedel's Winer, sectopm 2, for a sketch of this once furious strife. In the 17th century various scholars tried to prove that the Greek of the New Testament was on a paragraph with the literary Attic of the classic period. But the Hebraists won the victory over them and sought to show that it was Hebraic Greek, a special variety, if not dialect, a Biblical Greek The 4th edition of Cremer's Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (translated by W. Urwick, 1892) quotes, with approval, Rothe's remark (Dogmatik, 1863, 238):
"We may appropriately speak of a language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinctively religious mode of expression out of the language of the country which it has chosen as its sphere, and transforming the linguistic elements which it found ready to hand, and even conceptions already existing, into a shape and form appropriate to itself and all its own." Cremer adds: "We have a very clear and striking proof of this in New Testament Greek."
This was only twenty years ago and fairly represented the opinion of that day. Hatch in 1889 (Essays in Biblical Greek, 34) held that with most of the New Testament words the key lay in the Septuagint. But Winer (Winer-Thayer, 20) had long ago seen that the vernacular koine was "the special foundation of the diction of the New Testament," though he still admitted "a Jewish-Greek, which native Greeks did not entirely understand" (p. 27). He did not see the practical identity of New Testament Greek with the vernacular koine--("common" Greek), nor did Schmiedel in the 8. Auflage of Winer (I. Theil; II. Theil, erstes Heft, 1894-97). In the second edition of his Grammar of New Testament Greek (English translation by Thackeray, 1905, 2), Blass sees the dawn of the new day, though his book was first written before it came. Viteau (Etude sur le grec du Nouveau Testament, I, Le verbe, 1893, II, Le sujet, 1896) occupies wholly the old position of a Judaic Greek. An extreme instance of that view is seen in Guillemard's Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879).
2. The Revolution: A turn toward the truth comes with H. A. A. Kennedy's Sources of the New Testament Greek (1895). He finds the explanation of the vocabulary of both the Septuagint and the New Testament to be the vernacular which he traces back to Aristophanes. It is a good exercise to read Westcott's discussion of the "Language of the NT" in DB, III (1888), and then turn to Moulton, "Language of the New Testament," in the 1-vol HDB. Westcott says: "The chief peculiarities of the syntax of the New Testament lie in the reproduction of Hebrew forms." Moulton remarks: "There is no reason to believe that any New Testament writer who ever lived in Palestine learned Greek only as a foreign language when he went abroad." Still better is it to read Moulton, "New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery" in Cambridge Biblical Essays (1909, 461-505); Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (1911); or Angus, "The koine, the Language of the New Testament," Princeton Review, January, 1910, 42-92. The revolution has come to stay. It is now clear that the Greek of the New Testament is not a jargon nor a patois. In all essential respects it is just the vernacular koine of the 1st century AD, the lingua franca of the Greek-Roman empire, the legacy of Alexander the Great's conquest of the East. This world-speech was at bottom the late Attic vernacular with dialectical and provincial influences. It was not a decaying tongue, but a virile speech admirably adapted to the service of the many peoples of the time. The able article in volume III of HDB on the "Language of the New Testament" by Dr. J. H. Thayer appeared in 1900, and illustrates how quickly an encyclopedia article may become out of date. There is a wealth of knowledge here displayed, as one would expect, but Thayer still speaks of "this species of Greek," "this peculiar idiom, .... Jewish Greek," though he sees that its basis is "the common or spoken Greek." The last topic discussed by him is "Problems." He little thought that the biggest "problem" so near solution was the character of the language itself. It was Adolph Deissmann, then of Heidelberg, now of Berlin, who opened the new era in the knowledge of the language of the New Testament. His Bibelstudien (zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums) appeared in 1895. In this epoch-making volume he proved conclusively from the papyri and the inscriptions that many of the seeming Hebraisms in the Septuagint and the New Testament were common idioms in the vernacular koine. He boldly claimed that the bulk of the Hebraisms were falsely so termed, except in the case of translating Greek from the Hebrew or Aramaic or in "perfect" Hebraisms, genuine Greek usage made more common by reason of similarity to the Semitic idiom. In 1897 he produced Neue Bibelstudien, sprachgeschichtliche Beitrage zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Erklarung des Neuen Testaments.
In 1901 (2nd edition in 1903) these two volumes were translated as one by A. Grieve under the title Bible Studies. Deissmann's other volumes have confirmed his thesis. The most important are New Light on the New Testament (1907), The Philology of the Greek Bible (1908), Licht vom Osten (1908), Light from the Ancient East (translation by Strachan, 1910), Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912). In Light from the Ancient East, Deissmann illustrates the New Testament language with much detail from the papyri, ostraka and inscriptions. He is now at work on a new lexicon of the New Testament which will make use of the fresh knowledge from these sources.
The otherwise helpful work of E. Preuschen, Vollstandiges griechisch-deutsches Handworterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur (1908-10), fails to utilize the papyri and inscriptions while drawing on the Septuagint and the New Testament Apocrypha and other early Christian literature. But this has been done by Ebeling in his Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum New Testament, 1913. The next step was made by A. Thumb, the great philologian, in his Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus; Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der "koine," 1901, in which the real character of the koine was for the first time properly set forth.
Winer and Blass had both lamented the need of a grammar of the koine, and that demand still exists, but Thumb went a long way toward supplying it in this volume. It is to be hoped that he will yet prepare a grammar of the koine. Thumb's interests cover the whole range of comparative philology, but he has added in this field "Die Forschungen fiber die hellenistische Sprache in den Jahren 1896-1901," Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, II, 396 f; "Prinzipienfragen der Koina-Forschung," Neue Jahrb. fur das kl. Alt., 1906; "Die sprachgeschichtliche Stellung des biblischen Griechisch," Theologische Rundschau, V, 85-99.
The other most important name to add is that of J. Hope Moulton, who has the credit of being the first to apply the new knowledge directly to the New Testament Greek His Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena (1906, 2nd edition, 1906, 3rd edition, 1908, German translation in 1911, Einleitung in die Sprache des New Testament) is a brilliant piece of work and relates the Greek of the New Testament in careful detail to the vernacular koine, and shows that in all important points it is the common Greek of the time and not a Hebraic Greek. Moulton probably pressed his point too far in certain respects in his zeal against Hebraisms, but the essential position of Deissmann and Moulton is undoubtedly sound.
Moulton had previously published the bulk of this material as "Grammatical Notes from the Papyri," The Expositor, 1901, 271-82; 1903, 104-21, 423-39; The Classical Review, 1901, 31-37, 434-41; 1904, 106-12, 151-55; "Characteristics of New Testament Greek, " The Expositor, 1904.
In 1909 appeared his essay, Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (see above). Since 1908, The Expositor has had a series of papers by J.H. Moulton and George Milligan called "Lexical Notes from the Papyri," which are very useful on the lexical side of the language. Thus the study is fairly launched on its new career. In 1900, A.T. Robertson produced a Syllabus on the New Testament Greek Syntax from the standpoint of comparative philology, which was rewritten in 1908, with the added viewpoint of the papyri researches, as A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament (2nd edition, 1909, 3rd edition, 1912; translations in Italian in 1910, German and French in 1911, Dutch in 1912). In October, 1909, S. Angus published a good article in the Harvard Theological Review on "Modern Methods in New Testament Philology," followed in January, 1910, by another in the Princeton Review on "The koine, the Language of the New Testament." The new knowledge appears also in Jakob Wackernagel, "Die griechische Sprache" (pp. 291-318, 2nd edition, of Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache, 1907). L. Radermachcr has set forth very ably "die sprachlichen Vorgange in ihrem Zusammenhang," in his Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache. It is in reality the background of the New Testament Greek and is a splendid preparation for the study of the Greek New Testament. A full discussion of the new knowledge in grammatical detail has been prepared by A.T. Robertson under the title A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Moulton and Schmiedel are planning also to complete their works.
3. The Proof of the New Position: The proof of the new position is drawn from several sources:
(1) The Papyri. These rolls have lain in the museums of the world many years and attracted little attention. For lists of the chief collections of the papyri see Moulton, Prolegomena, 259-62; Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, xi, xii; Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit; Lautund Wortlehre, vii-x; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 20-41; Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Bibliography. New volumes of papyri as a result of recent explorations in Egypt are published each year. See PAPYRUS, and in the other encyclopedias under the word. Most of the papyri discovered belong to the period of the koine (the first three centuries BC and AD in round numbers), and with great wealth of illustration they show the life of the common people of the time, whether in Egypt or Herculaneum (the two chief regions represented). There are various degrees of culture shown, as can be seen in any of the large volumes of Grenfell and Hunt, or in the handbooks of Lietzmann, Griechische Papyri (1905), and of Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910). They come from the scrap-heaps of the long ago, and are mainly receipts, contracts, letters of business or love, military documents, etc. They show all grades of culture, from the illiterate with phonetic spelling to the man of the schools. But we have here the language of life, not of the books. In a most startling way one notes the similarities of vocabulary, forms, and syntax between the language of the papyri of the 1st century AD and that of the New Testament books. As early as 1778, F.W. Sturz, made use of the Charta Borgiana, "the first papyrus ever brought to Europe" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 39), and in 1841 Thiersch likewise saw the value of the papyri for the philology of the Septuagint. But the matter was not pressed. Lightfoot threw out a hint about the value of letters of the people, which was not followed till Deissmann saw the point; compare Moulton, Prol., 242. It is not necessary here to illustrate the matter at length. Deissmann takes up in detail the "Biblical" words in Thayer's Lexicon, and has no difficulty in finding most of them in the papyri (or inscriptions). Thus plerophoreo, is shown to be common in the papyri. See Deissmann, Bible Studies and Light from the Ancient East, for extensive lists. The papyri show also the same meanings for many words once thought peculiar to the Bible or the New Testament. An instance is seen in the official sense of presbuteros, in the papyri, 5 ho presbuteros les komes (Pap. Lugd. A 35 f), "without doubt an official designation" (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 155). So adelphos, for members of the community, anastrophe, for manner of life, antilempsis, "help," leitourgia, "public service," paroikos, "sojourner," etc. (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 107). R. Helbing (Grammatik der Septuaginta, 1908) and H. John Thackeray (A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 1909) have applied the new knowledge to the language of the Septuagint, and it has been discussed with much ability in the first volumes. The use of the papyri for grammatical purposes is made easier by the excellent volume of E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit; Laut- und Wortlehre (1906), though his "Syntax," is still a desideratum. Useful also is G. Cronert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903).
(2) The Ostraka. The literature on this subject is still small in bulk. In 1899 Ulrich Wilcken published Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien, and in 1902 W.E. Crum produced his book of Christian ostraka called Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum, and Others. This was followed in 1905 by H.R. Hall's Coptic and Greek Texts of the Christian Period from Ostraka, Stelae, etc. These broken pieces of pottery were used by the lowest classes as writing material. It was very widely used because it was so very cheap. Wilcken has done more than anyone else to collect and decipher the ostraka. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 46) notes that Cleanthes the Stoic "wrote on ostraka or on leather" because too poor to buy papyrus. So he quotes the apology of a Christian for using potsherd for a letter: "Excuse me that I cannot find papyrus as I am in the country" (Crum, Coptic Ostraca, 55). The use of apecho, on an ostrakon for a receipt in full, illustrates well the frequent use of this word in the New Testament (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 111).
(3) The Inscriptions. Here caution must be used since many of the inscriptions give, not the vernacular, but the literary language. The official (legal and military) decrees often appear in very formal style. But a number do preserve the vernacular idiom and often have the advantage of being dated. These inscriptions are chiefly on stone, but some are on metal and there are a few wax tablets. The material is vast and is constantly growing. See list of the chief collections in Deissmann's Light from the Ancient East, 10-20. Boeckh is the great name here. As early as 1779 Walch (Observationes in Matt. ex graecis inscriptionibus) made use of Greek inscriptions for New Testament exegesis, and R.A. Lipsius says that his father (K.H.A. Lipsius, author of Grammatische Untersuchungen uber die biblische Gracitat) "contemplated a large grammar of the Greek Bible in which he would have availed himself of the discoveries in modern epigraphy" (Deissmann, Light, etc., 15). Schmiedel has made good use of the inscriptions so far in his revision of Winer; H.A.A. Kennedy (Sources of New Testament Greek, 1895), H. Anz (Subsidia ad Cogn., etc., 1894), R. Helbing (Grammatik der Septuaginta, 1908), J. Psichari (Essai sur le Grec de la Septante, 1908), H. John Thackeray (A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 1909), and R. Meister (Prol. zu einer Grammatik der Septuaginta, 1907) turned to good account the inscriptions for the linguistic problems of the Septuagint, as indeed Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889) had already done. W. Dittenberger added some valuable "Grammatica et orthographica" to his Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (2 volumes, 1903, 1905). See also E. L. Hicks and G. F. Hill, Greek Historical Inscriptions (1901), and Hicks's paper "On Some Political Terms Employed in the New Testament," Classical Review, 1887, 4 ff, 42 ff. W. M. Ramsay's Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 volumes, 1895, 1897) and his other works show keen insight in the use of the inscriptions. Deissmann's Bible Studies (1895, 1901) applied the knowledge of the inscriptions to the Septuagint and to the New Testament. In his Light from the Ancient East (1910) copious use is made of the inscriptions for New Testament study. Moulton (Prol., 1906, 258 f, for lists) is alive to the value of the inscriptions for New Testament grammar, as indeed was Blass (Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 1896) before him.
Compare further, G. Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander und das Neue Testament (1906); T. Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (1905), and J. Rouffiac, Recherches sur les caracteres du Grec dans le New Testament d'apres les Inscr. de Priene (1911). Special treatises or phases of the grammar of the inscriptions appear in Meisterhans-Schwyzer, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (1900); Nachmanson, Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften (1896); Schweizer, Grammatik der pergamenischen Inschriften (1898).
Moulton and Milligan have drawn freely also on the inscriptions for their "Lexical Studies" running in The Expositor (1908 and the years following). The value of the inscriptions for the Greek of the New Testament is shown at every turn. For instance, prototokos, is no longer a "Biblical" word. It appears in a metrical inscription (undated) of Trachonitis on a tomb of a pagan "high priest" and "friend of the gods" (Deissmann, Light, etc., 88); compare Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca, etc., number 460. Even agape, occurs on a pagan inscription of Pisidia (Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2, 57). See, further, W.H.P. Hatch's "Some Illustrations of New Testament Usage from Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor," Journal of Biblical Literature, 1908, 134-146.
(4) Modern Greek. As early as 1834 Heilmeier saw that the modern Greek vernacular went back to the koine (Moulton, Prologoumena, 29), but it is only in recent years that it was clearly seen that the modern Greek of the schools and usually in the newspapers is artificial, and not the real vernacular of today. Mullach's work (Grammatik der griechischen Vulgarsprache, 1856) was deficient in this respect. But Jannaris' Historical Greek Grammar (1897) carries the history of the vernacular Greek along with the literary style. Hatzidakis, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, 1892, clears the air very much and connects the modern Greek with the New Testament. But it is to Thumb that we are indebted for the best knowledge of the vernacular (he demotike) as opposed to the literary language (he kathareuousa) of today. Mitsotakis (Praktische Grammatik, 1891) had treated both together, though Wied (Die Kunst, die neugriechische Volksprache) gave only the vernacular. But Wied is only elementary. Thumb alone has given an adequate treatment of the modern Greek vernacular, showing its unity and historical contact with the vernacular koine (Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, 1895; Thumb-Angus, Handbook of Modern Greek Vernacular, 1912). Thus one can see the living stream of the New Testament speech as it has come on down through the ages. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of modern Greek vernacular in the knowledge of New Testament Greek. The disappearance of the optative, the vanishing of the infinitive before hina, and itacism are but instances of many others which are luminous in the light of the modern Greek vernacular. See Psichari, Essais de grammaire historique neo-grecque (1886-89).
(5) Historical and Comparative Grammar. From this source the koine gets a new dignity. It will take one too far afield to sketch here the linguistic revolution wrought since the publication of, and partly caused by, Bopp's Vergleichende Grammatik (1857), following Sir William Jones' discovery of Sanskrit. The great work of Brugmann and Delbruck (Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, I-V, 1892-1909) marks the climax of the present development, though many workers have won distinction in this field. The point to accent here is that by means of comparative philology the Greek language is seen in its proper relations with other languages of the Indo-Germanic family, and the right interpretation of case, preposition, mode, tense, voice, etc., is made possible. The old traditional empiricism is relegated to the scrap-heap, and a new grammatical science consonant with the facts has taken its place. See Delbruck, Introduction to the Study of Language (1882), Giles, Short Manual of Comparative Philology (1901), for a resume of the facts. Wright, Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language (1912), applies the new learning to the Greek tongue. The progress in classical scholarship is well shown by Sandys in his History of Classical Scholarship (I-III, 1906-8) and by Gudeman, Geschichte der klass. Philologie, 2. Aufl, 1909. Innumerable monographs have enriched the literature of this subject. It is now feasible to see the Greek language as a whole, and grasp its historical unity. Seen in this light the koine is not a dying tongue or a corrupt dialect. It is a normal and natural evolution of the Greek dialects into a world-speech when Alexander's conquests made it possible. The vernacular koine which has developed into the modern Greek vernacular was itself the direct descendant of the Attic vernacular which had its roots in the vernacular of the earlier dialects. The dialectical developments are closely sketched by Thumb, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte (1909), and by Buck, Introduction to the Study of Greek Dialects (1910), not to mention the older works of Hoffmann, Meister, etc. Jannaris has undertaken in his Historical Greek Grammar (1897) to sketch and interpret the facts of the Greek tongue throughout its long career, both in its literary and vernacular aspects. He has succeeded remarkably well on the whole, though not quite seeing the truth about the modern Greek vernacular. Schanz is seeking to lay the foundation for still better work by his Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache (1882 and the years following). But the New Testament student must be open to all the new light from this region, and it is very great. See, further, Dieterich, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griech. Sprache von der hellen. Zeit (1898).
4. Characteristics of the Vernacular "Koine": As already indicated, the Greek of the New Testament is in the main just the vernacular koine of the 1st century AD, though Greek as used by men of ability and varying degrees of culture. The most striking difference between the vernacular koine and the literary Attic is seen in the vocabulary. The writers in the literary koine show more likeness to the classic Attic, but even they reveal the changes due to the intervening centuries. There was, of course, no violent break. The changes came gradually and naturally. It is mainly at this point that Deissmann has done such brilliant work in his Bible Studies and other books. He has taken the lists of "Biblical" and "ecclesiastical" words, as given by Cremer and Thayer, and has shown from the papyri, ostraka, inscriptions, or koine writers that they are not peculiar to the Bible, but belong to the current speech of the time. The proof is so overwhelming and extensive that it cannot be given here. Some words have not yet been found in the non-Biblical koine, but they may be any day. Some few words, of course, belong to the very nature of Christianity christianos, for instance), but apostolos, baptismos, paroikos, sunagoge, and hundreds of others can no longer be listed as "Biblical." New meanings come to old words also. Compare daimonion. It is interesting to note that the New Testament shows many of the words found in Aristophanes, who caught up the vernacular of his day. The koine uses more words from the lower strata of society. Aristotle likewise has many words common in the koine, since he stands at the parting of the ways between the old dialects and the new koine of Alexander's conquests. The koine develops a fondness for compound and even double compound (sesquipedalian) words; compare, for instance, anekdiegetos; aneklaletos; anexereunetos; antapokrinomai; oikodespotes; oligopsuchos; prosanapleroo; sunantilambanomai; huperentugchano; chrusodaktulios, etc. The use of diminutives is also noteworthy in the koine as in the modern Greek: compare thugatrion; klinarion; korasion; kunarion; onarion; opsarion; ploiarion; otion, etc. The formation of words by juxtaposition is very common as in plerophoreo, cheiro-graphon. In phonetics it is to be noticed that "ei", "oi", "ee", "eei", "u", "i" all had the value of "ee" in "feet." This itacism was apparent in the early koine. So ai = e and o and oo were not sharply distinguished. The Attic tt became ss, except in a few instances, like elatto, kreitton. The tendency toward de-aspiration (compare Ionic) was manifest; compare eph' helpidi, for the reverse process. Elision is less frequent than in Attic, but assimilation is carried farther. The variable final consonants "n" (nu) and "s" (sigma) are used generally before consonants. We find "-ei-" for "-iei-" as in pein. outheis, and metheis, are common till 100 BC, when they gradually disappear before oudeis, and medeis. In general there is less sense of rhythm and more simplicity and clearness. Some of the subtle refinements of form and syntax of the classic did not survive in the koine vernacular. In accidence only a few points may be noted. In substantives the Ionic "-res" is frequent. The Attic second declension vanishes. In the third declension forms like nuktan, show assimilation to the first. Both charin, and charita, occur. Contraction is sometimes absent (compare Ionic) as in oreon. Adjectives show forms like asphalen, and indeclinable pleres, appears, and pan, for panta (compare megan), dusi, for duoin. The dual is gone. Even the dual pronouns hekateros, and poteros, are rare. tis, is occasionally used like hostis. hos ean, is more frequent than hos an, in the 1st century AD. The two conjugations blend more and more into one, as the -mi forms vanish. There is some confusion in the use of -ao and -eo verbs, and new presents occur like apoktenno, optano, steko. The forms ginomai, ginosko, are the rule now. There is much increase in aorists like escha, and imperfects like eicha. The form -osan (eichosan, eschosan) occasionally appears. Quite frequent is a perfect like dedokan, and the augment is often absent in the plu-perfect as in dedokei. Per contra, a double augment occurs in apekateste, and a treble augment in eneochthesan. The temporal augment is often absent with diphthong as in oikodomethe. The koine Greek has -tosan, not -nton. In syntax the tendency is toward simplicity, to short sentences, the paratactic construction, and the sparing use of particles. The vernacular koine avoids both the bombast of Asianism and the artificiality of Atticism. There is, indeed, more freedom in violating the rules of concord as to gender, number, and case. The nominativus pendens is common. The comparative does duty often for the superlative adjective, and the superlative generally has the elative sense. The accusative is increasingly common with verbs. The line between transitive and intransitive verbs is not a hard-and-fast one. The growth in the use of prepositions both with nouns and in composition is quite noticeable, but some of the older prepositions, like amphi, are vanishing. The cases used with various prepositions are changing. The instrumental use of en, is very common. Many new adverbial and prepositional phrases have developed. The optative is nearly dead and the infinitive (apart from the use of tou, en to, eis ~to, with the infinitive) is decaying before hina. The future participle is rare. me, begins to encroach on ou, with infinitives and participles. The periphrastic conjugation is specially common. The direct discourse is more frequent than the indirect. The non-final use of hina, is quite noticeable. There are, besides, dialectical and provincial peculiarities, but these do not destroy the real unity of the vernacular koine any more than do individual traits of separate writers.
II. Literary Elements in the New Testament. Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 245) is disposed to deny any literary quality to the New Testament books save the Epistle to the Hebrews. "The Epistle to the Hebrews shows us Christianity preparing for a flight from its native levels into the higher region of culture, and we are conscious of the beginnings of a Christian world-literature." He speaks of it also as "a work which seems to hang in the background like an intruder among the New Testament company of popular books." One feels that this is an extreme position and cannot be justified by the facts. It is true that Peter and John were agrammatoi kai idiotai (Acts 4:13), and not men of the schools, but this was certainly not the case with Luke and Paul who were men of literary culture in the truest sense. Luke and Paul were not Atticists, but that artificial idiom did not represent the best type of culture. Deissmann admits that the New Testament has become literature, but, outside of He, he denies any literary quality in its composition. Paul, for instance, wrote only "letters," not "epistles." But Romans and Ephesians confront us. See Milligan, Greek Papyri, xxxi, for a protest against the sweeping statement of Deissmann on this point. One need not go to the extreme of Blass, "Die rhythmische Komposition des Hebr. Brides," Theol. Studien und Kritik, 1902, 420-61; Die Rythmen der asiatischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905, to find in Hebrews and Paul's writings illustrations of the artificial rules of the Asianists. There is undoubtedly rhythm in Paul's eloquent passages (compare 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; 1 Corinthians 15:1-58), but it is the natural poetic quality of a soul aflame with high passions, not conformity to rules of rhetoric. To deny literary quality to Luke and Paul is to give a narrow meaning to the word "literary" and to be the victim of a theory. Christianity did make use of the vernacular koine, the wonderful world-speech so providentially at hand. But the personal equation figured here as always. Men of culture differ in their conversation from illiterate men and more nearly approximate literary style. It is just in Luke, Paul, and the author of He that we discover the literary flavor of men of ability and of culture, though free from artificiality and pedantry. The eloquence of He is that of passion, not of the art of Asianism. Indeed, the Gospels all show literary skill in the use of material and in beauty of language. The Gospel of John has the rare elevation and dignity of the highest type of mind. There is no Atticistic tendency in the New Testament as in Josephus, Ant. There is no posing for the present or for posterity. It is the language of life, the vernacular in the main, but rising at times from the very force of passion to high plateaus of emotion and imagination and poetic grace from the pens of men of real ability, and in some instances of high culture.
III. The Semitic Influence. It is no longer possible to explain every variation in the New Testament from the classic Attic by the term Hebraism. That easy solution has disappeared. Sooth to say, when the true character of the vernacular koine is understood, there is not very much left to explain. The New Testament Greek as a rule is just normal koine. Milligan (Greek Papyri, xxx) admits on the part of Moulton "an overtendency to minimize" the "presence of undoubted Hebraisms, both in language and grammar." That is true, and is due to his strong reaction against the old theory of so many Hebraisms. The Semiticisms (Hebraisms and Aramaisms) are very natural results of the fact that the vernacular koine was used by Jews who read the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint translation, and who also spoke Aramaic as their native tongue. The Septuagint, as translation of Greek, directly from the Hebrew (or Aramaic), has a much greater number of these Semiticisms. See Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1900), for the salient facts. Thackeray in his Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909) shows "the koine--the basis of Septuagint Greek" in section 3, and in section 4 discusses "the Semitic element in Septuagint Greek." The matter varies in different parts of the Septuagint, but in all parts the Semitic influence goes far beyond what it is in the New Testament. In the New Testament we have free composition in Greek, except in certain portions of the Gospels and Acts where Aramaic originals (oral or written) lie beyond the Greek text. So in particular Luke 1:1-80, the words of Jesus in Luke 2:1-52, and the opening chapters of Acts. See Dalman, Words of Jesus (1902), and J.T. Marshall, "The Aramaic Gospel," The Expositor, Ser. IV volumes II-VIII; see also ARAMAIC supra. There is, to some extent, translation-Gr, as in the Septuagint. The quotations from the Old Testament are either from the Hebrew original, or, as most frequently, from the Septuagint. In either case we have translation-Greek again. These two classes cover the more obvious Semiticisms if we add Hebrew names (persons and places) and other transliterations like abbadon, allelouia. The Greek of the Septuagint does not, of course, give a true picture of the Greek spoken by the Jews in Alexandria or in Palestine. But the constant reading of the Septuagint was bound to leave its impress on the style of the people (compare the King James Version and the English language). The surprise, in fact, is not the number of Semiticisms, but, all things considered, the fewness of them. Luke, just because he was a Gentile and so noted the Hebraisms in the Septuagint, shows rather more of them than the other New Testament writers: compare prosetheto triton pempsai (Luke 20:12). Some of the points of style so common in the Septuagint find occasional parallel in the papyri or inscriptions, like blepon blepo, chara chairo, ov .... hon .... auton. Others are more obviously imitations of the Hebrew style, as in areskein enopion tinos, rather than areskein tini. But there is a certain dignity and elevation of style so characteristic of the Hebrew Old Testament that reappears in the New Testament. The frequent use of kai, in parts of the New Testament reminds one of the Septuagint and the Hebrew waw ("w"). There is, besides, an indefinable tone in the New Testament that is found in the Old Testament. Swete (Apocalypse of John, cxx) laments the tendency to depreciate unduly the presence of Hebraisms in the New Testament. The pendulum may have swung too far away from the truth. It will strike the level, but we shall never again be able to fill our grammars and commentaries with explanations of so many peculiar Hebraisms in the New Testament. On the whole the Greek New Testament is standard vernacular koine.
IV. Individual Peculiarities of the New Testament Writers.
There is not space for an extended discussion of this topic. The fact itself calls for emphasis, for there is a wide range in style between Mark's Gospel and Hebrews, 1 Peter and Romans, Luke's Gospel and the Apocalypse. There are no Atticists found in the New Testament (compare 4macc in the Septuagint and Jos), but there are the less literary writings (Matthew, Mark, the Johannine books, the other catholic epistles) and the more literary writings (Luke's writings, Paul's Epistles, and Hebrews). But even so, no hard-and-fast line can be drawn. Moulton, Cambridge Biblical Essays, 484, thinks 2 Peter more like the Atticistic writings, "though certainly the Atticists would have scorned to own a book so full of `solecisms.'" Moulton assumes that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic, and does not credit the notion that the crude "Babu" Greek, to use Abbott's term, may be Peter's own uncorrected style (compare Acts 4:13), while 1 Peter may have the smoothing effect of Silvanus' hand (compare 1 Peter 5:12). A similar explanation is open concerning the grammatical lapses of the Apocalypse, since John is also called agrammatos, in Acts 4:13, whereas the Gospel of John may have had the revision of the elders of Ephesus (compare John 21:24). But whatever the explanation, there is no doubt of the wide divergences style between different books and groups of books in the New Testament list. The Lukan, Johannine, Petrine, Pauline groups stand apart, but with cleavages within each group. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, 1909; The Date of the Acts of the Apostles, 1911) has accepted and strengthened the contention of Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, 2nd edition, 1909) and of Hobart (Medical Language of Luke, 1882) that the medical terms in the Gospel of Luke and of Acts show that the books were written by the same writer and that a physician, and so Luke. The diversities in style here and there are chiefly due to the sources of information used. Even in the Pauline books, which form so well-marked a collection, striking diversities of language and style appear. But these letters cover a period of some 15 years of intense activity and mental and spiritual development, and treat a great variety of topics. They properly reflect the changing phases of Paul's preaching of the cross of Christ in different places and under varying circumstances and confronting ever fresh problems. The plays of Shakespeare offer a useful parallel. Even in Paul's old age, in the Pastoral Epistles the stamp of Paul's spirit is admitted by those who admit only Pauline fragments; compare J. Weiss, Beitrage zur Paulinschen Rhetorik (1897). The style is indeed the man, but style is also the function of the subject, and style varies with different periods of a man's life. E.A. Abbott has made an excellent discussion of the Johannine Vocabulary (1905) and of Johannine Grammar (1906), but special grammars of each writer are hardly to be expected or desired. But Nageli has begun a study of Paul's vocabulary in his Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (1905). The Gospel of Matthew shows very little of that Hebraism that one would expect from the general purpose and tone of the book. It is possible, of course, that the supposed original was in Aramaic, or, if in Greek, of a more Hebraistic type. Whether the present Greek of Matthew made use of Mark's Gospel and a collection of Logia (Q), we do not know. Certainly Mark's Gospel is written in colloquial koine with little evidence of the culture of the schools. Mark is a faithful reporter and does his work with rare simplicity and vividness. He reveals clearly the Aramaic background of Christ's teaching. The writings of James and Jude do not show that only Greek was spoken in the home at Nazareth, nor that they used only Aramaic. These two epistles are evidently free compositions in Greek with much of the freshness of imagery so manifest in the parables of Jesus Himself. This brief sketch does not do justice to the richness and variety of language in the books of the New Testament.
V. The "Koine" Spoken by Jesus. See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE for proof that Jesus spoke that language as the vernacular of the people of Palestine. But Christ spoke the koine also, so that the New Testament is not an idiom that was unknown to the Master. Gwilliam (1-vol HDB, "Language of Christ") does still deny that Jesus spoke Greek, while Roberts takes the other extreme in his book, Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles (1888). Per contra again, Julicher considers it impossible to suppose that Jesus used Greek (art. "Hellenism" in EB). J. E. H. Thomson, "The Language of Palestine during the Time of our Lord" (Temple, Bible Dictionary) argues convincingly that Palestine was bi-lingual and that Jesus knew and spoke Greek as well as Aramaic Peter evidently spoke in Greek on the Day of Pentecost and was understood by all. Paul was understood in Jerusalem when he spoke in Greek (Acts 21:37). Jesus taught in Decapolis, a Greek region, in the region of Tyre and Sidon (Greek again). Galilee itself was largely inhabited by Gentiles who spoke Greek. At the time of the Sermon on the Mount, we read that people were present from Decapolis and Perea, besides the mixed multitude from Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem (Matthew 4:25; Luke 6:17). Thomson proves also that in Matthew's Gospel the quotation from the Old Testament in the words of Jesus is from the Septuagint, while Matthew's own quotations are from the Hebrew. The case seems clear. It is not possible to say always when Jesus spoke Greek and when Aramaic. That would depend on the audience. But it is practically certain that Christ Himself knew and spoke at will the vernacular koine, and thus had this linguistic bond with the great world of that era and with lovers of the Greek Testament today.
LITERATURE.
The literature on this subject is very extensive. The most important volumes have been mentioned in the discussion above.
A.T. Robertson
Languages of the Old Testament
Languages of the Old Testament - lan'-gwaj-es
I. THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES
1. Members of Semitic Family
2. The Name Hebrew
3. Old Hebrew Literature
II. HISTORY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE
1. Oldest Form of Language
2. The Hebrew of the Old Testament
3. Its Uniformity
4. The Cause Thereof
5. Differences Due to Age
6. Differences of Style
7. Foreign Influences
8. Poetry and Prose
9. Home of the Hebrew Language
10. Its Antiquity
11. When Hebrew Became a Dead Language
III. CHIEF CHARACTERISTICS OF HEBREW
1. Characteristic Sounds
2. Letters Representing Two Sounds
3. Consonants Representing Vowels
4. The Syllable
5. Three-Letter Roots
6. Conjugations or Derived Stems
7. Absence of Tenses
8. The Pronouns
9. Formation of Nouns
10. Internal Inflexion
11. Syntax of the Verb
12. Syntax of the Noun
13. Poverty of Adjectives
IV. BIBLICAL ARAMAIC
1. Aramaic Portions of the Old Testament
2. Phonology
3. Grammar
4. Syntax
5. Aramaic More Decadent than Hebrew
V. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEMITES
1. Concrete and Abstract
2. View of Nature
3. Pictorial Imagination
4. Prose and Poetry
5. Hebrew Easy of Translation
LITERATURE
There were only two languages employed in the archetypes of the Old Testament books (apart from an Egyptian or Persian or Greek word here and there), namely, Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, both of which belong to the great family of languages known as Semitic.
I. The Semitic Languages. The languages spoken in Southwestern Asia during the historical period dealt with in the Bible have been named Shemitic, after the son of Noah from whom the majority of peoples speaking these languages--Arabs, Hebrews, Arameans and Assyrians (Genesis 10:21 ff)--were descended. To show, however, that the description does not fit exactly the thing described--the Elamites and Lydians having probably not spoken a Shemitic language, and the Canaanites, including Phoenicians, with the colonists descended from those at Carthage and elsewhere in the Mediterranean coast lands, as well as the Abyssinians (Ethiopians), who did, being reckoned descendants of Ham (Genesis 9:18; 10:6 ff)--the word is now generally written "Semitic," a term introduced by Eichhorn (1787). These languages were spoken from the Caspian Sea to the South of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean to the valley of the Tigris.
1. Members of Semitic Family: The following list shows the chief members of this family:
(1) South Semitic or Arabic: Including the language of the Sabean (Himyaritic) inscriptions, as well as Ge'ez or Ethiopic. Arabic is now spoken from the Caucasus to Zanzibar, and from the East Indies to the Atlantic.
(2) Middle Semitic or Canaanitish: Including Hebrew, old and new, Phoenician, with Punic, and Moabite (language of MS).
(3) North Semitic or Aramaic: Including (a) East Aramaic or Syrian (language of Syrian Christians), language of Babylonian Talmud, Mandean; (b) West or Palestinian Aramaic of the Targums, Palestinian Talmud (Gemara), Biblical Aramaic ("Chaldee"), Samaritan, language of Nabatean inscriptions.
(4) East Semitic: Language of Assyria-Babylonian inscriptions.
2. The Name Hebrew: With the exception of a few chapters and fragments mentioned below, the Old Testament is written entirely in Hebrew. In the Old Testament itself this language is called "the Jews' " (2 Kings 18:26, 28). In Isaiah 19:18 it is called poetically, what in fact it was, "the language (Hebrew "lip") of Canaan." In the appendix to the Septuagint of Job it is called Syriac; and in the introduction to Ecclesiasticus it is for the first time--that is, in 130 BC--named Hebrew. The term Hebrew in the New Testament denotes the language of the Old Testament in Revelation 9:11, but in John 5:2; 13, 17 this term means the vernacular Aramaic. In other passages it is doubtful which is meant. Josephus uses the same name for both. From the time of the Targums, Hebrew is called "the sacred tongue" in contrast to the Aramaic of everyday use. The language of the Old Testament is called Old Hebrew in contrast to the New Hebrew of the Mishna, the rabbinic, the Spanish poetry, etc.
3. Old Hebrew Literature: Of Old Hebrew the remains are contained almost entirely in the Old Testament. A few inscriptions have been recovered, i.e., the Siloam Inscriptions, a Hebrew calendar, a large number of ostraka from Samaria, a score of pre-exilic seals, and coins of the Maccabees and of the time of Vespasian and Hadrian.
LITERATURE.
E. Renan, Histoire generale et systeme compare des langues semitiques; F. Hommel, Die semit. Volker u. Sprachen; the comparative grammars of Wright and Brockelmann; CIS; article "Semitic Languages" in Encyclopedia Brit, and Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
II. History of the Hebrew Language. Hebrew as it appears to us in the Old Testament is in a state of decadence corresponding to the present position of spoken Arabic. In the earliest period it no doubt resembled the classical Arabic of the 7th and following centuries. The variations found between the various strata of the language occurring in the Old Testament are slight compared with the difference between modern and ancient Arabic.
1. Oldest Form of Language: Hebrew was no doubt originally a highly inflected language, like classical Arabic. The noun had three cases, nominative, genitive, and accusative, ending in -um', [~-im, -am, respectively, as in the Sabean inscriptions. Both verbs and nouns had three numbers (singular, dual and plural) and two genders, masculine and feminine In the noun the dual and plural had two cases. The dual and 2nd and 3rd person plural and 2nd person singular feminine of the imperfect of the verb ended in nun. In certain positions the "m" of the endings -um, -im, -am in the noun was dropped. The verb had three moods, indicative, subjunctive, and jussive, ending in -u, -a, and -, respectively; as well as many forms or stems, each of which had an active and passive voice.
2. The Hebrew of the Old Testament: In the Hebrew of the Old Testament most of these inflexions have disappeared. Of the three cases of the noun only the accusative -am has survived in a few adverbial forms, such as 'omnam, "truly." The dual has entirely disappeared from the verb, and also from the noun, with the exception of things that occur in pairs, such as hand, eye, which have no plural. The nom. case of the dual and plural of the noun has disappeared, and the oblique case is used for both. Except in cases of poetic archaism the final nun of the verb has been lost, and, as the final vowels have fallen away in verbs, as well as in nouns, the result is that the jussive forms serve for indicative and subjunctive also. Many of the forms or stems have fallen into desuetude, and the passive forms of two alone are used.
3. Its Uniformity: One of the most remarkable facts connected with the Hebrew of the Old Testament is that although that literature extends through a period of over 1,000 years, there is almost no difference between the language of the oldest parts and that of the latest. This phenomenon is susceptible of several explanations. In the first place, nearly the whole of the Old Testament literature is religious in character, and as such the earliest writings would become the model for the later, just as the Koran--the first prose work composed in Arabic which has survived--has become the pattern for all future compositions. The same was true for many centuries of the influence of Aristophanes and Euripides upon the language of educated Greeks, and, it is said, of the influence of Confucius upon that of the learned Chinese.
4. The Cause Thereof: But a chief cause is probably the fact that the Semitic languages do not vary with time, but with place. The Arabic vocabulary used in Morocco differs from that of Egypt, but the Arabic words used in each of these countries have remained the same for centuries--in fact, since Arabic began to be spoken in them. Similarly, the slight differences which are found in the various parts of the Old Testament are to be ascribed, not to a difference of date, but to the fact that some writers belonged to the Southern Kingdom, some to the Northern, some wrote in Palestine, some in Babylonia (compare Nehemiah 13:23-24; Judges 12:6; 18:3).
5. Differences Due to Age: The Old Testament literature falls into two main periods: that composed before and during the Babylonian exile, and that which falls after the exile. But even between these two periods the differences of language are comparatively slight, so that it is often difficult or impossible to say on linguistic grounds alone whether a particular chapter is pre-exilic or post-exilic, and scholars of the first rank often hold the most contrary opinions on these points. For instance, Dillmann places the so-called Document P (Priestly Code) before Document D (Deuteronomic Code) in the regal period, whereas most critics date D about 621 and P about 444 BC.
6. Differences of Style: It is needless to add that the various writers differ from one another in point of style, but these variations are infinitesimal compared with those of Greek and Latin authors, and are due, as has been said above, largely to locality and environment. Thus the style of Hosea is quite different from that of his contemporary Amos, and that of Deutero-Isaiah shows very distinctly the mark of its place of composition.
7. Foreign Influences: A much more potent factor in modifying the language was the influence of foreign languages upon Hebrew, especially in respect to vocabulary. The earliest of these was probably Egyptian but of much greater importance was Assyrian, from which Hebrew gained a large number of loan words. It is well known that the Babylonian script was used for commercial purposes throughout Southwestern Asia, even before the Hebrews entered Canaan (see TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT), but the influence of Babylon upon Palestine seems to have been greatly exaggerated. The main point of contact is in the mythology, which may have been common to both peoples. In the later, especially post-exilic stages of the language, many Aramaisms are found in respect to syntax as well as vocabulary; and in later phases still, Persian and even Greek words are found.
8. Poetry and Prose: As in other languages, so in Hebrew, the vocabulary of the poetical literature differs from that of the prose writers. In Hebrew, however, there is not the hard-and-fast distinction between these two which obtains in the classics. Whenever prose becomes elevated by the importation of feeling, it falls into a natural rhythm which in Hebrew constitutes poetry. Thus most of the so-called prophetical books are poetical in form. Another mark of poetry is a return to archaic grammatical forms, especially the restoration of the final nun in the verb.
9. Home of the Hebrew Language: The form of Semitic which was indigenous in the land of Canaan is sometimes called Middle Semitic. Before the Israelites entered the country, it was the language of the Canaanites from whom the Hebrews took it over. That Hebrew was not the language of Abraham before his migration appears from the fact that he is called an Aramean (Deuteronomy 26:5), and that Laban's native language was Aramaic (Genesis 31:47). A further point is that the word "Sea" is used for the West and "Negeb" for the South, indicating Palestine as the home of the language (so Isaiah 19:18).
10. Its Antiquity: As the aboriginal inhabitants of the land of Canaan were not Semites, we cannot infer the existence of the Hebrew language any earlier than the first immigrations of Semites into Palestine, that is, during the third millennium BC. It would thus be a much younger member of the Semitic family than Assyrian-Babylonian, which exhibits all the marks of great antiquity long before the Hebrew language is met with.
11. When Hebrew Became a Dead Language: The Babylonian exile sounded the death-knell of the Hebrew language. The educated classes were deported to Babylon or fled to Egypt, and those who remained were not slow to adopt the language used by their conquerors. The old Hebrew became a literary and sacred tongue, the language of everyday life being probably Aramaic. Whatever may be the exact meaning of Nehemiah 8:8, it proves that the people of that time had extreme difficulty in understanding classical Hebrew when it was read to them. Yet for the purpose of religion, the old language continued to be employed for several centuries. For patriotic reasons it was used by the Maccabees, and by Bar Cochba (135 AD).
LITERATURE.
Gesenius, Geschichte der hebr. Sprache und Schrift; Bertheau, "Hebr. Sprache" in RE, 2nd edition; see also "Literature" in the following section.
III. Chief Characteristics of Hebrew. The special marks which particularly distinguish a language may be found in its alphabet, in its mode of inflection, or in its syntax.
1. Characteristic Sounds: The Hebrew alphabet is characterized by the large number of guttural sounds which it contains, and these are not mere palatals like the Scotch or German chapter, but true throat sounds, such as are not found in the Aryan languages. Hence, when the Phoenician alphabet passed over into Greece, these unpronounceable sounds, " ` " (`ayin), "ch" (cheth), "h" (he), " ' " ('aleph) were changed into vowels, A, E, H, O. In Hebrew the guttural letters predominate. "In the Hebrew dictionaries the four gutturals occupy considerably more than a fourth part of the volume; the remaining eighteen letters occupying considerably less than three-fourths." Besides the guttural, there are three strong consonants "m" (mem), "q" (qoph), and "ts" (tsade), which are sounded with compression of the larynx, and are quite different from our "t," "k" and "s." In Greek, the first was softened into a "th" (theta), the other two were dropped as letters but retained as numerals.
2. Letters Representing Two Sounds: Though the Hebrew alphabet comprises no more than 22 letters, these represent some 30 different sounds, for the 6 letters b, g, d, k, p and t, when they fall immediately after a vowel, are pronounced bh(v), gh, dh, kh, ph (f) and th. Moreover, the gutturals "ch" (cheth) and " ` " (`ayin) each represent two distinct sounds, which are still in use in Arabic. The letter "h" is sometimes sounded at the end of a word as at the beginning.
3. Consonants Representing Vowels: A peculiarity of the Hebrew alphabet is that the letters are all consonants. Four of these, however, were very early used to represent vowel and diphthong sounds, namely, " ' ", "h", "w" and "y". So long as Hebrew was a spoken language no other symbols than these 22 letters were used. It was not until the 7th century AD at the earliest that the well-known elaborate system of signs to represent the vowels and other sounds was invented (see TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT).
4. The Syllable: A feature of the Hebrew language is that no word or syllable may begin with a vowel: every syllable begins with a consonant. This is also true of the other Semitic languages, except Assyrian-Babylonian. When in the course of word-formation a syllable would begin with a vowel, the slight consonant ' ('aleph) is prefixed. Moreover, more than two consonants may not stand without vowels intervening, as in the English word "strength." At most, two consonants may begin a syllable, and even so a slight vowel is sounded between them, as qero'. A word may end in two consonants without vowels, as 'amart, but no word or syllable ends in more than two.
5. Three-Letter Roots: The outstanding feature of the Semitic family of languages is the root, consisting of three consonants. Practically, the triliteral root is universal. There are a few roots with more than three letters, but many of the quadriliteral roots are formed by reduplication, as kabkab in Arabic. Many attempts have been made to reduce three-letter stems to two-letter by taking the factors common to several roots of identical meaning. Thus duwm, damah, damam, "to be still," seem all to come from a root d-m. It is more probable, however, that the root is always triliteral, but may appear in various forms.
6. Conjugations or Derived Stems: From these triliteral roots all parts of the verbs are formed. The root, which, it ought to be stated, is not the infinitive, but the 3rd singular masculine perfect active, expresses the simple idea without qualification, as shabhar, "he broke." The idea of intensity is obtained by doubling the middle stem letter, as shibber, "he broke in fragments"; the passive is expressed by the u-vowel in the first place and the a-vowel in the last, as shubbar, "it was broken in fragments." The reflexive sense prefixes an "n" to the simple root, or a "t" (taw) to the intensive, but the former of these is often used as a passive, as nishbar, "it was broken," hithqaddesh, "he sanctified himself." The causative meaning is given by prefixing the letter "h", as malakh, "he was king," himlikh, "he caused (one) to be king." A somewhat similar method of verb building is found outside the Semitic language, for example, in Turkish. In some of these Semitic languages the number of formations is very numerous. In Hebrew also there are traces of stems other than those generally in use.
7. Absence of Tenses: There are no tenses in Hebrew, in our sense of the word. There are two states, usually called tenses, the perfect and the imperfect. In the first the action is regarded as accomplished, whether in the past or future, as shabhar, "he broke," "he has broken," "he will have broken," or (in prophetic narrative) "he will break"; in the second, the action is regarded as uncompleted, "he will break," "he was breaking," "he is breaking," etc. The present is often expressed by the participle.
8. The Pronouns: The different persons, singular and plural, are expressed by affixing to the perfect, and by prefixing to the imperfect, fragments of the personal pronouns, as shabharti, "I broke," shabharnu, "we broke," nishbor, "we will break," and so on. The fragments which are added to the perfect to express the nominative of the pronouns are, with some modification, especially the change of "t" into "k", added to the verb to express the accusative, and to the noun to express the genitive; for example, shabharta, "you broke," shebharekha, "he broke you," bethekha, "your house"; capharnu, "we counted," cepharanu, "he counted us," ciphrenu, "our book."
9. Formation of Nouns: The same principles are followed in regard to the noun as to the verb. Many nouns consist solely of the three stem-letters articulated with one or with two vowels, except that monosyllables generally become dissyllabic, owing to the difficulty of pronouncing two vowelless consonants together: thus, melekh, "king," cepher, "book," goren, "threshingfloor" (instead of malk, ciphr, gorn), dabhar, "a word or thing," qarobh, "near." Nouns denoting place, instrument, etc., are often formed by prefixing the letter "m" to the root, as mishpat, "justice" from shaphat, "he judged," mazlegh, "a fork." Intensity is, given to the root idea, as in the verb, by doubling the middle consonant: thus, choresh "working," charash (for charrash), "workman"; gonebh, "stealing," gannabh, "a thief." Similarly, words denoting incurable physical defects, 'illem, "dumb," `iwwer, "blind," cheresh (for chirresh), "deaf and dumb." The feminine of nouns, as of the 3rd person of verbs, is formed by adding the letter "t", which when final is softened to "h", gebhirah, "queen-mother," "mistress," but gebhirtekh, "your mistress."
10. Internal Inflexion: The inflexion of both verbs and nouns is accompanied by a constant lengthening or shortening of the vowels of the word, and this according to two opposite lines. In verbs with vowel-affixes the penultimate vowel disappears, as halakh, "he went," halekhu, "they went"; in the noun the ante-penultimate vowel disappears, as dabhar, "a word," plural debharim. As the vowel system, as stated above, is very late, the vocalization cannot be accepted as that of the living tongue. It represents rather the cantillation of the synagogue; and for this purpose, accents, which had a musical as well as an interpunctional value, have been added.
11. Syntax of the Verb: Hebrew syntax is remarkable for its simplicity. Simple sentences predominate and are usually connected by the conjunction "and." Subordinate sentences are comparatively rare, but descriptive and temporal clauses are not uncommon. In the main narrative, the predicates are placed at the beginning of the sentence, first simply in the root form (3rd singular masculine), and then only when the subject has been mentioned does the predicate agree with it. Descriptive and temporal clauses may be recognized by their having the subject at the beginning (e.g. Genesis 1:2). A curious turn is given to the narrative by the fact that in the main sentences, if the first verb is perfect, those which follow are imperfect, and vice versa, the conjunction which coordinates them receiving a peculiar vocalization--that of the definite article. In the English Bible, descriptive and temporal clauses are often rendered as if they were parts of the main sentence, for example, in the first verses of Genesis of which the literal translation is somewhat as follows: "At the beginning of God's creating heaven and earth, when the earth was without form and void, and God's spirit (or, a great wind) moved upon the face of the water, God said, Let there be light." It will thus be seen that the structure of Hebrew narrative is not so simple as it appears.
12. Syntax of the Noun: In the Semitic languages, compound words do not occur, but this deficiency is made up by what is called the construct state. The old rule, that the second of two nouns which depend on one another is put in the genitive, becomes, in Hebrew, the first of two such nouns is put in the construct state. The noun in the construct state loses the definite article, and all its vowels are made as short as possible, just as if it were the beginning of a long word: for example, ha-bayith, "the house," but beth ha-melekh, "the house of the king," "the palace"; dabhar, "a word," but dibhere ruach, "words of wind," "windy words."
13. Poverty of Adjectives: The Hebrew language is very poor in adjectives, but this is made up for by a special use of the construct state just mentioned. Thus to express magnitude the word "God" is added in the gen. case, as in the example above (Genesis 1:2), "a mighty wind" = a wind of God; Psalms 36:6, "the lofty mountains" = the mountains of God (so Psalms 68:15); Psalms 80:10, "goodly cedars" = cedars of God; so "a holy man" = a man of God; "the sacred box" = the ark of God, and so on; compare in the New Testament, Matthew 27:54, "the son of God" = Luke 23:47, "a righteous (man)." Matthew was thinking in Aramaic, Luke in Greek. A similar use is made of other words, e.g. "stubborn" = hard of neck; "impudent" = hard of face; "extensive" = broad of hands; "miserable" = bitter of soul.
LITERATURE.
The articles on the Hebrew Language in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, 1875, by Noldeke; in Encyclopedia Brit, 9th edition, by Robertson Smith; 11th edition by Noldeke; in the Imperial Bible Dict., 1866, by T. H. Weir; also those in HDB, EB.
Grammars:
A. B. Davidson's Elementary Heb Grammar and Syntax; Gesenius, Heb Grammar, English translation by Cowley, 2nd edition.
Dictionaries:
Brown, Briggs and Driver, Hebrew and English Lexicon; Gesenius, Handworterbuch, 15th edition; Feyerabend, Hebrew-English Pocket Dictionary; Breslau, English and Hebrew Dictionary.
IV. Biblical Aramaic. 1. Aramaic Portions of the Old Testament: The Aramaic portions of the Old Testament are the following: Ezra 4:8 through Ezra 6:18; Ezra 7:11-26; Daniel 2:4 through Daniel 7:28; Genesis 31:47 (two words); Jeremiah 10:11. The language in which they are written used to be called Chaldee, but is now generally known simply as Biblical Aramaic. It represents a further declension from classical Semitic as compared with the Hebrew. The following are the principal points in which Biblical Aramaic differs from Hebrew.
2. Phonology: The accent is placed on the last syllable, the first vowel disappearing, e.g. `abhadh for Hebrew `abhadh. It is curious that the same feature is found in Algerene and Moroccan Arabic: thus qacr becomes qcar. Dentals take the place of sibilants: dehabh for zahabh; telath for shalosh. The strong Hebrew "ts" (tsade) frequently becomes " ` " (`ayin), and Hebrew " ` " (`ayin) becomes " ' " ('aleph): thus, 'ar`a' for 'erets; `uq for tsuq.
3. Grammar: In Hebrew the definite article is the prefix hal (ha-); in Aramaic the affix a'; the latter, however, has almost lost its force. The dual is even more sparingly used than in Hebrew. The passive forms of verbs and those beginning with nun ("n") are practically wanting; the passive or reflexive forms are made by prefixing the letter "t" to the corresponding active forms, and that much more regularly than in Hebrew, there being three active and three passive forms.
4. Syntax: In regard to syntax there is to be noted the frequent use of the participle instead of a finite verb, as in Hebrew; the disuse of the conjunction "and" with the vocalization of the article; and the disuse of the construct state in nouns, instead of which a circumlocution with the relative di is employed, e.g. tselem di dhehabh, "an image of gold." The same periphrasis is found also in West African Arabic.
5. Aramaic More Decadent than Hebrew: It will thus be seen that if Hebrew represents a decadent form of an original classical language which was very similar to classical Arabic, Biblical Arabic stands on a still lower level. It is not to be supposed that Hebrew passed into Aramaic, though on the analogy of Arabic that view is not untenable. Rather, the different Semitic languages became fixed at different epochs. Arabic as a literary language crystallized almost at the source; Hebrew and the spoken Arabic of the East far down the stream; and Aramaic and Moroccan Arabic farthest down of all.
LITERATURE.
Kautzsch, Grammatik; Strack, Abriss des bibl. Aramaisch; Marti, Bibl. aram. Sprache; the articles on "Aramaic" or "Chaldee" in the Biblical Dicts. cited under III, and article ARAMAIC LANGUAGE in this Encyclopedia; the Hebrew text of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, edition by Baer. Hebrew Dictionaries. generally include Biblical Aramaic.
V. Literary Characteristics of the Semites. 1. Concrete and Abstract: The thinking of the Hebrews, like that of other Semites, was done, not in the abstract, but in the concrete. Thus, we find the material put for the immaterial, the expression for the thought, the instrument for the action, the action for the feeling. This mode of expression frequently gives rise to striking anthropomorphisms. Thus we have the eye for watchfulness or care (Psalms 33:18); the long hand for far-reaching powers (Isaiah 59:1); broken teeth for defeated malice (Psalms 3:7); the sword for slaughter (Psalms 78:62); haughty eyes for superciliousness (Proverbs 6:17); to say in the heart for to think (Psalms 10:6). It would be an interesting study to examine to what extent these expressions have been taken over from Hebrew into English.
2. View of Nature: The Hebrew does not know the distinction between animate and inanimate Nature. All Nature is animate (Psalms 104:29). The little hills rejoice (Psalms 65:12); the mountains skip (Psalms 114:4); the trees clap their hands (Isaiah 55:12); even the stones may cry out (Luke 19:40). Such expressions are not to be taken as mere poetical figures of speech; they are meant quite literally. All Nature is one: man is merely a part of Nature (Psalms 104:23), even if he be the highest part (Psalms 8:5). Hence, perhaps, it arises that there is no neuter gender in the Semitic languages.
3. Pictorial Imagination: The highly imaginative nature of the Hebrew comes into play when he is recounting past events or writing history. To his mind's eye all past events are present. He sees history taking place before his eyes as in a picture. Thus the perfect may generally be translated by the English past tense with "have," the imperfect by the English present tense with "is" or "is going to." In livelier style the participle is used: "They are entering the city, and behold Samuel is coming out to meet them" (1 Samuel 9:14). Hence, the oratio recta is always used in preference to the oratio obliqua. Moreover, the historian writes exactly as the professional story-teller narrates. Hence, he is always repeating himself and returning upon his own words (1 Samuel 5:1-2).
4. Prose and Poetry: A result of the above facts is that there is no hard-and-fast distinction in Hebrew between prose and poetry. Neither is there in Hebrew, or in the Semitic language generally, epic or dramatic poetry, because their prose possesses these qualities in a greater degree than does the poetry of other races. All Hebrew poetry is lyric or didactic. In it there is no rhyme nor meter. The nearest approach to meter is what is called the qinah strophe, in which each verse consists of two parallel members, each member having five words divided into three and then two. The best example of this is to be found in Psalms 19:7-9, and also in the Book of LAMENTATIONS (which see), from which the verse has received its name.
5. Hebrew Easy of Translation: From the above description it may be inferred that the language of the Old Testament is one extremely easy of translation into foreign tongues without loss of meaning or rhythm, though it would be extremely difficult to render any modern language into classical Hebrew. Hence, the Psalms, for example, are as fine in their German or English versions as they are in the original. Where the Old Testament has been translated into the language of the country, it has become a classic. The English Bible is as important for the study of the English language as are the plays of Shakespeare.
LITERATURE.
In addition to the articles cited under III, Herder. The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, translation by J. Marsh, 1833; Ed. Konig, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die bibl. Litt. komparativisch dargestellt, 1900; the same author's brochure on the "Style of Scripture" in HDB, volume V; J. F. McCurdy on the "Semites" in the same volume; J. Kennedy, Hebrew Synonyms.
Thomas Hunter Weir
Lantern
Lantern - lan'-tern (phanos, phaino, "to give light"): Lanterns were carried by the mob which arrested Jesus in Gethsemane (John 18:3, probably better "torches"). The word "lantern" in the time of early versions had a much wider significance than now. The Romans, however, had lanterns in the times of Christ, made by use of translucent skins, bladders, or thin plates of horn.
Laodicea
Laodicea - la-od-i-se'-a (Laodikia): A city of Asia Minor situated in the Lycos valley in the province of Phrygia, and the home of one of the Seven Churches of Rev (1:11). Distinguished from several other cities of that name by the appellation Ad Lycum, it was founded by Antiochus II (261-246 BC) of Syria, who named it for his wife Laodike, and who populated it with Syrians and with Jews who were transplanted from Babylonia to the cities of Phrygia and Lydia. Though Laodicea stood on the great highway at the junction of several important routes, it was a place of little consequence until the Roman province of Asia was formed in 190 BC. It then suddenly became a great and wealthy center of industry, famous specially for the fine black wool of its sheep and for the Phrygian powder for the eyes, which was manufactured there (compare Revelation 3:18). In the vicinity was the temple of Men Karou and a renowned school of medicine. In the year 60 AD, the city was almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake, but so wealthy were its citizens that they rejected the proffered aid of Rome, and quickly rebuilt it at their own expense (compare Revelation 3:17). It was a city of great wealth, with extensive banking operations (compare Revelation 3:18). Little is known of the early history of Christianity there; Timothy, Mark and Epaphras (Colossians 1:7) seem to have been the first to introduce it. However, Laodicea was early the chief bishopric of Phrygia, and about 166 AD Sagaris, its bishop, was martyred. In 1071 the city was taken by the Seljuks; in 1119 it was recovered to the Christians by John Comnenus, and in the 13th century it fell finally into the hands of the Turks.
The ruins, now called Eski Hissar, or old castle, lie near the modern Gonjelli on the railroad, and they have long served as a quarry to the builders of the neighboring town of Denizli. Among them nothing from before the Roman period has appeared. One of the two Roman theaters is remarkably well preserved, and there may still be seen the stadium, a colonnade, the aqueduct which brought the water across the valley to the city by an inverted siphon of stone pipes, a large necropolis, and the ruins of three early Christian churches.
E. J. Banks
Laodiceans, Epistle to The
Laodiceans, Epistle to The - la-od-i-se'-anz, (en te Laodikeon ekklesia .... ten ek Laodikias, "in the church of the Laodiceans .... the epistle from Laodicea," Colossians 4:16):
I. EXPLANATIONS OF PAUL'S STATEMENT
1. Written by the Laodiceans?
2. Written by Paul from Laodicea?
3. An Epistle Addressed to the Laodiceans
II. EVIDENCE FAVORING EPISTLE TO EPHESIANS
1. Marcion's Opinion
2. References in Ephesians and Other Epistles
3. Ephesian Church Jewish in Origin
4. Ephesians and Colossians, Sister Epistles
5. Recapitulation
III. LAODICEA DISPLACED BY EPHESUS
1. A Circular Epistle
2. Proof from Biblical Prologues
IV. REASON FOR SUCH AN EPISTLE
Paul here writes to the Colossians, "And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea." What was or what is this epistle?
I. Explanations of Paul's Statement. The words used by the apostle may mean: (1) a letter written by the Laodiceans; (2) an epistle written by Paul from Laodicea; (3) an epistle written to the Laodiceans, and to be procured from them by the Colossians.
1. Written by the Laodiceans?: The words may mean a letter written by the Laodiceans. But here it is sufficient to refer to the fact that Paul enjoins the Colossians to procure and to read "the epistle from Laodicea." How could a command of this kind be given in reference to an epistle written by third parties? How could Paul know that a copy of it had been made by the Laodiceans before sending it off? How could he tell that the Laodiceans would be willing to give away a copy of it? The suppositions involved by this hypothesis are incredible. Besides, the context regards the Epistle to the Colossians, and "that from Laodicea," as companion epistles, of which the two churches are to make an interchange, so that each church is directed to read both.
2. Written by Paul from Laodicea?: Or, the words may refer to an epistle written by Paul from Laodicea. And it has been suggested that the epistle of which we are in search may be 1 Timothy, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, or Galatians. But in the case of these epistles, the probability is that every one of them was written elsewhere than from Laodicea. At the time when Paul wrote to Colosse, he was a prisoner in Rome, and for this reason alone, it was impossible that he could, at any recent date, have written any epistle from Laodicea. But his own statement (Colossians 2:1) is that those in Laodicea had not seen his face in the flesh. As he had never been in Laodicea, he could, not have written any epistle from that city.
3. An Epistle Addressed to the Laodiceans: A third possibility is a letter written: (1) not by Paul, but by some other person. But the whole tone of the passage does not favor this suggestion in the least; (2) by Paul, but that the epistle is lost; this is the ordinary interpretation; (3) the apocryphal Latin epistle. "To the Laodiceans."
This spurious epistle is a mere compilation clumsily put together; it has no marks of authenticity. Lightfoot (Col, 282) gives its general character thus: it "is a cento of Pauline phrases strung together without any definite connection or any clear object. They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. Of course, it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange epistles with the Colossians. The apostle's injunction in Colossians 4:16 suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It has no doctrinal peculiarities. It is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless" (Lightfoot, in the work quoted 282).
See APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES.
(4) The only other alternative is that "the epistle from Laodicea" is an epistle to the Laodiceans from Paul himself, which he directs the Colossians to procure from Laodicea. There seems to be not only a high degree of probability, but proof, that the epistle from Laodicea is the epistle known as the Epistle to the Ephesians. Paul therefore had written an epistle to Laodicea, a city which he had twice already mentioned in the Epistle to the Colossians, "For I would have you know how greatly I strive for you, and for them at Laodicea" (Colossians 2:1): "Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in their house" (Colossians 4:15). Accepting Colossians 4:16 to mean that he wrote to Laodicea at the same time as he wrote to Colosse, what has become of the former ep.? Do we know nothing more of it now than is contained in this reference to it in Colossians? The fact that it was, by Paul's express command, to be communicated to at least the two churches in Colosse and Laodicea, would make its disappearance and loss very strange.
II. Evidence Favoring Epistle to Ephesians. But is there any warrant for concluding that it is lost at all? A statement of the facts of the case seems to show that the epistle which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans is extant, but only under another title. The lines of evidence which seem to show that the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians is in reality the epistle written by Paul to the Laodiceans are these:
It is well known that the words "at Ephesus" (Ephesians 1:1) in the inscription of the epistle are very doubtful. The Revised Version (British and American) reads in the margin, "Some very ancient authorites omit `at Ephesus.'" Among the authorities which omit "at Ephesus" are the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, the best and most ancient authorities existing.
1. Marcion's Opinion: Tertullian asserts that the heretics, i.e. Marcion, had altered the title, "the Epistle to the Ephesians," to "the Epistle to the Laodiceans." But this accusation does not carry with it any doctrinal or heretical charge against Marcion in this respect. "It is not likely," says Moule (Eph, 25), "that Marcion was guilty here, where the change would have served no dogmatic purpose." And the fact that at that very early period, the first half of the 2nd century, it was openly suggested that the destination of the epistle was Laodicea, is certainly entitled to weight, especially in view of the other fact already mentioned, which is of no less importance, that "at Ephesus" is omitted in the two great manuscripts, the Vatican and the Sinaitic.
2. References in Ephesians and Other Epistles: The "Epistle to the Ephesians" could not be, primarily at least, addressed to Ephesus, because Paul speaks of his readers as persons in regard to whose conversion from heathenism to the faith of Christ he had just recently heard: "For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which ye show toward all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers" (Ephesians 1:15 f). These words could not well be used in regard to the church at Ephesus, which Paul himself had founded, and in reference to persons among whom he had lived for three years, and where he even knew personally "every one" of the Christians (Acts 20:31).
And in Ephesians 3:1 f the King James Version, he writes: "For this cause I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward." But how could he ever doubt that the elders of the church in Ephesus (Acts 20:17), as well as the members of that important church, were ignorant of the fact that a dispensation of the grace of God had been given to him? The inquiry, whether his readers had heard of the one great fact on which his ministry was based, could not apply in any degree to the Christians in Ephesus. The apostle and the Ephesians had a clear and intimate mutual knowledge. They knew him and valued him and loved him well. When he bade the elders of the church farewell, they all fell on his neck and kissed him (Acts 20:37).
Clearly therefore the statement that he had just recently heard of their conversion, and his inquiry whether they had heard that a dispensation of the grace of God had been entrusted to him, do not and cannot describe the members of the church in Ephesus. "It is plain," writes Moule (Eph, 26), "that the epistle does not bear an Ephesian destination on the face of it."
In the Epistle to the Corinthians there are many local references, as well as allusions to the apostle's work in Corinth. In the Epistle to the Galatians there are also many references to his work among the people of the churches in Galatia. The same is the case in the Epistle to the Philippians, several names being mentioned of persons known to the apostle. In the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, references also occur to his work among them.
Turning to the Epistle to the Colossians, and to that to the Romans--Colossae and Rome being cities which he had not visited previous to his writing to the churches there--he knows several persons in Colosse; and in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, he mentions by name no fewer than twenty-six persons in that city.
How is it then that in "the Epistle to the Ephesians" there are no references at all to the three years which he spent in Ephesus? And how also is there no mention of any one of the members of the church or of the elders whom he knew so intimately and so affectionately? "Ephesians" is inexplicable on the ordinary assumption that Ephesus was the city to which the epistle was addressed.
The other theory, that the epistle was a circular one, sent in the first instance to Laodicea, involves no such difficulty.
3. Ephesian Church Jewish in Origin: Another indication in regard to the primary destination of the epistle is in the words, "ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:11-12). Do these words describe the church in Ephesus? Was the church there Gentilein its origin? Very far from this, for as a matter of fact it began by Paul preaching the gospel to the Jews, as is narrated at length by Luke in Acts 18:1-28. Then in Acts 19:1-41, Paul comes again to Ephesus, where he went into the synagogue and spake boldly for the space of three months, but when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of the Way before the multitude, he separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
Here, therefore, is definite proof that the church in Ephesus was not Gentilein its origin. It was distinctly Jewish, but a Gentileelement had also been received into it. Now the church to which Paul writes "the Epistle to the Ephesians" was not Jewish at all. He does not speak to his readers in any other way than "you Gentiles."
4. Ephesians and Colossians Sister Epistles: But an important consideration is that the "Epistle to the Ephesians" was written by Paul at the same sitting almost as that to the Colossians. These two are sister epistles, and these along with the Epistle to Philemon were written and sent off at the same time, Onesimus and Tychicus carrying the Epistle to the Colossians (Colossians 4:7-8, 9), Onesimus being the bearer of that to Philem, while Tychicus in addition to carrying the Colossian epistle was also the messenger who carried "the Epistle to the Ephesians" (Ephesians 6:21).
A close scrutiny of Colossians and "Ephesians" shows, to an extent without a parallel elsewhere in the epistles of the New Testament, a remarkable similarity of phraseology. There are only two verses in the whole of Colossians to which there is no parallel in "Ephesians." The same words are used, while the thought is so varied and so rich, that the one epistle is in no sense a copy or repetition of the other (see list of parallelisms, etc., in Paul's Epistles to Colosse and Laodicea, T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh). Both epistles come warm and instinct with life from the full heart of the great apostle who had not, up to that time, visited either city, but on whom, none the less, there came daily the care of all the churches.
5. Recapitulation: To recapitulate: (1) The words "at Ephesus" in the inscription of the epistle are wanting in the two oldest and best manuscripts. (2) Paul speaks of his readers as persons of whose conversion to Christ he knew only by report. Similarly he speaks of them as knowing only by hearsay of his commission as an apostle of Christ. Also, though he had lived in Ephesus for three years, this epistle does not contain a single salutation. (3) He speaks of his readers as forming a church exclusively of the Gentiles. But the church in Ephesus, so far from being exclusively gentile, was actually Jewish in origin. (4) "Ephesians" was written at the same sitting as Colossians, and the same messenger, Tychicus, carried them both. Therefore as the epistle was not, and could not be, addressed to Ephesus, the conclusion is that it was addressed to some church, and that it was not a treatise sent to the Christian church generally. The words of the first verse of the ep., "to the saints that are," proves that the name of the place to which it was addressed is all that is lost from the manuscripts, but that the name of the city was there originally, as the epistle came from Paul's hand.
Now Paul wrote an epistle to Laodicea at the same time as he wrote to Colosse. He dispatched both epistles by Tychicus. The thought and feeling and even the diction of the two epistles are such that no other explanation is possible but that they came warm from the heart of the same writer at the same time. On all these grounds the conclusion seems inevitable that the Epistle to Laodicea is not lost at all, but that it is identical with the so-called "Epistle to the Ephesians."
III. Laodicea Displaced by Ephesus. 1. A Circular Epistle: How then did Ephesus displace Laodicea? It is explained at once if theory is adopted that the epistle was a "circular" one addressed not to Laodicea only, but to other cities. We know e.g. that the apostle orders it to be taken to the church in Colosse and read there. So also it might have been sent to other cities, such as Hierapolis (Colossians 4:13) and Ephesus. Hence, if the church in Laodicea were not careful to see that the epistle was returned to them, by those churches to whom they had sent it, it can easily be understood how a copyist in any of those cities might leave out the words "in Laodicea," as not agreeing with the name of the city where the manuscript actually was at the time. As copies were multiplied, the words "in Ephesus" would be suggested, as the name of the chief city of Asia, from which province the epistle had come to the knowledge of the whole Christian church, and to which, in point of fact, Paul had sent it. The feeling would be natural, that it was in keeping with the fitness of things, that Paul, who had rounded the church in Ephesus, should have written an epistle to the church there.
2. Proof from Biblical Prologues: In an article upon "Marcion and the Canon" by Professor J. Rendel Harris, LL.D., in the The Expository Times, June, 1907, there is reference to the Revue Benedictine for January of that year, which contained a remarkable article by de Bruyne, entitled "Biblical Prologues of Marcionite Origin," in which the writer succeeded in showing that a very widely spread series of prefaces to the Pauline Epistles, which occur in certain Latin Bibles, must have been taken from a Marcionite Bible. Professor Rendel Harris adds that the prefaces in question may go back to Marcion himself, for in any case the Marcionite hand, from which they come, antedates the Latin tradition in which the prologues are imbedded. "It is clear from Tertullian's polemic against Marcion, that the Pauline Epistles stood in the following order in the Marcionite Canon: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, then Ephesians (which Marcion calls by the name of the Epistle to the Laodiceans), Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. .... Let us turn to the prologues that are current in Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and other manuscripts for Ephesians and Colossains: the Ephesian prologue runs as follows: `Ephesii sunt Asiani. Hi accepto verbo veritatis perstiterunt in fide. Hos conlaudat apostolus, scribens eis a Roma de carcere!' When, however, we turn to the Colossian prologue, we find that it opens as follows: `Colossenses et hi sicut Laodicenses sunt Asiani. Et ipsi praeventi erant a pseudapostolis, nec ad hos accessit apostolus sed et hos per epistolam recorrigit,' etc.
"From this it is clear that originally the prologue to the Laodiceans preceded the prologue to Colossians, and that the
Ephesian prologue is a substitute for the Laodicean prologue, which can be partly reconstructed from the references to it in the Colossian prologue. We can see that it had a statement that the Laodiceans belonged to Asia Minor, that they had been under the influence of false apostles, and had never been visited by Paul, who corrects their error by an epistle ....
"We have now shown that the original Canon had `Laodiceans, Colossians.' It is interesting to observe how some Latin manuscripts naively admit this: `You must know that the epistle which we have as that written to the Ephesians, the heretics, and especially the Marcionites, entitle the Epistle to the Laodiceans.'"
IV. Reason for Such an Epistle. Assuming therefore that the "Epistle to the Ephesians" is the epistle which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans, various questions arise, such as, Why did he write to the church there? What was there in the state of the church in Laodicea to call for an epistle from him? Was there any heresy there, like the false teaching which existed in the neighboring church in Colosse?
The answer to such questions is that though we do not possess much information, yet these churches in the province of Asia had many things in common. They had originated at the same time, during the two whole years of Paul's residence in Ephesus. They were composed of men of the same races, and speaking the same languages. They were subject to the same influences of doctrinal error. The errors into which any one church fell could not fail to affect the others also. These churches were permeated to a large extent by the same ideas, derived both from the current philosophy and from their ancestral heathen religions. They would, therefore, one and all, require the same apostolic instruction and exhortation. This epistle, accordingly, bears a close resemblance to the Epistle to the Colossians, just for the reason that the circumstances of the church in Laodicea were similar to those of the church in Colosse; and also, that the thoughts which filled Paul's heart as he wrote to Colosse were adapted, in the first place, to counteract the false teaching in Colosse, but they are also the foundation of all Christian experience, and the very life of all Christian truth and doctrine. These are the great thoughts of Christ the Creator of all things, Christ the Upholder of all things, Christ the Reconciler of all things. Such thoughts filling Paul's heart would naturally find expression in language bearing a close resemblance to that in which he had just written to Colosse.
It is no more astonishing that Paul should have written to Laodicea, than that he also wrote to Colosse, which was probably the least important of all the cities and churches mentioned in the apostle's work and career. Neither is it any more to be wondered at that he should have written so profound an epistle as that to "the Ephesians," than that he should also have given directions that it be sent on to Colosse and read there; for this reason, that the exposition of Christ's great love to the church and of His giving Himself for it--the doctrine of the grace of God--is the very corrective required by the errors of the false teachers at Colosse, and is also the groundwork of Christian truth and experience for all agesú
NOTE: A very remarkable circumstance in regard to the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is mentioned by Nestle in the preface to his edition of the Latin New Testament, published in Stuttgart in 1906. He writes that "the Epistle to the Laodiceans was for a thousand years part of very many Latin Bibles, and obtained a place in pre-Lutheran German Bibles, together with Jerome's Epistle to Damasus."
John Rutherfurd
Lap
Lap - The word is the translation of three different Hebrew expressions: cheq (Proverbs 16:33), beghedh (2 Kings 4:39), and chotsen (Nehemiah 5:13, besides chatsen, Psalms 129:7). In all these passages the meaning is that of a part of oriental clothing, probably the folds of the garment covering the bosom or lap of a person. The flowing garments of Orientals invite the use of the same, on the part of speakers, in driving home certain truths enunciated by impressive gesticulation. Every reader of Roman history recalls the impressive incident of Quintus Fabius Maximus (Cunctator), who, in 219 BC, was ambassador of Rome to Carthage, and who, before the city council, holding the folds of his toga in the shape of a closed pouch, declared that he held enclosed in the same both peace and war, whichever the Carthaginians should desire to choose. When the Carthaginians clamored for war, he opened the folds of his garment and said: "Then you shall have war!" Very much like it, Nehemiah, when pleading for united efforts for the improvement of social order, addressed the priests of Jerusalem to get a pledge of their cooperation: "Also I shook out my lap (chotsen), and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labor, that performeth not this promise; even thus be he shaken out, and emptied" (Nehemiah 5:13).
In English Versions of the Bible the verb "to lap" is found, which has no etymological connection with the above-mentioned nouns. It is in Hebrew laqaq and refers to the loud licking up of water by dogs (1 Kings 21:19; 22:38 the King James Version), and in the story of Gideon's battle against the Midianites, of his 300 warriors (Judges 7:5 ff).
H. L. E. Luering
Lappidoth
Lappidoth - lap'-i-doth, -doth (lappidhoth, "flames," "torches"; the King James Version, Lapidoth): Deborah's husband (Judges 4:4). The Hebrew name is a feminine plural like Jeremoth (1 Chronicles 7:8), Naboth (1 Kings 21:1). The plural is probably intensive. Jewish interpreters have identified Lappidoth ("flames") with Barak ("lightning"). Some have taken the words rendered "wife of Lappidoth" ('esheth lappidhoth) as a description of Deborah, and have translated them, "woman of lights," i.e. maker of wicks for the sanctuary; or "woman of flames," referring to her prophetic zeal. These explanations are more interesting than probable.
John A. Lees
Lapwing
Lapwing - lap'-wing (dukhiphath; epops): A translation used in early VSS, now universally admitted to be incorrect. The lapwing had a crest, and resembled in size and color the hoopoe (Upupa epops). It appears in the lists of abominations only (Leviticus 11:19 the King James Version and Deuteronomy 14:18 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) HOOPOE, which see). The lapwing is a plover, and its flesh and eggs are delicious food.
Lasciviousness
Lasciviousness - la-siv'-i-us-nes (aselgeia, "licentiousness," "wantonness," "unbridled lust," "shamelessness," "outrageousness"):
1. Sources: Etymologists assign three probable sources of aselgeia, namely: (1) from a compound of the alpha privitive (negation) and Selge, a Pisidian city whose inhabitants according to Thayer (New Testament Lexicon) "excelled in strictness of morals," but, according to Trench, a place whose people "were infamous for their vices"; (2) from a compound of "a" intense, and salagein, "to raise a disturbance or noise"; (3) from a compound of the alpha privitive a- and selgo, or thelgo, "exciting disgust or displeasure." It evidently means conduct and character that is unbecoming, indecent, unrestrainedly shameless.
2. As Used in the New Testament: Mark uses it in 7:22 with uncertainty as to the vice meant. Paul (2 Corinthians 12:21) classes it with uncleanness and fornication as sins to be repented of; also (Galatians 5:19; compare Wisdom of Solomon 14:26, "wantonness") puts it in the same catalogue with other works of the flesh; and (Ephesians 4:19) he refers to some aged ones so covetous, that they made trade of themselves by giving "themselves up to lasciviousness." The same word is translated "wantonness" in Romans 13:13, meaning wanton manner, filthy words, unchaste movements of the body. Peter (1 Peter 4:3) mentions those who "walked in lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries." He speaks (2 Peter 2:2) of "lascivious doings" (the King James Version "pernicious ways"); (2 Peter 2:7) "lascivious life" (the King James Version "filthy conversation"); and (2 Peter 2:18) of "lasciviousness" (the King James Version "wantonness"), as a means "to entice in the lusts of the flesh." Jude 1:4 probably does not refer to any form of sensuality in using the word descriptive of "ungodly men" who perverted the faith of some and denied our only Master.
William Edward Raffety
Lasea
Lasea - la-se'-a (Lasaia): A town on the South coast of Crete, 5 miles East of Fair Havens (Acts 27:8). The ruins were examined in 1856 by G. Brown (see Code of Hammurabi (St. P), chapter xxiii, 640). If Paul's ship was detained long at this anchorage, it would be necessary to purchase stores from Lasea; and this in addition to the inconvenience of the roadstead (see FAIR HAVENS) would probably explain the captain's reluctance to winter there.
Lasha
Lasha - la'-sha (lasha`): A place named on the southern boundary of the Canaanites along with Gomorrah, Adnah and Zeboiim (Genesis 10:19). Eusebius, Onomasticon identifies it with the hot springs at Callirrhoe in Wady Zerqa Ma`in, on the East of the Dead Sea; in this agreeing with Targum Jerusalem. This position, however, seems too far to the North, and possibly the site should be sought on the West of the Arabah. The absence of the article (compare Joshua 15:2) prevents identification with the promontory el-Lisan, which runs into the sea from the eastern shore. Wellhausen (Comp. des Hexateuch., 15) thinks we should read lesham, since the Hebrew letters, "m" (mem) and " ` " (`ayin), are like each other in their Palmyrene form. We should then have indicated the boundary from Gaza to the Dead Sea, and then from the Dead Sea to Leshem, i.e. Dan. This is very precarious. No identification is possible.
W. Ewing
Lassharon
Lassharon - la-sha'-ron, la-shar'-on (lashsharon or la-sharon, the King James Version Sharon): A royal city of the Canaanites taken by Joshua, named with Aphek (Joshua 12:18). Possibly we should here follow the reading of Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus), "the king of Aphek in Sharon." Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. "Saron") mentions a region between Mt. Tabor and the Lake of Tiberias called Sarona. This is probably represented by the ancient site Sarona, on the plateau 6 1/2 miles Southwest 2 of Tiberias. If Massoretic Text is correct, this may be the place intended.
Last Day
Last Day - See DAY, LAST.
Last Days
Last Days - See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Last Time, Times
Last Time, Times - (kairos eschatos, chronos eschatos (also plural), eschaton tou chronou, hora eschate): In the King James Version this phrase occurs in 1 Peter 1:5, 20 (plural); 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18. The Revised Version (British and American) has, in 1 Peter 1:20, "at the end of the times," and in 1 John 2:18, "the last hour," in closer adherence to the Greek. The conception is closely allied to that of "the last day," and, like this, has its root in the Old Testament conception of "the end of days." In the Old Testament this designates the entire eschatological period as that which the present course of the world is to issue into, and not, as might be assumed, the closing section of history. It is equivalent to what was later called "the coming aeon" (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT). In the New Testament, on the other hand, the phrase "the last time" does mark the concluding section of the present world-period, of the present aeon. In three of the New Testament passages the consciousness expresses itself that these "last times" have arrived, and that the period extending from the appearance or the resurrection of Christ until His Second Coming is the closing part of the present age, that the writer and readers are living in "the last times." In one passage (1 Peter 1:5) "the last time" is projected farther forward into the future, so that it comes to mean the time immediately preceding the reappearance of Christ. Both usages can be readily explained. The days of the Messiah were to the Old Testament writers part of the future world, although to the later Jewish chiliasm they appeared as lying this side of it, because differing from the world to come in their earthly and temporal character. To the early Christians the days of the Messiah appeared more closely assimilated in character to the future world, so that no reason existed on this score for not including them in the latter. Still it was also realized that the Messiah in His first appearance had not brought the full realization of the coming world, and that only His return from heaven would consummate the kingdom of God. Accordingly, the days in which they lived assumed to them the character of an intermediate period, marked off on the one hand from the previous development by the appearance of the Messiah, but equally marked off from the coming eon by His reappearance in glory. From a formal point of view the representation resembles the Jewish chiliastic scheme, but with a twofold substantial difference: (a) the chiliastic scheme restricts the Messiah and His work to the last days, and does not carry Him over into the coming world, whereas to the Christian the coming world, no less than the last days, is thoroughly Messianic; (b) to the Jewish point of view both the days of the Messiah and the coming world lie in the future, whereas to the Christian the former have already arrived. It remained possible, however, from the Christian point of view to distinguish within the last times themselves between the immediate present and the future conclusion of this period, and this is done in 1 Peter 1:5. Also in 1 John 2:18 the inference that "the last hour" has come is not drawn from the presence of the Messiah, but from the appearance of the anti-Christian power, so that here also a more contracted conception of the last stage of history reveals itself, only not as future (1 Peter 1:5), but as present (hence, "hour" not "time").
For literature see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Geerhardus Vos
Lasthenes
Lasthenes - las'-the-nez (Lasthenes): A highly placed official under King Demetrius II, Nicator. He is called the king's "kinsman" (the King James Version "cousin") and "father" (1 Maccabees 11:31, 32; Josephus, Ant, XIII, iv, 9), but these are to be taken as court titles rather than as denoting blood-relationship. According to Josephus (Ant., XIII, iv, 3) he was a native of Crete, and raised an army for the king when he made his first descent upon the coast, and rendered him ultimately successful in wresting the throne of Syria from Alexander Balas (1 Maccabees 10:67; Ant, XIII, iv, 3). The letter addressed to Lasthenes indicates that he was probably prime minister or grand vizier of the kingdom.
J. Hutchinson
Latchet
Latchet - lach'-et (serokh; himas): Leather thong used for tying on sandals (see Genesis 14:23; Mark 1:7 parallel). The stooping to untie the dusty shoe-latchet was esteemed by Orientals a service that was at once petty and defiling, and was usually assigned to menials.
Latin
Latin - lat'-in: Was the official language of the Roman Empire as Greek was that of commerce. In Palestine Aramaic was the vernacular in the rural districts and remoter towns, while in the leading towns both Greek and Aramaic were spoken. These facts furnish the explanation of the use of all three tongues in the inscription on the cross of Christ (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). Thus the charge was written in the legal language, and was technically regular as well as recognizable by all classes of the people. The term "Latin" occurs in the New Testament only in John 19:20, Rhomaisti, and in Luke 23:38, Rhomaikois (grammasin), according to Codices Sinaiticus, A, D, and N. It is probable that Tertullus made his plea against Paul before Felix (Acts 24:1-27) in Latin, though Greek was allowed in such provincial courts by grace of the judge. It is probable also that Paul knew and spoke Latin; compare W.M. Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 65, and A. Souter, "Did Paul Speak Latin?" The Expositor, April, 1911. The vernacular Latin had its own history and development with great influence on the ecclesiastical terminology of the West. See W. Bury, "The Holy Latin Tongue," Dublin Review, April, 1906, and Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata, 1874, 480 f. There is no doubt of the mutual influence of Greek and Latin on each other in the later centuries. See W. Schulze, Graeca Latina, 1891; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 1888.
It is doubtful if the Latin syntax is clearly perceptible in the koine (see LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT).
Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 117 f) finds ergasian didomi (operam dare) in an xyrhynchus papyrus letter of the vulgar type from 2nd century BC (compare Luke 12:58). A lead tablet in Amorgus has krino to dikaion (compare Luke 12:57). The papyri (2nd century AD) give sunairo logon (compare Matthew 18:23 f). Moulton (Expositor, February, 1903, 115) shows that to hikanon poiein (satisfacere), is as old as Polybius. Even sumbouilion lambanien (concilium capere), may go with the rest like su opes (Matthew 27:4), for videris (Thayer). Moulton (Prol., 21) and Thumb (Griechische Sprache, 121) consider the whole matter of syntactical Latinisms in the New Testament inconclusive. But see also C. Wessely, "Die lateinischen Elemente in der Gracitat d. agypt. Papyrusurkunden," Wien. Stud., 24; Laforcade. Influence du Latin sur le Grec. 83-158.
There are Latin words in the New Testament: In particular Latin proper names like Aquila, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, Fortunatus, Julia, Junia, etc., even among the Christians in the New Testament besides Agrippa, Augustus, Caesar, Claudius, Felix, Festus, Gallio, Julius, etc.
Besides we find in the New Testament current Latin commercial, financial, and official terms like assarion (as), denarion (denarius), kenturion (centurio), kenos (census), kodrantes (quadrans), kolonia (colonia), koustodia (custodia), legeon (legio), lention (linteum), libertinos (libertinus), litra (litra), makellon (macellum), membrana (membrana), milion (mille), modios (modius), xestes (sextarius), praitorion (praetorium), sikarios (sicarius), simikinthion (semicinctium), soudarion (sudarium), spekoulator (speculator), taberna (taberna), titlos (titulus), phelones (paenula), phoron (forum), phragellion (flagellum), phragelloo (flagello), chartes (charta?), choros (chorus).
Then we meet such adjectives as Herodianoi, Philippesioi, Christianoi, which are made after the Latin model. Mark's Gospel shows more of these Latin words outside of proper names (compare Romans 16:1-27), as is natural if his Gospel were indeed written in Rome.
See also LATIN VERSION,THE OLD .
LITERATURE.
Besides the literature already mentioned see Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, DivII , volume I, 43 ff; Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud (1898, 1899); Hoole, Classical Element in the New Testament (1888); Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar (1897); W. Schmid, Atticismus, etc. (1887-97); Kapp, Latinismis merito ac falso susceptis (1726); Georgi, De Latinismis N T (1733); Draeger, Historische Syntax der lat. Sprache (1878-81); Pfister, Vulgarlatein und Vulgargriechisch (Rh. Mus., 1912, 195-208).
A. T. Robertson
Latin Version, the Old
Latin Version, the Old - 1. The Motive of Translation
2. Multiplicity of Latin Translations in the 4th Century
3. The Latin Bible before Jerome
4. First Used in North Africa
5. Cyprian's Bible
6. Tertullian's Bible
7. Possible Eastern Origin of Old Latin
8. Classification of Old Latin Manuscripts
9. Individual Characteristics
10. Value of Old Latin for Textual Criticism
LITERATURE
1. The Motive of Translation: The claim of Christianity to be the one true religion has carried with it from the beginning the obligation to make its Holy Scriptures, containing the Divine message of salvation and life eternal, known to all mankind. Accordingly, wherever the first Christian evangelists carried the gospel beyond the limits of the Greek-speaking world, one of the first requirements of their work was to give the newly evangelized peoples the record of God's revelation of Himself in their mother tongue. It was through the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament that the great truths of revelation first became known to the Greek and Roman world. It is generally agreed that, as Christianity spread, the Syriac and the Latin versions were the first to be produced; and translations of the Gospels, and of other books of the Old and New Testament in Greek, were in all probability to be found in these languages before the close of the 2nd century.
2. Multiplicity of Latin Translations in the 4th Century:
Of the earliest translators of the Bible into Latin no record has survived. Notwithstanding the careful investigations of scholars in recent years, there are still many questions relating to the origin of the Latin Bible to which only tentative and provisional answers can be given. It is therefore more convenient to begin a study of its history with Jerome toward the close of the 4th century and the commission entrusted to him by Pope Damasus to produce a standard Latin version, the execution of which gave to Christendom the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (see VULGATE). The need for such a version was clamant. There existed by this time a multiplicity of translations differing from one another, and there was none possessed of commanding authority to which appeal might be made in case of necessity. It was the consideration of the chaotic condition of the existing translations, with their divergences and variations, which moved Damasus to commission Jerome to his task and Jerome to undertake it. We learn particulars from the letter of Jerome in 383 transmitting to his patron the first installment of his revision, the Gospels. "Thou compellest me," he writes, "to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek." Anticipating attacks from critics, he says, further: "If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather than better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes?" Accordingly, he hands to the Pontiff the four Gospels to begin with after a careful comparison of old Greek manuscripts.
From Jerome's contemporary, Augustine, we obtain a similar picture. "Translators from Hebrew into Greek," he says (De Doctrina Christiana, ii.11), "can be numbered, but Latin translators by no means. For whenever, in the first ages of the faith, a Greek manuscript came into the hands of anyone who had also a little skill in both languages, he made bold to translate it forthwith." In the same context he mentions "an innumerable variety of Latin translators," "a crowd of translators." His advice to readers is to give a preference to the Itala, "which is more faithful in its renderings and more intelligible in its sense." What the Itala is, has been greatly discussed. Formerly it was taken to be a summary designation of all the versions before Jerome's time. But Professor Burkitt (Texts and Studies, IV) strongly urges the view that by this term Augustine designates Jerome's Vulgate, which he might quite well have known and preferred to any of the earlier translations. However this may be, whereas before Jerome there were those numerous translations, of which he and Augustine complain, after Jerome there is the one preeminent and commanding work, produced by him, which in course of time drove all others out of the field, the great Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) edition, as it came to be called, of the complete Latin Bible.
3. The Latin Bible before Jerome: We are here concerned with the subject of the Latin Bible before the time of Jerome. The manuscripts which have survived from the earlier period are known by the general designation of Old Latin. When we ask where these first translations came into existence, we discover a somewhat surprising fact. It was not at Rome, as we might have expected, that they were first required. The language of Christian Rome was mainly Greek, down to the 3rd century. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans in Greek. When Clement of Rome in the last decade of the 1st century wrote an epistle in the name of the Roman church to the Corinthians, he wrote in Greek Justin Martyr, and the heretic Marcion, alike wrote from Rome in Greek. Out of 15 bishops who presided over the Roman. See down to the close of the 2nd century, only four have Latin names. Even the pagan emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek If there were Christians in Rome at that period whose only language was Latin, they were not sufficiently numerous to be provided with Christian literature; at least none has survived.
4. First Used in North Africa: It is from North Africa that the earliest Latin literature of the church has come down to us. The church of North Africa early received a baptism of blood, and could point to an illustrious roll of martyrs. It had also a distinguished list of Latin authors, whose Latin might sometimes be rude and mixed with foreign idioms, but had a power and a fire derived from the truths which it set forth. One of the most eminent of these Africans was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who won the martyr's crown in 257. His genuine works consist of a number of short treatises, or tracts, and numerous letters, all teeming with Scripture quotations. It is certain that he employed a version then and there in use, and it is agreed that "his quotations are carefully made and thus afford trustworthy standards of African Old Latin in a very early though still not the earliest stage" (Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek, 78).
5. Cyprian's Bible: Critical investigation has made it clear that the version used by Cyprian survives in a fragmentary copy of Mark and Matthew, now at Turin in North Italy, called Codex Bobbiensis (k), and in the fragments of the Apocalypse and Acts contained in a palimpsest at Paris called Codex Floriacensis (h). It has been found that another MS, Codex Palatinus (e) at Vienna, has a text closely akin to that exhibited in Cyprian, although there are traces of mixture in it. The text of these manuscripts, together with the quotations of the so-called Speculum Augustini (m), is known among scholars as African Old Latin. Another manuscript with an interesting history, Codex Colbertinus (c) contains also a valuable African element, but in many parts of the Gospels it sides also with what is called the European Old Latin more than with k or e. Codex Bobbiensis (k) has been edited with a learned introduction in the late Bishop John Wordsworth's Old Latin Biblical Texts, the relation of k to Cyprian as well as to other Old Latin texts being the subject of an elaborate investigation by Professor Sanday. That Cyprian, who was not acquainted with Greek, had a written version before him which is here identified is certain, and thus the illustrious bishop and martyr gives us a fixed point in the history of the Latin Bible a century and a half earlier than Jerome.
6. Tertullian's Bible: We proceed half a century nearer to the fountainhead of the African Bible when we take up the testimony of Tertullian who flourished toward the close of the 2nd century. He differed from Cyprian in being a competent Greek scholar. He was thus able to translate for himself as he made his quotations from the Septuagint or the Greek New Testament, and is thus for us by no means so safe a witness to the character or existence of a standard version. Professor Zahn (GK, I, 60) maintains with considerable plausibility that before 210-240 AD there was no Latin Bible, and that Tertullian with his knowledge of Greek just translated as he went along. In this contention, Zahn is not supported by many scholars, and the view generally is that while Tertullian's knowledge of Greek is a disturbing element, his writings, with the copious quotations from both Old Testament and New Testament, do testify to the existence of a version which had already been for some time in circulation and use. Who the African Wycliffe or Tyndale was who produced that version has not been recorded, and it may in fact have been the work of several hands, the result, as Bishop Westcott puts it, of the spontaneous efforts of African Christians (Canon of the NT7, 263).
7. Possible Eastern Origin of Old Latin: Although the evidence has, up to the present time, been regarded as favoring the African origin of the first Latin translation of the Bible, recent investigation into what is called the Western text of the New Testament has yielded results pointing elsewhere. It is clear from a comparison that the Western type of text has close affinity with the Syriac witnesses originating in the eastern provinces of the empire. The close textual relation disclosed between the Latin and the Syriac versions has led some authorities to believe that, after all, the earliest Latin version may have been made in the East, and possibly at Antioch. But this is one of the problems awaiting the discovery of fresh material and fuller investigation for its solution.
8. Classification of Old Latin Manuscripts: We have already noticed the African group, so designated from its connection with the great African Fathers, Tertullian and especially Cyprian, and comprising k, e, and to some extent h and m. The antiquity of the text here represented is attested by these African Fathers.
When we come down to the 4th century we find in Western Europe, and especially in North Italy, a second type of text, which is designated European, the precise relation of which to the African has not been clearly ascertained. Is this an independent text which has arisen on the soil of Italy, or is it a text derived by alteration and revision of the African as it traveled northward and westward? This group consists of the Codex Vercellensis (a) and Codex Vcronensis (b) of the 4th or 5th century at Vercelli and Verona respectively, and there may be included also the Codex Vindobonensis (i) of the 7th century at Vienna. These give the Gospels, and a gives for John the text as it was read by the 4th-century Father, Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia. The Latin of the Greek-Latin manuscript D (Codex Bezae) is known as d, and much of Irenaeus are classed with this group.
Still later, Professor Hort says from the middle of the 4th century, a third type, called Italic from its more restricted range, is found. It is represented by Codex Brixianus (f) of the 6th century, now at Brescia, and Codex Monacensis (q) of the 7th century, at Munich. This text is probably a modified form of the European, produced by revision which has brought it more into accord with the Greek, and has given it a smoother Lot aspect. The group has received this name because the text found in many of Augustine's writings is the same, and as he expressed a preference for the Itala, the group was designated accordingly. Recent investigation tends to show that we must be careful how we use Augustine as an Old Latin authority, and that the Itala may be, not a pre-Vulgate text, but rather Jerome's Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) This, however, is still uncertain; the fact remains that as far as the Gospels are concerned, f and q represent the type of text most used by Jerome.
9. Individual Characteristics: That all these groups, comprising in all 38 codices, go back to one original is not impossible. Still there may have been at first local VSS, and then an official version formed out of them. When Jerome's revision took hold of the church, the Old Latin representatives for the most part dropped out of notice. Some of them, however, held their ground and continued to be copied down to the 12th and even the 13th century Codex C (Ephraemi) is an example of this; it is a manuscript of the 12th century, but as Professor Burkitt has pointed out (Texts and Studies, IV, "Old Latin," 11) "it came from Languedoc, the country of the Albigenses. Only among heretics isolated from the rest of Western Christianity could an Old Latin text have been written at so late a period." An instance of an Old Latin text copied in the 13th century is the Gigas Holmiensis, quoted as Gig, now at Stockholm, and so called from its great size. It contains the Acts and the Apocalypse of the Old Latin and the rest of the New Testament according to the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It has to be borne in mind that in the early centuries complete Bibles were unknown. Each group of books, Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Revelation for the New Testament, and Pentateuch, Historical Books, Psalms and Prophets for the Old Testament, has to be regarded separately. It is interesting, also, to note that when Jerome revised, or even retranslated from the Septuagint, Tobit and Judith of the Apocrypha, the greater number of these books, the Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch were left unrevised, and were simply added to the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) from the Old Latin version.
10. Value of Old Latin for Textual Criticism: These Old Latin translations going back in their earliest forms to nearly the middle of the 2nd century are very early witnesses to the Greek text from which they were made. They are the more valuable inasmuch as they are manifestly very literal translations. Our great uncial manuscripts reach no farther back than the 4th century, whereas in the Old Latin we have evidence--indirect indeed and requiring to be cautiously used--reaching back to the 2nd century. The text of these manuscripts is neither dated nor localized, whereas the evidence of these VSS, coming from a particular province of the church, and being used by Fathers whose period is definitely known, enables us to judge of the type of Greek text then and there in use. In this connection, too, it is noteworthy that while the variations of which Jerome and Augustine complained were largely due to the blunders, or natural mistakes, of copyists, they did sometimes represent various readings in the Greek originals.
LITERATURE.
Wordsworth and White, Old Latin Biblical Texts, 4 volumes; F.C. Burkitt, "The Old Latin and the Itala," Texts and Studies, IV; "Old Latin VSS" by H.A.A. Kennedy in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); "Bibelubersetzungen, Lateinische" by Fritzsche-Nestle in PRE3; Intros to Textual Criticism of the New Testament by Scrivener, Gregory, Nestle, and Lake.
T. Nicol
Latter Days
Latter Days - See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Lattice
Lattice - lat'-is.
See HOUSE,II , 1, (9).
Laud
Laud - lod: A verb meaning "to praise," used in Romans 15:11 the King James Version, and Psalms 117:1; 145:4. The Revised Version (British and American) either should have avoided the word altogether or else should have used it much more extensively--preferably the latter, as the word is not obsolete in liturgical English.
Laughing-stock
Laughing-stock - laf'-ing-stok: Something set up to be laughed at; thrice in the Revised Version (British and American) the translation of sechoq, "laughter," etc. (Job 12:4 twice; Jeremiah 20:7; compare Jeremiah 48:26-27, 39; Lamentations 3:14).
See MOCK,MOCKING .
Laughter
Laughter - laf'-ter (chaq, tsachaq, "to laugh," sechoq, "laughter"; gelao, katagelao): (1) Laughter as the expression of gladness, pleasurable surprise, is the translation of tsachaq (Genesis 17:17; Genesis 18:12-13, 15; 21:6), which, however, should perhaps be "laugh at me," not "with me," as the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) (so Delitzsch and others; see also Hastings inHDB ), not in the sense of derision, but of surprise and pleasure. In the same verse for "God hath made me to laugh," the Revised Version (British and American) gives in margin, "hath prepared laughter for me," and this gave his name to the son, the promise of whose birth evoked the laughter (Yitschaq, Isaac); gelao (Luke 6:21, 25) has the same meaning of gladness and rejoicing; sechoq, "laughter," has also this sense (Job 8:21; Psalms 126:2). It is, however, "laughed to scorn" in Job 12:4; the Revised Version (British and American) "laughing-stock"; so Jeremiah 20:7; compare Jeremiah 48:26-27, 39; Lamentations 3:14, "derision." (2) Sachaq is used (except Job 29:24; Ecclesiastes 3:4) in the sense of the laughter of defiance, or derision (Job 5:22; 41:29); in Piel it is often translated "play," "playing," "merry" (3) La`agh is "to scorn" "to laugh to scorn" (2 Kings 19:21; Nehemiah 2:19); sachaq has also this sense (2 Chronicles 30:10); tsechoq (Ezekiel 23:32); sechoq (Job 12:4); katagelao (Matthew 9:24; Mark 5:40; Luke 8:53); the simple gelao occurs only in Luke 6:21, 25; see above. Katagelao is found in Judith 12:12, "laugh to scorn" (Ecclesiastes 7:11; 20:17; 1 Maccabees 10:70, the Revised Version (British and American) "derision").
For "laugh" (Job 9:23) the Revised Version (British and American) has "mock"; for "mocked of his neighbor" and "laughed to scorn" (Job 12:4) "laughing-stock"; for "shall rejoice in time to come" (Proverbs 31:25), "laugheth at the time to come"; "laughter" for "laughing" (Job 8:21).
W. L. Walker
Launch
Launch - lanch, lonch.
See SHIPS AND BOATS,III , 1.
Laver
Laver - la'-ver (kiyor):
1. In the Tabernacle: Every priest in attendance on the altar of Yahweh was required to wash his hands and his feet before entering upon his official duties (Exodus 30:19 ff). To this end a laver was ordered to be made as part of the tabernacle equipment (Exodus 30:17-21; 38:8). Its composition was of brass (bronze), and it consisted of two parts, the bowl and its pedestal or foot (Exodus 30:18, etc.). This first laver was a small one, and was made of the hand mirrors of the women in attendance upon the altar (Exodus 38:8). Its place was between the altar and the tabernacle (Exodus 40:30).
See TABERNACLE.
2. In the Temple: The difficulty as to the washing of parts of the sacrificial carcasses was overcome, in the temple of Solomon, by the construction of "10 lavers" and a "molten sea" (1 Kings 7:23-37; 2 Chronicles 4:2-6; see TEMPLE; SEA,THE MOLTEN ). We learn from 2 Chronicles 4:6 that the "sea" was for the priests to wash in--therefore took the place of the laver in the tabernacle--and the lavers were used as baths for portions of the burnt offerings. The lavers themselves were artistic works of unusual merit for that age. Like that in the tabernacle, each had its own stand or base, which was cast in a separate piece from the laver. These bases rested on wheels which allowed of the laver being moved from one part of the court to another without being turned about. Five stood on the north and five on the south side of the temple. They were ornamented with "lions, oxen, and cherubim," and on a lower level, with a series of wreaths or festoons of flowers (1 Kings 7:27-37). In modern speech, the lavers may be described as so many circular open tanks for the storage of water. Each laver contained 40 baths (about 320 gals.) of water. Its height was 5 cubits, the locomotive machinery being 3 cubits in height, and the depth of the bowl or tank, judging from its capacity, about 2 cubits. The last we hear of the lavers, apart from their bases, is that the idolatrous king Ahaz cut off the border of the bases, and removed the bases from them (2 Kings 16:17). During the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah foretold that the molten sea and the bases (there being then no lavers) should be carried to Babylon (Jeremiah 27:19). A few years later it is recorded that the bases were broken up, and the brass of which they were made was carried away (Jeremiah 52:17).
3. The Laver in the New Testament: The Greek word (loutron) occurs twice in the New Testament. In Ephesians 5:26, Paul says that Christ gave Himself for the church "that he might sanctify it having cleansed it by the washing (Greek "laver") of water with the word"; and in Titus 3:5 he says that we are saved "through the washing (Greek "laver") of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." In these passages the reference is to the constant physical purity demanded of the Jewish priests when in attendance upon the temple. Christians are "a holy priesthood," and are cleansed not by water only, but, in the former passage, "with the word" (compare John 15:3); in the latter, by the "renewing of the Holy Spirit" (compare Ezekiel 36:25; John 3:5). The feet-washing mentioned by Jesus is emblematic of the same thing (John 13:10).
W. Shaw Caldecott
Law in the New Testament
Law in the New Testament - lo
The Term "Law"
Austin's Definition of Law
I. LAW IN THE GOSPELS
1. The Law in the Teaching of Christ
(1) Authority of the Law Upheld in the Sermon on the Mount
(a) Christ and Tradition
(b) Sin of Murder
(c) Adultery and Divorce
(d) Oaths
(e) Retaliation
(f) Love to Neighbors--Love of Enemies
(2) Other References to the Law in the Teaching of Christ
(a) Traditions of the Elders and the 5th Commandment
(b) Christ's Answer to the Young Ruler
(c) Christ's Answer to the Lawyer
(d) References in the Fourth Gospel
2. The Law in Relation to the Life of Christ
(1) In His Infancy
(2) In His Ministry
3. The Law in Relation to the Death of Christ
(1) Christ Charged with Blasphemy under the Jewish Law
(2) Christ Charged with Treason under the Roman Law
4. How Christ Fulfilled the Law in All Its Parts
II. LAW IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
1. Stephen's Witness
2. Practice of Peter and Paul
3. Allusions to the Roman Law
III. LAW IN THE EPISTLES
1. In Romans
2. In Galatians
3. In the Other Pauline Epistles
4. In the Epistle to the Hebrews
5. In the Epistle of James
6. In the Epistles of Peter and John
LITERATURE
The Term "Law":
The Greek word for "law" is nomos, derived from nemo, "to divide," "distribute," "apportion," and generally meant anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law; in the New Testament a command, law.
Austin's Definition of Law:
It may not be amiss to note the definition of law given by a celebrated authority in jurisprudence, the late Mr. John Austin: "A law, in the most general and comprehensive acceptation in which the term, in its literal meaning, is employed, may be said to be a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being, by an intelligent being having power over him." Under this comprehensive statement, he classifies "laws set by God to His human creatures, and laws set by men to men." After analyzing the three ideas, command as the expression of a particular desire; duty or obligation, signifying that one is bound or obliged by the command to pursue a certain course of conduct, and sanction, indicating the evil likely to be incurred by disobedience, he thus summarizes: "The ideas or notions comprehended by the term command are the following: (1) a wish or desire conceived by a rational being that another rational being shall do or forbear; (2) an evil to proceed from the former and to be incurred by the latter in case the latter comply not with the wish; (3) an expression or intimation of the wish by words or other signs." This definition makes it clear that the term "laws of nature" can be used only in a metaphorical sense, the metaphorical application being suggested as Austin shows by the fact that uniformity or stability of conduct is one of the ordinary consequences of a law proper, consequently, "Wherever we observe a uniform order of events, or a uniform order of coexisting phenomena, we are prone to impute that order to a law set by its author, though the case presents us with nothing that can be likened to a sanction or a duty." As used in the New Testament it will be found generally that the term "law" bears the sense indicated by Austin, and includes "command," "duty" and "sanction."
I. Law in the Gospels. Naturally we first turn to the Gospels, where the word "law" always refers to the Mosaic law, although it has different applications. That law was really threefold: the Moral Law, as summed up in the Decalogue, the Ceremonial Law, prescribing the ritual and all the typical enactments, and what might be called the Civil or Political Law, that relating to the people in their national, political life. The distinction is not closely observed, though sometimes the reference emphasizes one aspect, sometimes another, but generally the whole Law without any discrimination is contemplated. Sometimes the Law means the whole Old Testament Scriptures, as in John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25. At other times the Law means the Pentateuch, as in Luke 24:44.
1. The Law in the Teaching of Christ: The Law frequently appears in the teaching of Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount He refers most specifically and fully to it. It is frequently asserted that He there exposes the imperfection of the Law and sets His own authority against its authority. But this seems to be a superficial and an untenable view. Christ indeed affirms very definitely the authority of the Law: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets" (Matthew 5:17). Here the term would seem to mean the whole of the Pentateuch "I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). A similar utterance is recorded in Luke 16:17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall."
(1) Authority of the Law Upheld in the Sermon on the Mount.
The perfection and permanence of the Law as well as its authority are thus indicated, and the following verse in Mt still further emphasizes the authority, while showing that now the Lord is speaking specifically of the moral law of the Decalogue: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (5:19). These impressive sentences should be borne in mind in considering, the utterances that follow, in which there seems a contrast between the Law and His own teaching, and from which has been drawn the inference that He condemns and practically abrogates the Law. What Jesus really does is to bring out the fullness of meaning that is in the Law, and to show its spirituality and the wideness of its reach. He declares that the righteousness of His disciples must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). Their righteousness consisted largely in a punctilious observance of the external requirements of the Law; the disciples must yield heart obedience to the inner spirit of the Law, its external and internal requirements.
(a) Christ and Tradition: Jesus then proceeds to point out the contrast, not so much between His own teaching and that of the Law, as between His interpretation of the Law and the interpretation of other teachers: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time" (the King James Version), "to them of old time" the Revised Version (British and American) (Matthew 5:21). Either rendering is grammatically allowable, but in either case it is evidently not the original utterance of Moses, but the traditional interpretation, which He had in view "Ye have heard that it was said"; Christ's usual way of quoting the Old Testament is, "It is written" or some other formula pointing to the written Word; and as He has just referred to the written Law as a whole, it would be strange if He should now use the formula "It was said" in reference to the particular precepts. Evidently He means what was said by the Jewish teachers.
(b) Sin of Murder: This is further confirmed by the citations: "Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." The second clause is not found in the Pentateuch as a distinct statement, but it is clearly the generalization of the teachers. Christ does not set Himself in opposition to Moses; rather does He enjoin obedience to the precepts of the scribes when, sitting in Moses' seat, they truly expound the Law (Matthew 23:1-8). But these teachers had so expounded the command as if it only referred to the act of murder; so Christ shows the full and true spiritual meaning of it: "But I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:22).
See MURDER.
(c) Adultery and Divorce: Again, "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Matthew 5:27). The traditional teaching confined this mainly to the outward act, `But I say unto you,' says Christ, `that adultery pertains even to the lustful thought' (Matthew 5:28). In dealing with this matter He passes to the law of divorce which was one of the civil enactments, and did not stand on the same level with the moral precept against committing adultery, nay, the very carrying out of the civil provision might lead to a real breach of the moral precept, and in the interests of the precept itself, in the very desire to uphold the authority of the moral law, Christ pronounces against divorce on any ground, save that of fornication. Later on, as recorded in Matthew 19:3-9, He was questioned about this same law of divorce, and again He condemns the light way in which divorce was treated by the Jews, and affirms strongly the sanctity of the marriage institution, showing that it was antecedent to the Mosaic code--was from the beginning, and derived its binding force from the Divine pronouncement in Genesis 2:24, rounded upon the nature of things; while as to the Mosaic law of divorce, lie declares that it was permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts, but that no other cause than fornication was sufficient to dissolve the marriage tie. This civil enactment, justified originally on account of the inability of the people to rise to the true moral ideal of the Decalogue, Christ claims authority to transcend, but in doing so He vindicates and upholds the law which said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
See DIVORCE.
(d) Oaths: The next precept Jesus cites is one partly civil and partly ritual, concerning the taking of oaths. The words are not found in the Pentateuch as a definite enactment; they are rather a gathering up of several utterances (Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21), and again the form of the citation suggests that it is the rabbinical interpretation that is in question. But the kind of swearing allowed by the law was the very opposite of ordinary profane swearing. It was intended, indeed, to guard the 3rd commandment against taking the name of Yahweh in vain. Christ in condemning the flippant oaths allowed by the rabbis was really asserting the authority of that 3rd command; lie was enforcing its spirituality and claiming the reverence due to the Divine name. Into the question how far the words of Christ bear upon oath-taking in a court of law we need not enter. His own response to the adjuration of the high priest when practically put upon His oath (Matthew 26:63-64) and other instances (Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:5; Hebrews 6:16-17; Revelation 10:5-6) would tend to show that such solemn appeals to God are not embraced in Christ's prohibition: "Swear not at all"; but undoubtedly the ideal speech is that of the simple asseveration, the "Yes" or "No" of the man, who, conscious that he speaks in the presence of God, reckons his word inviolable, needing no strengthening epithet, though as between man and man an oath may be necessary for confirmation and an end of strife.
See OATH.
(e) Retaliation: He next touches upon the "law of retaliation": "an eye for an eye" (Matthew 5:38), and consistently with our understanding of the other sayings, we think that here Christ is dealing with the traditional interpretation which admitted of personal revenge, of men taking the law into their own hands and revenging themselves. Such a practice Christ utterly condemns, and inculcates instead gentleness and forbearance, the outcome of love even toward enemies. This law, indeed, finds place among the Mosaic provisions, but it appears there, not as allowing personal spite to gratify itself in its own way, but as a political enactment to be carried out by the magistrates and so to discountenance private revenge. Christ shows that the spirit of His gospel received by His people would supersede the necessity for these. requirements of the civil code; although His words are not to be interpreted quite literally, for He himself when smitten on the one cheek did not turn the other to the smiter (John 18:22-23), and the principle of the law of retaliation still holds good in the legislative procedure of all civilized nations, and according to the New Testament teaching, will find place even in the Divine procedure in the day of judgment.
See also PUNISHMENT.
(f) Love to Neighbors--Love of Enemies: The last saying mentioned in the Sermon clearly reveals its rabbinical character: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy" (Matthew 5:43). The first part is indeed the injunction of the Law, the second part is an unwarrantable addition to it. It is only this part that Christ virtually condemns when He says, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). That the interpretation of these teachers was unwarrantable may be seen from many passages in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Psalms, which set forth the more spiritual aspect of the Law's requirement; and as to this particular precept, we need only refer to Proverbs 25:21-22, "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat." Christ while condemning the addition unfolds the spiritual import of the command itself, for the love of neighbor rightly interpreted involves love of enemies; and so on another occasion (Luke 10:25-37) He answers the lawyer's question, "Who is my neighbor?" by the parable of the Good Samaritan, showing that everyone in need is our neighbor.
See also FORGIVENESS; WRATH.
The last reference in the Sermon on the Mount to the Law fully bears out the idea that Christ really upheld the authority while elucidating the spirituality of the Law, for He declares that the principle embodied in the "Golden Rule" is a deduction from, is, indeed, the essence of, "the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
(2) Other References to the Law in the Teaching of Christ.
We can only glance at the other references to the Law in the teaching of Christ. In Matthew 11:13, "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John," the Law in its teaching capacity is in view, and perhaps the whole of the Pentateuch is meant. In Matthew 12:1-8, in rebutting the charge brought against His disciples of breaking the Sabbath, He cites the case of David and his men eating the showbread, which it was not lawful for any but the priests to partake of; and of the priests doing work on the Sabbath day which in other men would be a breach of the Law; from which He deduces the conclusion that the ritual laws may be set aside under stress of necessity and for a higher good. In that same chapter (Matthew 12:10-13) He indicates the lawfulness of healing--doing good--on the Sabbath day.
(a) Traditions of the Elders and the 5th Commandment:
In Matthew 15:1-6 we have the account of the Pharisees complaining that the disciples transgressed the traditions of the elders by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus retorts upon them with the question: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" citing the specific case of the 5th commandment which was evaded and virtually broken by their ingenious distinction of qorban. This is a very instructive incident in its bearing upon the point which we have sought to enforce--that it was the traditional interpretation and not the Law itself which Jesus condemned or corrected.
(b) Christ's Answer to the Young Ruler: To the young ruler (Matthew 19:16-30) He presents the commandments as the rule of life, obedience to which is the door to eternal life, especially emphasizing the manward aspect of the Law's claims. The young man, professing to have kept them all, shows that he has not grasped the spirituality of their requirements, and it is further to test him that Christ calls upon him to make the "great renunciation" which, after all, is not in itself an additional command so much as the unfolding of the spiritual and far-reaching character of the command, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
(c) Christ's Answer to the Lawyer: To the lawyer who asks Him which is the great commandment in the Law, He answers by giving him the sum of the whole moral law. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:35-39). In Mark's report (Mark 12:31), He adds, "There is none other commandment greater than these," and in that of Matthew He says, "On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40); both utterances showing the high estimation in which He held the Law.
(d) References in the Fourth Gospel: In His discussion with the Jews, recorded in John 7:1-53, He charges them with failure to keep the Law: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?" (John 7:19). And referring to the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath day, a deed which had roused their ire, He shows how one law may conflict with another. Moses had enjoined circumcision, and sometimes the time for circumcising would fall on the Sabbath day. Yet with all their reverence for the Sabbath day, they would, in order to keep the law of circumcision, perform the rite on the Sabbath day, and so, He argues, it is unreasonable to complain of Him because on the Sabbath day He had fulfilled the higher law of doing good, healing a poor sufferer. In none of all Christ's utterances is there any slight thrown upon the Law itself; it is always held up as the standard of right and its authority vindicated.
2. The Law in Relation to the Life of Christ: The passages we have considered show the place of the Law in the teaching of Christ, but we also find that He had to sustain a practical relation to that Law. Born under the Law, becoming part of a nation which honored and venerated the Law, every part of whose life was externally regulated by it, the life of Jesus Christ could not fail to be affected by that Law. We note its operation:
(1) In His Infancy. On the eighth day He was circumcised (Luke 2:21), thus being recognized as a member of the covenant nation, partaking of its privileges, assuming its responsibilities. Then, according to the ritual law of purification, He is presented in the temple to the Lord (Luke 2:22-24), while His mother offers the sacrifice enjoined in the "law of the Lord," the sacrifice she brings pathetically witnessing to her poverty, "a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons" being the alternative allowed to those who were not able to provide a lamb (Leviticus 12:1-8). The Divine approval is set upon this consecrating act, for it is while it is being done concerning Him after "the custom of the law" (Leviticus 12:8), that the Spirit of God comes upon Simeon and prompts the great prophecy which links all the Messianic hopes with the Baby of Bethlehem.
Again, according to the Law His parents go up to the Passover feast when the wondrous child has reached His 12th year, the age when a youthful Jew assumed legal responsibility, becoming "a son of the Law," and so Jesus participates in the festal observances, and His deep interest in all that concerns the temple-worship and the teaching of the Law is shown by His absorption in the conversation of the doctors, whose questions He answers so intelligently, while questioning them in turn, and filling them with astonishment at His understanding (Luke 2:42-47).
(2) In His Ministry. In His ministry He ever honors the Law. He reads it in the synagogue. He heals the leper by His sovereign touch and word, but He bids him go and show himself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded (Matthew 8:4). And again, when the lepers appeal to Him, His response which implies the healing is, "Go and show yourselves unto the priests" (Luke 17:14). He drives out of the temple those that defile it (Matthew 21:12-13; John 2:15-17), because of His zeal for the honor of His Father's house, and so, while showing His authority, emphasizes the sanctity of the temple and its services. So, while claiming to be the Son in the Father's house, and therefore above the injunctions laid upon the servants and strangers, He nevertheless pays the temple-tax exacted from every son of Israel (Matthew 17:24-27). He attends the various feasts during His ministry, and when the shadows of death are gathering round Him, He takes special pains to observe the Passover with His disciples. Thus to the ceremonial law He renders continuous obedience, the motto of His life practically being His great utterance to the Baptist: "Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). If He obeyed the ceremonial law, unquestionably He obeyed the moral law. His keenest-eyed enemies could find no fault in Him in regard to His moral conduct. His absolute sinlesshess attests the translation of the moral law into actual life.
3. The Law in Relation to the Death of Christ: We enter not upon theological question as to the relation of the death of Christ to the penal inflictions of the Law Divinely enforced on behalf of sinners--that touches the doctrine of the Atonement--we only note the fact that His death was brought about in professed accordance with the Law. The chief priests, in hatred, sent officers to take Him, but overawed by His matchless eloquence, these officers returned empty-handed. In their chagrin, the chief priests can only say that the people who follow Him now not the Law and are cursed (John 7:49). Nicodemus, on this occasion, ventures to remonstrate: "Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself?" (John 7:51). This sound legal principle these men are bent on disregarding; their one desire is to put an end to the life of this man, who has aroused their jealousy and hatred, and at last when they get Him into their hands, they strain the forms of the Law to accomplish their purpose. There is no real charge that can be brought against Him. They dare not bring up the plea that He broke the Sabbath, for again and again He has answered their cavils on that score. He has broken no law; all they can do is to bribe false witnesses to testify something to His discredit. The trumpery charge, founded upon a distorted reminiscence of His utterance about destroying the temple, threatens to break down.
(1) Christ Charged with Blasphemy under the Jewish Law.
Then the high priest adjures Him to say upon oath whether or not He claims to be the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Such a claim would assuredly, if unfounded, be blasphemy, and according to the Law, be punishable by death. On a previous occasion the Jews threatened to stone Him for this--to them--blasphemous claim. Now when Jesus calmly avows that He is the Son of God, the high priest, rending his clothes, declares that no further proof is needed. He has confessed to the blasphemy, and unanimously the council votes Him worthy of death (Matthew 26:1-75; Mark 14:1-72; Luke 22:1-71). If Jesus Christ were not what He claimed to be, then the priests were right in holding Him guilty of blasphemy; it never occurred to them to consider whether the claim after all might not be true.
(2) Christ Charged with Treason under the Roman Law.
Not only is the Jewish law invoked to accomplish His death, but also the Roman law. On one other occasion Christ had come into touch with the law of Rome, namely, when asked the ensnaring question by the Herodians as to the lawfulness of giving tribute to Caesar (Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22). Now the Jews need the Roman governor's authorization for the death penalty, and Jesus must be tried before him. The charge cannot now be blasphemy--the Roman law will have nothing to say to that--and so they trump up a charge of treason against Caesar.
In preferring it, they practically renounce their Messianic hopes. The charge, however, breaks down before the Roman tribunal, and only by playing on the weakness of Pilate do they gain their end, and the Roman law decrees His death, while leaving the Jews to see to the carrying out of the sentence. In this the evangelist sees the fulfillment of Christ's words concerning the manner of His death, for stoning would have been the Jewish form of the death penalty, not crucifixion.
See JESUS CHRIST,III , E), ii, 3, 4.
4. How Christ Fulfilled the Law in All Its Parts: Looking at the whole testimony of the Gospels, we can see how it was that Christ fulfilled the Law. He fulfilled the moral law by obeying, by bringing out its fullness of meaning, by showing its intense spirituality, and He established it on a surer basis than ever as the eternal law of righteousness. He fulfilled the ceremonial and typical law, not only by conforming to its requirements, but by realizing its spiritual significance. He filled up the shadowy outlines of the types, and, thus fulfilled, they pass away, and it is no longer necessary for us to observe the Passover or slay the daily lamb: we have the substance in Christ. He also cleared the Law from the traditional excrescences which had gathered round it under the hands of the rabbis. He showed that the ceremonial distinction between meats clean and unclean was no longer necessary, but showed the importance of true spiritual purity (Matthew 15:11; Mark 7:18-23). He taught His disciples those great principles when, after His resurrection, "beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). And as He opened their mind that they might understand the Scriptures, He declared, "These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44). John sums this up in his pregnant phrase, "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). The grace was in contrast to the condemnation of the moral law, the truth was the antithesis to the shadowy outline of the types and ceremonies.
II. Law in the Acts of the Apostles. Without considering questions of authenticity and historicity in relation to this book which professes to be the earliest church history, we briefly note the place of the Law therein indicated. In the book we have an account of the transition from Judaism to fully developed Christianity, and the Law comes into view in various ways. The disciples, like other Jews, observe the feast of Pentecost, and even after the descent of the Spirit, they frequent the temple and observe the hours of prayer.
1. Stephen's Witness: The full-orbed gospel proclaimed by Stephen arouses the suspicion and enmity of the stricter sects of the Jews, who accuse him before the council of speaking blasphemous words against the holy place and the Law. But this was the testimony of suborned witnesses, having doubtless its foundation in the fact that Stephen's teaching emphasized the grace of the gospel. Stephen's own defense honors the Law as given by Moses, "who received living oracles" (Acts 7:38), shows how disloyal the people had been, and closes by charging them not only with rejecting and slaying the Righteous One, but of failing to keep the Law "as it was ordained by angels" (Acts 7:53).
2. Practice of Peter and Paul: Peter's strict observance of the ceremonial law is shown in connection with his vision which teaches him that the grace of God may pass beyond the Jewish pale (Acts 10:1-48). Paul's preaching emphasizes the fulfilling the Scriptures, Law and Prophecy, by Jesus Christ. The gist of his message, as given in his first reported sermon, is, "By him everyone that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38 f). The conversion of the Gentiles brings up the question of their relation to the ceremonial law, specifically to circumcision. The decision of the council at Jerusalem treats circumcision as unnecessary for the Gentiles, and only enjoins, in relation to the Mosaic ritual, abstinence from things strangled and from blood (Acts 15:1-41). The after-course of events would show that this provision was for the time of transition. Paul, though strongly opposed to the idea of imposing circumcision on the Gentiles, nevertheless without inconsistency and as a concession to Jewish feeling, circumcises Timothy (Acts 16:3), and himself fulfills the ceremonial enactments in connection with the taking of a vow (Acts 18:18). He also, following the advice of James, who wished him to conciliate the myriads of believing Jews who were zealous for the Law, and to show them the falseness of the charge that he taught the Jews among the Gentiles "to forsake Moses" (apostasy from Moses), took upon him the ceremonial duty of purifying the "four men that have a vow on them" (Acts 21:20-26). This involved the offering of sacrifices, and the fact that Paul could do so shows that for the Jews the sacrificial system still remained in force. The sequel to the transaction might raise the question whether, after all, the procedure was a wise one; it certainly did not fulfill the expectations of James. Later on, in his defense before Felix, Paul claims to be loyal to the Jewish faith, worshipping in the temple, and "believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets" (Acts 24:11-14); and in his address to the Jewish leaders in Rome, he declares that he has "done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers" (Acts 28:17), and he seeks to persuade them concerning Jesus, "both from the law of Moses and from the prophets" (Acts 28:23).
3. Allusions to the Roman Law: In the Acts we find several allusions to law other than Jewish. In Acts 16:1-40 Paul comes into collision with the Roman law. Beaten and imprisoned by the magistrates of Philippi, he is afterward offered the opportunity of quietly slipping away, but standing on his dignity as a Roman citizen, he demands that the magistrates themselves, who had violated the law by publicly beating uncondemned Romans, should come and set them free. This same right as a Roman citizen Paul again asserts when about to be scourged by the command of the centurion (Acts 22:25), and his protest is successful in averting the indignity. His trial before Felix and Festus well illustrates the procedure under the Roman law, and his appeal, as a Roman citizen, to Caesar had important results in his life.
III. Law in the Epistles. The word is used both with and without the article, but though in some cases the substantive without the article refers to law in general, yet in many other places it undoubtedly refers to the Law of Moses. Perhaps, as has been suggested, it is that, where it does refer to the Mosaic Law, the word without the article points to that law, not so much as Mosaic, but in its quality as law. But speaking generally, the word with and without the article is used in reference to the Law of Moses.
1. In Romans: (1) Law as a Standard. In Romans Paul has much to say about law, and in the main it is the moral law that he has in view. In this great epistle, written to people at the center of the famous legal system of Rome, many of them Jews versed in the law of Moses and others Gentiles familiar with the idea of law, its nature, its scope and its sway, he first speaks of the Law as a standard, want of conformity to which brings condemnation. He shows that the Gentiles who had not the standard of the revealed Law nevertheless had a law, the law of Nature, a law written upon their heart and conscience. Roman jurisprudence was familiar with the conception of a law of Nature, which became a law of nations (jus gentium), so that certain principles could be assumed as obtaining among those who had not the knowledge of the Roman code; and in accordance with these principles, the dealings between Romans and barbarians could be regulated. Paul's conception is somewhat similar, but is applied to the spiritual relations of man and God.
(2) Gentiles Condemned by the Law of Nature. But the Gentiles, not having lived up to the light of that law, are condemned. They have violated the dictates of their own conscience. And the Jews, with the fuller light of their revealed law, have equally failed. In this connection Paul incidentally lays down the great principle that "Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Romans 2:13). His great aim, in the epistle, is to show that justification is by faith, but he here asserts that if anyone would have justification through law, then he must keep that law in all its details. The Law will pronounce the doer of it justified, but the mere hearing of the Law without doing it will only increase the condemnation. "As many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12). Paul does not pronounce upon the question whether a Gentile may be saved by following the light of Nature; he rather emphasizes the negative side that those who have failed shall perish; they have light enough to condemn, is his point.
(3) All Men under Condemnation. Having proved that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin, he closes his great indictment with the statement: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19). Thus the Law shuts up into condemnation. It is impossible for any sinner to be justified "by the works of the law"; the Law not only condemns but "through the law cometh the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). It shows how far short men have come of God's requirements. It is a mirror in which the sinner sees his defilement, but the mirror cannot cleanse, though it shows the need of cleansing.
(4) The Redeeming Work of Christ Providing Righteousness Apart from the Law.
Then setting forth the great redemption of Jesus Christ, the apostle shows that it provides what the Law had failed to provide, a righteousness which can satisfy the requirements of the Law; a righteousness that is indeed "apart from the law," apart from all men's attempts to keep the Law, but is nevertheless in deepest harmony with the principles of the Law, and has been witnessed "by the law and the prophets" (Romans 3:21). (In this passage the "law" seems to mean the Pentateuch, and in Romans 3:19, in view of the preceding citations from the Psalms, it appears to mean the whole Old Testament Scriptures.) Since the righteousness secured by Christ comes upon the sinner through faith, manifestly the works of the Law can have nothing to do with our obtaining of it. But so far is faith-righteousness from undermining the Law, that Paul claims that through faith the Law is established (Romans 3:31).
(5) Abraham's Blessings Came Not through the Law. Proceeding to show that his idea of justification by faith was no new thing, that the Old Testament saint had enjoyed it, he particularly shows that Abraham, even in his uncircumcised state, received the blessing through faith; and the great promise to him and his seed did not come through the Law, but on the principle of faith.
(6) Law Worketh Wrath and Intensifieth the Evil of Sin.
Indeed, so far from blessing coming to sinners by way of the Law, the "law worketh wrath" (Romans 4:15); not wrath in men against the Law's restrictions as some have argued, but the holy wrath of God so frequently mentioned by the apostle in this epistle. The Law worketh wrath, inasmuch as when disobeyed it brings on the sinner the Divine disapproval, condemnation; it enhances the guilt of sin, and so intensifies the Divine wrath against it; and it, in a sense, provokes to sin: the sinful nature rebels against the restrictions imposed by the Law, and the very fact of a thing being forbidden arouses the desire for it. This seems what he means in a subsequent passage (Romans 5:20), "And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound"; as if the very multiplying of restrictions intensified the tendency to sin, brought out the evil in human nature, showed the utter vileness of the sinful heart and the terrible nature of sin, and thus made the need for salvation appear the greater, the very desperateness of the disease showing the need for the remedy and creating the desire for it; the abounding of sin preparing the way for the super-abounding of grace. That the presence of Law enhances the evil of sin is further shown by the statement, "But where there is no law, neither is there transgression" (Romans 4:15); transgression--parabasis--the crossing of the boundary, is, in the strict sense, only possible under law. But there may be sin apart from a revealed law, as he has already proved in the 2nd chapter.
(7) Law in the Light of the Parallel between Adam and Christ.
In Romans 5:1-21, dealing with the parallel between Adam and Christ he says: "For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13). He cannot mean that men were not held responsible for their sin, or that sin was not in any sense reckoned to their account, for he has in that 2nd chapter proved the opposite; but sin was not so imputed to them as to bring upon them the punishment of death, which they nevertheless did suffer, and that is traced by him to the sin of Adam. These, he says, had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression (5:14); they had not transgressed a positive command as he did, although they had undoubtedly violated the law of conscience, and knew that they were sinners. In drawing out the parallel between Adam and Christ, he plainly indicates that as Adam's transgression of law brought condemnation on the race, so Christ's obedience to the Law brings justification.
(8) Law and Righteousness. So far he may be said to have spoken of the Law in regard to the sinner; and it is mainly the Law in its judicial aspect, the Law in relation to righteousness. The Law reveals righteousness, the Law demands righteousness, the Law condemns for unrighteousness. Redemption is a working out of righteousness. The Law witnesses to the perfect righteousness of Christ. The righteousness secured by Christ meets all the requirements of the Law, while gloriously transcending it. The righteous penalty of the Law has been borne by Christ; the righteous requirements of the Law have been fulfilled by Christ. That perfect righteousness secured apart from the Law, but satisfying to the Law, comes to men not through their relation to the Law, but through faith. Now he proceeds to consider the Law in relation to the saint.
(9) The Saint and the Law. The believer justified through Christ has died with Christ. The "old man"--the sinful nature--has been crucified with Christ; the condemning power of the Law has terminated in the death of Christ, and through the death of the believer with Christ he has freedom from the condemnation of the Law. "He that hath died is justified from sin" (Romans 6:7). But though in one aspect the believer is dead, in another he is alive. He dies with Christ, but he rises spiritually with Him, and thus spiritually alive he is "to yield," "to present" his "members as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Romans 6:13), and for his comfort he is assured that in this new sphere of life sin shall not have power to bring him under the condemnation of the Law--"Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14). His relationship to the Law has been altered through his union with Christ, and this fact the apostle proceeds to illustrate. He enounces the principle that "the law hath dominion over a man for so long a time as he liveth" (Romans 7:1). Death dissolves all legal objections. The believer, spiritually dead, is not under the dominion of the Law.
(10) Illustrated by the Law of the Husband. The specific case is then given of a married woman bound by law to her husband, but freed from that law through his death, and in the application, he says, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4). If the Law in this metaphorical description is the husband while the soul is the wife, as has been most generally understood by commentators, then the application is based on the general thought of death dissolving the legal obligation, the death of the husband involves the death of the woman as a wife, and so he can speak of the death of the believer rather than of the death of the Law. Another explanation of the metaphor is that the old sinful state is the husband to which the ego, the personality, was bound by the Law, but that the sinful state being brought to death through Christ, the personality is free to enter into union with Christ. Whatever view is adopted, the leading thought of the apostle is clear, that through the death of Christ the believer is free from the Law: "But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held" (Romans 7:6).
(11) The Purity and Perfection of the Law in Its Own Sphere.
The question is then raised, "Is the law sin?" (Romans 7:7). The thought is repudiated as unthinkable, but he goes on to show how the law was related to sin, giving from his own experience the exemplification of what he had stated in the 3rd chapter, that by the Law is the knowledge of sin. The Law revealed his sin; the Law aroused the opposition of his nature, and through the working of sin under the prohibition of the Law, he found the tendency to be death. Nevertheless, there is no doubt in his mind that the Law is not responsible for the sin, the Law is not in any manner to be blamed, "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good" (Romans 7:12). Sin in the light of the holy Law is shown to be exceeding sinful, and the Law itself is known to be spiritual.
We need not deal with the difficult passage that follows concerning the inner conflict. There has always been much discussion as to whether this is a conflict in the soul of the unregenerate man or of the regenerate--we believe it is in the regenerate, setting forth the experience of the believer--but whatever view is taken, it is clear that the law cannot bring deliverance; the higher part of man's nature, or the regenerate nature according to the interpretation one adopts, may "consent unto the law that it is good" (Romans 7:16), may even "delight in the law of God" (Romans 7:22); but there is another law at work, the law of sin in the members, and the working of this law means captivity and wretchedness from which deliverance can only come through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:23-25). The word "law" in these verses is used in the sense of principle, "the law of my mind," "the law of sin," "the law in my members"; but over against all is the law of God.
(12) Freedom from the Penal Claims of the Law. The description of the Law as holy, righteous and good, as spiritual, as the object of delight to a true heart, is enough to show that the deliverance which the Christian enjoys is freedom from the penal claims and condemning power of the Law. This is borne out by the exulting conclusion: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). The Law's claims, satisfied by Christ, no longer press upon those who are in Him. When the apostle adds, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death" (Romans 8:2), he is using "law" in the general sense as a principle or power of producing ordered action, and "the law of the Spirit of life" may be taken to mean the method of the Spirit's working, and indeed may well be a way of describing the gospel itself--the new law, through which the Spirit operates. The other phrase, "law of sin and death," is not to be taken as meaning the Law of Moses, but the law, the principle of sin producing death mentioned in the previous chapter, unless we think of it as the holy Law which gives the knowledge of sin and brings the condemnation of death. The failure of the Law to produce a satisfactory result is definitely attributed to the weakness of the flesh, which is in effect reflecting the statement of the previous chapter, but all that the Law could not accomplish is accomplished through the work of Christ. In Christ sin is condemned, and in those who are brought into union with Him the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled.
(13) The Law Remains as a Rule of Life for the Believer.
Thus, the Law is not abrogated. It remains as the standard of righteousness, the "rule of life" for believers. The utmost holiness to which they can attain under the influence of the Holy Spirit, is still the "righteousness" which the Law requires. That the apostle's teaching is far removed from Antinomianism is shown, not only by all that he says in these chapters about the believer's new life of absolute spiritual service, but by the specific statement in Romans 13:8-10, which at once prescribes the commandments as rules of life (in Ephesians 6:2 he cites and enforces the Ephesians 5:11-33th commandment) and shows how true obedience is possible. "Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law." Then, after specifying several of the commands, he declares that these and all other commands are "summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." The man in Christ has found the true principle of obedience. He has entered into the true spirit of the holy law. That is all summed up in love, and he having received the love of Christ, living in His love, sees the Law not as a stern taskmaster condemning, but as a bright vision alluring. He indeed sees the Law embodied in Christ, and the imitation of Christ involves obedience to the Law, but he fulfills the Law not simply as a standard outside, but as a living principle within. Acting according to the dictates of the love begotten at the cross, his life is conformed to the image of Christ, and in so far is conformed to the Law--"Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law." In Romans 13:1-7, though the word "law" does not occur, Paul indicates the relation of the Christian to the Roman law, to the sovereignty of Rome in general, showing that "the powers that be are ordained of God" and that in the ideal they are reflections of Divine authority, and as such are to be obeyed.
2. In Galatians: In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul has also a great deal to say about the Law, but as we have dealt so fully with the conception given in Romans, we can only briefly note the teaching of the Galatian Epistle.
(1) Law in Relation to Grace and Spiritual Liberty.
In general, we may say that as the Law in relation to righteousness was the prominent feature in Romans, in Galatians it is the Law in relation to grace and spiritual liberty, and while it was almost exclusively the moral law that Paul had in view in Romans, in Galatians it is rather the Law of Moses in its entirety, with special emphasis upon the ceremonial. He introduces the subject by referring to the episode at Antioch, when he had to rebuke Peter for his "dissimulation" (2:13). He shows the inconsistency of those who knew that they had been "justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law" (2:16), compelling the GentileChristians to live according to the Law, and sums up with the striking statement, "For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God" (2:19). The Law in revealing his sin and pronouncing condemnation, drove him to Christ for justification. Crucified with Christ he has entered into such vital union with Christ that his whole self-life is dominated by the Christ-life: "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me" (2:20). Here we have the same line of thought as in Romans; then Paul goes on to show that all the blessings of grace which these Christians enjoy have come to them not by way of the Law, but "by the hearing of faith" (3:2-5). Again, citing the case of Abraham as an instance of justification by faith, he shows how utterly opposed the Law is to the grace that brings salvation, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse" (3:10), but in gracious contrast, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" (3:13), having Himself borne the curse, and so the blessing of Abraham can come upon the Gentiles through faith (3:18).
(2) The Function of the Law Not to Give Life, but to Guide Life
As in Romans, he shows that the promise of the inheritance was apart from the Law, was given 430 years before the Law was promulgated, and answers the question as to the purpose of the Law, by saying, "It was added because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:19), the thought already noted in Romans. Yet the Law was not in its nature opposed to the promise. If any law could have given life, "could make alive," then so perfect was the Law of Moses that it would have served the purpose; "Verily, righteousness would have been of the law" (Galatians 3:21). The Law was never meant to give life to those who had it not. "He that doeth them shall live in them" (Galatians 3:12), but the doing implies the possession of life, and the Law only guarantees the continuance of life while it is perfectly obeyed. Law controls life, but cannot confer life. It regulates life, but cannot restore life. It may impel to righteousness, but it cannot impart righteousness.
(3) The Law Our Schoolmaster. The Law, he shows, was our schoolmaster, our pedagogue, "to bring us unto Christ" (Galatians 3:24). The Grecian youth was under the charge of a pedagogue during his minority, one part of the pedagogue's duty being to take the boy, unwilling enough sometimes, to school. In the sense already shown in Romanans, the moral law by showing us our sinfulness leads us to Christ; but here we may take the Law as a whole, including all the ceremonial and typical observances which were designed to lead the people to Christ.
(4) The Bondage of the Law. But while there was undoubtedly much of privilege for the people under the Mosaic dispensation, there was also something of bondage. And so Paul says, "We were kept in ward under the law" (Galatians 3:23), and in the next chapter, he speaks of the child, though heir to a great estate, being "under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father" (Galatians 4:2), which seems to be the same thought as under the pedagogue, and this he calls a state of "bondage" (Galatians 4:3). The Law guarded and tutored and restrained; the great typical observances, though foreshadowing the grace of the gospel, were yet, in their details, irksome and burdensome, and the mass of rules as to every part of the Jew's conduct proved to be, speaking after the present-day manner, a system of red tape. Little was left to the free, spontaneous action of the spirit; the whole course of the Jew from the cradle to the grave was carefully marked out.
(5) Sonship and Its Freedom from the Law's Restrictions.
But in the fullness of time "God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4 f). The gospel of the grace of God embodied in Christ shows its gracious character in that it not only answers the requirements of the moral law and removes its condemnation; fulfills, and by fulfilling abrogates the typical observer of the ceremonial law, but also abolishes all the directions and restrictions given to the Jews as a separate people, and brings its subjects into a condition of liberty where the renewed spirit under the mighty love of Christ can act spontaneously, the great principles of the moral law remaining as its guide, while the minute rules needed for the infancy of the race are no longer appropriate for the "sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26). And so Paul warns these Christians against turning back to the "weak and beggarly rudiments" and observing "months, and seasons, and years" (Galatians 4:9-10).
3. In the Other Pauline Epistles: In the remaining Epistles of Paul, little is said of the Law, and we need only indicate the connections in which the word occurs. In 1 Corinthians 7:39 there is a reference to the wife being "bound by the law as long as her husband liveth" (the King James Version). The word "law," however, is omitted from the critical texts and from the Revised Version (British and American). In the same epistle (1 Corinthians 9:8-9; 21, 34) the word is used of the Pentateuch or the Scriptures as a whole. In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul refers to his practice of seeking to win men to Christ by accommodating himself to their standpoint, "to them that are under the law, as under the law"; and in 15:56 occurs the pregnant statement, an echo of Romans, "The power of sin is the law." In 2 Corinthians the word does not occur, though the legal system is referred to as the ministration of death, in contrast to the gospel ministration of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:1-18). The word "law" is once used in Ephesians 2:15, in reference to the work of Christ not only producing harmony between God and man, but between Jew and Gentile: "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances," also spoken of as "the middle wall of partition," and referring especially to the ceremonial enactments.
In Philippians 3:5-6, 9 we have the fine autobiographical passage wherein we see the self-righteous Pharisee reckoning himself "blameless" in the eye of the Law, until convinced of his sin, and led to find in Christ the righteousness "which is through faith," instead of his own righteousness "which is of the law" (3:9). The word does not occur in Col, but the thought is found of the spiritual circumcision in contrast to the physical, the blotting out through the work of the cross, of the bond written in ordinances and the consequent deliverance of the believer from the bondage of ceremonial observances (2:11-17), those being affirmed to be "a shadow of the things to come," Christ being the glorious substance. In 1 Timothy 1:8, 9, we have the two pregnant statements that "the law is good, if a man use it lawfully," and that "law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless."
4. In the Epistle to the Hebrews: The word "law" occurs 14 times in this epistle, and a great deal of attention is given to the subject, but it is generally the law in its ceremonial and typical aspect that is in question. It is not necessary to look at the matter in detail, but simply to indicate the line of teaching.
(1) Harmony with the Pauline Teaching. The ancient doubt as to the authorship of the epistle seems today to have crystallized into certainty, albeit the grounds for a conclusion are no stronger than formerly, but in the desire to prove the non-Pauline authorship, too much emphasis is perhaps laid upon the supposed un-Pauline character of the teaching. There is, after all, profound harmony between the teaching of the Pauline Epistles and the teaching of He, and the harmony applies to this matter of the Law. While Paul, as we have seen, gives prominence in Romans to the moral law, in Galatians and elsewhere he deals with the ceremonial law, in much the same way, though not so fully, as the writer to the Hebrews. Such utterances as, "Our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ" (1 Corinthians 5:7); "The rock was Christ"; "Now these things were our examples" (types of us) (1 Corinthians 10:4-6); "Which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's" (Colossians 2:17) are exactly in line with the teaching of Hebrews.
(2) The Law Transcended by the Gospel. The author shows how the Law, which was a word spoken through angels, is transcended by the gospel, which has been spoken by the Lord of the angels, and so demands greater reverence (Hebrews 2:2-4), and all through the epistle it is the transcendent glory of the gospel dispensation introduced by Christ and ascribed to Him, which is made to shine before us.
(3) Law of Priesthood. The author deals specifically in Hebrews 7:1-28 and 8 with the law of priesthood, showing that Christ's Priesthood, "after the order of Melchisedek," surpasses in glory that of the Aaronic priesthood under the law; not only surpasses but supersedes it; the imperfect gives place to the perfect; the shadowy to the real; the earthly to the heavenly; the temporal to the eternal. And as Paul justifies his doctrine of justification apart from the deeds of the Law by reference to the Old Testament teaching, so here the writer finds in the Old Testament prediction of the New Covenant, the basis for all his reasoning, and in his reference to the description of the New Covenant, he is at one with Paul in regard to the moral law, seeing it as now written on the heart, and becoming an internal power, rather than an external precept.
See NEW COVENANT.
(4) The Law of the Sanctuary and the Sacrifices. He next deals with the law of the sanctuary, and in connection therewith considers the law of the sacrifices (Hebrews 9:1-28 through Hebrews 10:1-39), and in the same way shows that Christ makes good all that the tabernacle and its services typified, that His one, all-perfect eternal sacrifice takes the place of the many imperfect temporary sacrifices offered under the Law. At the best the Law had "a shadow of the good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1). The shadow was useful for the time being, the people were greatly privileged in having it, it directed them to the great Figure who cast the shadow. The whole ceremonial system was really a system of grace at the heart of it; in spite of its external rubrics which might well be abused, it made provision for satisfying for the time the breaches of the law; the sacrifices themselves could not take away sin, but periodical forgiveness was conveyed through them, by virtue of their relation to the Coming One. Now the great sacrifice having been offered, eternal redemption is secured, perfect forgiveness obtained, free access into the heavenly Holy Place assured, and the eternal inheritance provided. The Substance of all the shadows has appeared, the shadows pass away, and the great truth indicated by Christ Himself is now fully made known through His Spirit-taught servants. Christ, who "is the end of the law (the moral law) unto righteousness to every one that believeth" (Romans 10:4), is also the end of the ceremonial law, the full realization of all its types and shadows.
5. In the Epistle of James: James mentions the "law" 10 times in his epistle, and in each case it is the moral law. The influence of the Sermon on the Mount is seen throughout the epistle, and some distinct echoes of it are heard, as e.g. the injunction, "Swear not (at all)" (5:12). James has nothing but good to say of the Law, and that fact in the light of the influence of the Sermon on the Mount is enough to show that Christ, in that wonderful discourse, did not disparage the Law, far less abrogate it, but rather exalted and reinforced it. James taught by Christ exalts the Law, glorifies it, in fact seems almost to identify it with the gospel, for in James 1:1-27, when speaking of the Word and the importance of hearing and doing it, he in the same breath speaks of looking into "the perfect law, the law of liberty" (James 1:25). And indeed, it is just possible, as some think, that he means the gospel by the epithet, although it seems better to take it as the Law translated in the gospel, the Law looked at in its spirituality, as the guide of the Christian man who has entered into the spirit of it.
Even in the Old Testament, as Psalms 19:1-14 and Psalms 119:1-176 specifically show, it was possible for spiritually-minded men to see the beauty of the Law and find delight in its precepts. In James 2:8 he speaks of the "royal law," and that here he does mean the Mosaic Law is beyond doubt, since he cites the particular requirement, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," in this agreeing with his Master and with Paul, finding in love of neighbor the sum of the Law and its true fulfillment. Respect of persons, he affirms, is a breach of this "royal law," and leads to those indulging in it being "convicted" by the law of transgression (James 2:9). He then affirms the solidarity of the Law, so that a breach of it in one particular is a breach of the whole, and makes a man "guilty of all" (James 2:10), a far-reaching principle which Paul had also indicated when quoting in Gal the words, "Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them" (Galatians 3:10), and when in Romans 7:1-25 he showed that the conviction that he had broken the Romans 10:11-21th commandment made him realize that he had broken the whole Law. James then exhorts his readers to speak and act as those who are to be judged by "a law of liberty" (Romans 2:12), so that he sets no limit to the range of that law. Finally, in Romans 4:11, he warns them by implication against speaking against the Law or judging the Law, that is, to assume the place of judge instead of "doer of the law." James could not have used such language unless he had a profound conviction of the perfection of the Law. And it is the perfection of the Law as a rule of life for spiritual men redeemed from its condemnation that James considers it, and so we can call it the perfect law, the law of liberty, the Royal Law.
6. In the Epistles of Peter and John: In the Epistles of Peter and John, the word "law" does not occur, but Peter shows that the holiness of God remains as in the Pentateuch the standard of life, and the example of Christ shows the way (1 Peter 2:21), while in the church is found the spiritual realization of the sanctuary, priesthood and sacrifices of the old economy (1 Peter 2:5-9). Peter has one reference to the Roman law, enjoining upon his readers obedience to it in the political sphere. John enjoins the keeping of the commandments, these being apparently the commandments of Christ (1 John 2:3-4; 5:2), and the test of keeping the commandments is love of the brethren, while hatred of a brother is, as in the Sermon on the Mount, murder. All sin is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), and the sum of all law-keeping is love of God and love of the brethren, and so the summary of the old Law is echoed and endorsed.
LITERATURE.
Chiefly the works on New Testament theology (Weiss, Beyschlag, Schmid, etc.), and on Christian ethics (Martensen, Dorner, Harless, etc.), with commentaries on Pauline Epistles (Romans, etc.); Ritschl, Entstehung der altk. Kirche (2nd edition); Zahn, Das Gesetz Gottes nach der Lehre und der Erfahrung des Apostels Paulus; J. Denney, in HDB.
Archibald M'Caig
Law in the Old Testament
Law in the Old Testament - I. TERMS USED
1. Torah ("Law")
2. Synonyms of Torah
(1) Mitswah ("Command")
(2) `Edhah ("Witness," "Testimony")
(3) MishpaTim ("Judgments")
(4) Chuqqim ("Statutes")
(5) Piqqudhim ("Precepts")
II. THE WRITTEN RECORD OF THE LAW
1. The Critical Dating of the Laws
2. Groups of Laws in P (the Priestly Code)
3. The Book of the Covenant
(1) Judgments. Compared with Code of Hammurabi
(2) Basis of Law of Covenant. Earlier Customs
4. The Book of the Law of Deuteronomy 31
5. The Law of Holiness
6. The Final Compilation
III. THE GENERAL CHARACTER AND DESIGN OF THE LAW
1. The Civil Law
(1) Servants and the Poor
(2) Punishments
(3) Marriage
(4) Sabbaths and Feasts
2. The Ceremonial Law
(1) Origin of Sacrifice
(2) The Levitical Ritual
(3) The Law Truly a Torah
IV. THE PASSING AWAY OF THE LAW
LITERATURE
Law, at least as custom, certainly existed among the Hebrews in the times before Moses, as appears from numerous allusions to it, both in matters civil and ceremonial, in the earlier Scriptures. But we have no distinct account of such law, either as to its full contents or its enactment. Law in the Old Testament practically means the Law promulgated by Moses (having its roots no doubt in this earlier law or custom), with sundry later modifications or additions, rules as to which have been inserted in the record of the Mosaic law.
The following are matters of pre-Mosaic law or custom to which allusion is made in Genesis and Exodus: the offering of sacrifice and the use of altars (Genesis, passim); the religious use of pillars (Genesis 28:18); purification for sacrifice (Genesis 35:2); tithes (Genesis 14:20; 28:22); circumcision (Genesis 17:10; Exodus 4:25 f); inquiry at a sanctuary (Genesis 25:22); sacred feasts (Exodus 5:1, etc.); priests (Exodus 19:22); sacred oaths (Genesis 14:22); marriage customs (Genesis 16:1-16; Genesis 24:1-67; 25:6; Genesis 29:16-30); birthright (Genesis 25:31-34); elders (Genesis 24:2; 50:7; Exodus 3:16); homicide (Genesis 9:6), etc. We proceed at once to the Law of Moses.
I. Terms Used. The Hebrew word rendered "law" in our Bibles is torah. Other synonymous words either denote (as indeed does torah itself) aspects under which the Law may be regarded, or different classes of law.
1. Torah ("Law"): Torah is from horah, the Hiphil of yarah. The root meaning is "to throw"; hence, in Hiphil the word means "to point out" (as by throwing out the hand), and so "to direct"; and torah is "direction." Torah may be simply "human direction," as the "law of thy mother" in Proverbs 1:8; but most often in the Old Testament it is the Divine law. In the singular it often means a law, the plural being used in the same sense; but more frequently torah in the singular is the general body of Divinely given law. The word tells nothing as to the way in which the Law, or any part of it, was first given; it simply points out the general purpose of the Law, namely, that it was for the guidance of God's people in the various matters to which it relates. This shows that the end of the Law lay beyond the mere obedience to such and such rules, that end being instruction in the knowledge of God and of men's relation to Him, and guidance in living as the children of such a God as He revealed Himself to be. This is dwelt upon in the later Scriptures, notably in Psalms 19:1-14 and Psalms 119:1-176.
In the completed Canon of the Old Testament, torah technically denotes the Pentateuch (Luke 24:44) as being that division of the Old Testament Scriptures which contains the text of the Law, and its history down to the death of Moses, the great lawgiver.
2. Synonyms of Torah: (1) Mitswah ("Command")
Mitswah, "command" (or, in the plural, "commands"), is a term applied to the Law as indicating that it is a charge laid upon men as the expression of God's will, and therefore that it must be obeyed.
(2) `Edhah ("Witness," "Testimony")
`Edhah, "witness" or "testimony" (in plural "testimonies"), is a designation of God's law as testifying the principles of His dealings with His people. So the ark of the covenant is called the "ark of the testimony" (Exodus 25:22), as containing "the testimony" (Exodus 25:16), i.e. the tables of the Law upon which the covenant was based. The above terms are general, applying to the torah at large; the two next following are of more restricted application.
(3) MishpaTim ("Judgments")
MishpaTim, "judgments": MishpaT in the singular sometimes means judgment in an abstract sense, as in Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 32:4; sometimes the act of judging, as in Deuteronomy 16:18-19; 17:9; 24:17. But "judgments" (in the plural) is a term constantly used in connection with, and distinction from, statutes, to indicate laws of a particular kind, namely, laws which, though forming part of the torah by virtue of Divine sanction, originated in decisions of judges upon cases brought before them for judgment. See further below.
(4) Chuqqim ("Statutes")
Chuqqim, "statutes" (literally, "laws engraven"), are laws immediately enacted by a lawgiver. "Judgments and statutes" together comprise the whole law (Leviticus 18:4; Deuteronomy 4:1, 8 the King James Version). So also we now distinguish between consuetudinary and statute law.
(5) Piqqudhim ("Precepts")
Piqqudhim, "precepts": This term is found only in the Psalms. It seems to mean rules or counsels provided to suit the various circumstances in which men may be placed. The term may perhaps be meant to apply both to the rules of the actual torah, and to others found, e.g. in the writings of prophets and "wise men."
II. The Written Record of the Law. The enactment of the Law and its committal to writing must be distinguished. With regard to the former, it is distinctly stated (John 1:17) that "the law was given through Moses"; and though this does not necessarily imply that every regulation found in the Pentateuch is his, a large number of the laws are expressly ascribed to him. As regards the latter, we are distinctly told that Moses wrote certain laws or collections of laws (Exodus 17:14; 4, 7; Deuteronomy 31:9). These, however, form only a portion of the whole legislation; and therefore, whether the remaining portions were written by Moses, or--if not by him--when and by whom, is a legitimate matter of inquiry.
It is not necessary here to discuss the large question of the literary history of the Pentateuch, but it must briefly be touched upon. The Pentateuch certainly appears to have reached its present form by the gradual piecing together of diverse materials. Deuteronomy (D) being a separate composition, a distinction would seem to have been clearly established by critical examination between a number of paragraphs in the remaining books which apparently must once have formed a narrative by themselves, and other paragraphs, partly narrative but chiefly legislative and statistical, which appear to have been subsequently added. Without endorsing any of the critical theories as to the relation of these, one to the other, or as to the dates of their composition, we may, in a general way, accept the analysis, and adopt the well-known symbol JE (Jahwist-Elohim) to distinguish the former, and P (Priestly Code) the latter. Confining ourselves to their legislative contents, we find in JE a short but very important body of law, the Law of the Covenant, stated in full in Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 23:1-33, and repeated as to a portion of it in Exodus 34:10-28. All the rest of the legislation is contained in P and Deuteronomy.
1. The Critical Dating of the Laws: We are distinctly told in Ex that the law contained in Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 23:1-33 was given through Moses. Rejecting this statement, critics of the school of Wellhausen affirm that its true date must be placed considerably later than the time of Joshua. They maintain that previous to their conquest of Canaan the Israelites were mere nomads, ignorant of agriculture, the practice of which, as well as their culture in general, they first learned from the conquered Canaanites. Therefore (so they argue), as the law of Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 23:1-33 presupposes the practice of agriculture, it cannot have been promulgated until some time in the period of the Judges at the earliest; they place it indeed in the early period of the monarchy. All this, however, is mere assumption, support for which is claimed in some passages in which a shepherd life is spoken of, but with utter disregard of others which show that both in the patriarchal period and in Egypt the Israelites also cultivated land. See B.D. Eerdmans, "Have the Hebrews Been Nomads?" The Expositor, August and October, 1908. It can indeed be shown that this law was throughout in harmony with what must have been the customs and conceptions of the Israelites at the age of the exodus (Rule, Old Testament Institutions). Professor Eerdmans in his Alttestamentliche Studien, Part III (1910), vigorously defends the Mosaic origin of the Book of the Covenant.
The same critics bring down the date of the legislation of Dt to the time of Josiah, or at most a few years earlier. They affirm (wrongly) that the chief object of Josiah's reformation narrated in 2 Kings 23:1-37 was the centralization of worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They rightly attribute the zeal which carried the reform through to the discovery of the "Book of the Law" (2 Kings 22:8). Then arguing that the frequent previous practice of worship at high places implied the non-existence of any law to the contrary, they conclude that the rule of Deuteronomy 12:1-32 was a rule recently laid down by the temple priesthood, and written in a book in Moses' name, this new book being what was "found in the house of Yahweh." But this argument is altogether unsound: its grave difficulties are well set out in Moller's Are the Critics Right? And here again careful study vindicates the Mosaic character of the law of Deuteronomy as a whole and of Deuteronomy 12:1-32 in particular. M. Edouard Naville in La decouverte de la loi sous le roi Josias propounds a theory which he supports by a most interesting argument: that the book found was a foundation deposit, which must therefore have been built over by masonry at the erection of the temple by Solomon.
Equally unsound, however plausible, are the arguments which would make the framing of the Levitical ritual the work of the age of Ezra. The difficulties created by this theory are far greater than those which it is intended to remove. On this also see Moller, Are the Critics Right?
Rejecting these theories, it will be assumed in the present article that the various laws are of the dates ascribed to them in the Pentateuch; that whatever may be said as to the date of some "of the laws," all which are therein ascribed to Moses are truly so ascribed.
2. Groups of Laws in P (the Priestly Code): The laws in P are arranged for the most part in groups, with which narrative is sometimes intermingled. These e.g. are some of the groups: Exodus 25:1-40 through Exodus 31:1-18; Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38; Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33; Numbers 1:1-54 through Numbers 4:1-49, etc. The structure and probable history of these groups are very interesting. That many of them must have undergone interpolation appears certain from the following considerations. Each of the groups, and often one or more paragraphs within a group, is headed by a recurring formula, "Yahweh spake unto Moses (or unto Aaron, or unto Moses and Aaron), saying." We might at first expect that the contents of each group or paragraph so headed would consist solely of what Yahweh had said unto Moses or Aaron, but this is not always so. Not infrequently some direction is found within such a paragraph which cannot have been spoken to Moses, but must have come into force at some later date. Unless then we reject the statement of the formula, unless we are prepared to say that Yahweh did not speak unto Moses, we can only conclude that these later directions were at some time inserted by an editor into paragraphs which originally contained Mosaic laws only. That this should have been done would be perfectly natural, when we consider that the purpose of such an editor would be not only to preserve (as has been done) the record of the original Law, but to present a manual of law complete for the use of his age, a manual (to use a modern phrase) made complete to date.
That the passages in question were indeed interpolations appears not only from the fact that their removal rids the text of what otherwise would be grave discrepancies, but because the passages in question sometimes disturb the sequence of the context. Moreover, by thus distinguishing between laws promulgated (as stated) by Moses, and laws to which the formula of statement was not intended to apply, we arrive at the following important result. It is that the former laws can all be shown to be in harmony one with another and with the historical data of the Mosaic age; while the introduction of the later rules is also seen to be what would naturally follow by way of adaptation to the circumstances of later times, and the gradual unfolding of Divine purpose.
It would be much too long a task here to work this out in detail: it has been attempted by the writer of this article in Old Testament Institutions, Their Origin and Development. Two instances, however, may be mentioned.
Instances of interpolation--In Exodus 12:43 ff (English Revised Version) we read, "This is the ordinance of the passover: there shall no alien eat thereof; but every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof." This was the original Mosaic rule introduced by the formula in Exodus 12:43. But in Exodus 12:48-49 it is said that sojourners (when circumcised) may eat of the passover. This was plainly a relaxation of later date, made in accordance with the principle which is enlarged upon in Isaiah 56:3-8.
According to Leviticus 23:344,3Le 9:1-24a,40-42, the Feast of Tabernacles was a feast of seven days only. This was the Mosaic rule as appears from the formula in Leviticus 23:33, and in certain other passages. But as a development in the feast's observance, an eighth day was subsequently added, and therefore insertions to that effect were made here at Leviticus 23:36 and 39b. The introduction of this additional day would be in keeping with that elaboration in the observance of the "set feasts" which we find in Numbers 28:1-31 and Numbers 29:1-40, as compared with the simpler observance of the same days ordered in Leviticus 23:1-44. Here again the formula in Numbers 28:1 plainly covered a few verses immediately following, but not the whole content of the two chapters.
Premising then the existence in writing from an early age of numerous groups of Mosaic laws and their subsequent interpolation, the ultimate compilation of these groups together with other matter and their arrangement in the order in which we now find them must have been the work, perhaps indeed of the interpolator, but in any case of some late editor. These numerous groups do not, however, make up the whole legislative contents of the Pentateuch; for a very large portion of these contents consists of three distinct books of law, which we must now examine. These were the "Book of the Covenant," the "Book of the Law" of Deuteronomy 31:26, and the so-called "Law of Holiness."
3. The Book of the Covenant: This book, expressly so named (Exodus 24:7), is stated to have been written by Moses (Exodus 24:3, 1). It must have comprised the contents of Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 23:1-33. The making of the covenant at Sinai, led up to by the revealing words of Exodus 3:12-17; Exodus 6:2-8; Exodus 19:3-6, was a transaction of the very first importance in the religious history of Israel. God's revelation of Himself to Israel being very largely, indeed chiefly, a revelation of His moral attributes (Exodus 34:6-7), could only be effectively apprehended by a people who were morally fitted to receive it. Hence, it was that Israel as a nation was now placed by God in a stated relation to Himself by means of a covenant, the condition upon which the covenant was based being, on His people's part, their obedience to a given law. This was the law contained in the "Book of the Covenant."
It consisted of "words of Yahweh" and "Judgments" (Exodus 24:3 the King James Version). The latter are contained in Exodus 21:1 through Exodus 22:17; the former in Exodus 20:1-26, in the remaining portion of Exodus 22:1-31, and Exodus 23:1-33. The "judgments" (the American Standard Revised Version "ordinances") relate entirely to matters of right between man and man; the "words of Yahweh" relate partly to these and partly to duties distinctively religious.
(1) Judgments. Compared with Code of Hammurabi. The "judgments" appear to be taken from older consuetudinary law; not necessarily comprising the whole of that law, but so much of it as it pleased God now to stamp with His express sanction and to embody in this Covenant Law. They may well be compared with those contained in the so-called Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, who is thought to have been the Amraphel of Genesis 14:1-24. These are called "the judgments of righteousness which Hammurabi the mighty king confirmed." The resemblances in form and in subject between the two sets of "judgments" are very striking. All alike have the same structure, beginning with a hypothetical clause, "if so and so," and then giving the rule applicable in the third person. All alike relate entirely to civil, as distinguished from religious, matters, to rights and duties between man and man. All seem to have had a similar origin in judgments passed in the first place on causes brought before judges for decision: both sets therefore represent consuetudinary law.
(2) Basis of Law of Covenant. Earlier Customs. It is remarkable that, alike in matters of right between man and man, and in matters relating directly to the service of God, the Law of the Covenant did little (if anything) more than give a new and Divinely attested sanction to requirements which, being already familiar, appealed to the general conscience of the community. If, indeed, in the "words of Yahweh" there was any tightening of accustomed moral or (more particularly) religious requirements, e.g. in the first and second commandments of the Decalogue, it would seem to have been by way of enforcing convictions which must have been already gaining hold upon the minds of at least the more thoughtful of the people, and that in large measure through the lessons impressed upon them by the events of their recent history. In no other Way could the Law of the Covenant have appealed to their conscience, and so formed a foundation on which the covenant could be securely based.
As in the "judgments" we have a ratification of old consuetudinary law; as again in the second table of the Decalogue we have moral rules in accordance with a standard of moral right--no doubt already acknowledged--very similar indeed to that of the "negative confession" in the Egyptian Book of the Dead; so in the more especially religious rules of the Law of the Covenant we find, not new rules or an establishment of new institutions, but a new sanction of what was already old. These "words of Yahweh" assume the rendering of service to Yahweh: they do not enjoin it as if it were a new thing, but they enjoin that the Israelites shall not add to His service also the service of other gods (Exodus 20:3; 23:24). They assume the observance of the three "feasts," they enjoin that these shall be kept to Yahweh--"unto me," i.e. "unto me only" (Exodus 23:14, 17). They assume the making of certain offerings to Yahweh, they enjoin that these shall be made liberally--"of the first," i.e. of the best--and without delay (Exodus 22:29 f). They assume the rendering of worship by sacrifice, and the existence of an accustomed ritual, and therefore they do not lay down any scheme of ritual, but they give a few directions designed to guard against idolatry, or any practices tending either to irreverence or to low and false conceptions of God (Exodus 20:4-6, 23-26; 22:31; 23:18 f). While insisting upon the observance of the three "feasts," spoken of as already accustomed, it is remarkable that they contain no command to keep the Passover, which as an annual observance was not yet an accustomed thing.
This absence of ritual directions is indeed very noticeable. It was in the counsel of God that He would in the near future establish a reconstituted ritual, based upon what was already traditional, but containing certain new elements, and so framed as more and more to foster spiritual conceptions of God and a higher ideal of holiness. This however was as yet a thing of the future. No mention therefore was made of it in the Law of the Covenant; that law was so restricted as that it should at once appeal to the general conscience of the people, and so be a true test of their desire to do what was right. This would be the firm basis on which to build yet higher things. It is impossible to estimate the true character of the subsequent legislation, i.e. of what in bulk is by far the larger part of the torah--except by first grasping the true character and motive of the Covenant, and the Covenant Law.
See also COVENANT,BOOK OF THE ; PENTATEUCH.
4. The Book of the Law of Deuteronomy 31: Immediately after the making of the Covenant, Moses was called up into the mount, and there received instructions for the erection of the tabernacle, these being followed in due course by the rules of the reconstituted ceremonial of which the tabernacle was to be the home. All these for the present we must pass over.
Having arrived on the East of the Jordan, Moses, now at the close of his career, addressed discourses to the people, in which he earnestly exhorted them to live up to the high calling with which God had called them, in the land of which they were about to take possession. To this end he embodied in his discourse a statement of the Law by which they were to live. And then, as almost his last public act, he wrote "the words of this law in a book," and directed that the book should be placed "by the side of the ark of the covenant" (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). What now was this book? Was it Deuteronomy, in whole or in part? The most reasonable answer to this question is that the book actually written by Moses comprised at least the contents of Deuteronomy 5:1-33 through Deuteronomy 26:1-19 and Deuteronomy 28:1-68. Whether the whole or any parts of the remaining contents of Dt also formed part of this book, or were subsequently added to it, the whole being brought by a process of editing to our present Deuteronomy, is again a legitimate matter of inquiry.
Characteristics of Deuteronomy.
Regarding Deuteronomy 5:1-33 through Deuteronomy 26:1-19 and Deuteronomy 28:1-68 (with or without parts of other chapters) as the "book" of Deuteronomy 31:24-26, we find that it is a manual of instruction for the people at large--it is not a priest's manual. It deals with matters of morals, and of religion in its general principles, but only subordinately with matters of ritual: it warns against perils of idolatry and superstitious corruptions, common in the service of other gods, but which might by no means be mixed up with Yahweh's seryice: it insists upon righteous conduct between man and man, and very strongly inculcates humanity toward the poor and the dependent: it enjoins upon those in authority the impartial maintenance of right, as also fairness, moderation and mercy, in the administration of law and the infliction of punishment: it sets forth the fear of God as the guide of His people's actions, and the love of God in response to His mercy toward them. It does not lay down any scheme of ritual, though it gives rules (Deuteronomy 4:3-21) as to things which might not be eaten as unclean; it also gives directions as to the disposal of tithes (Deuteronomy 14:22-29; 26:12); it enlarges upon the direction in the Law of the Covenant for the observance of the three "feasts," adding to this the observance of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16:1-22); it lays down a law (expressed conditionally) restricting to one sanctuary the offering of at least the more solemn sacrifices (Deuteronomy 12:1-32); and it frequently inculcates liberality toward the Levites, both on account of the sacred services rendered by them, their dispersal among the tribes, and the precarious character of their livelihood. Like the Law of the Covenant it assumes the existence of an accustomed ceremonial, and it is remarkable that when there is occasion to do so it makes use of phraseology (Deuteronomy 12:1-32) similar to that of the ritual laws of Moses in Leviticus and Numbers.
It is quite possible that some interpolations may have been made in the text of Deuteronomy 5:1-33 through Deuteronomy 26:1-19, but not on any sufficient scale to affect the general character of the original book. This "Book of the Law" then was an expansion of the Law of the Covenant, enforcing its principles, giving directions in greater detail for carrying them out, and setting them in a framework of exhortation, warning and encouragement. Thus, its relation to the covenant is indicated by Deuteronomy 26:16-19; 29:1. This is that "book of the Law of Moses" of which frequent mention is made in the books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.
5. The Law of Holiness: In marked contrast to the numerous rules, sometimes intermingled with narrative, which we find in Exodus 25:1-40 through Exodus 40:1-38; Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 16:1-34, and throughout Numbers, we have in Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46 a collection of laws which evidently was once a book by itself. This, from its constant insistence upon holiness as a motive of conduct, has been called "the Law of Holiness." Though it contains many laws stated to have been spoken by Yahweh to Moses, we are not told by whom it was written, and therefore its authorship and date are a fair subject of inquiry. In its general design it bears much resemblance to the Law of the Covenant, and the Book of the Law contained in Deuteronomy. As in them, and especially in the latter, the laws are set up in a parenetic framework, the whole closing with promise of reward for obedience and a threat of punishment for disobedience (compare Exodus 23:20-33; Leviticus 26:1-46; Deuteronomy 28:1-68). Like them it deals much with moral duties: Leviticus 19:1-37 and Leviticus 20:1-27 are practically an expansion of the Decalogue; but it deals also more than they do with ceremonial. With regard to both it sets forth as the motive of obedience the rule, "Be ye holy, for I am holy."
A Clue as to Date
A clue to its date is to be found in its conception of cleanness. The idea found in the Prophets and the New Testament that moral wrongdoing renders unclean must be based upon some earlier conception, namely, upon the Old Testament conception of ritual uncleanness. Now ritual uncleanness was originally physical uncleanness only; the idea of moral right or wrong did not enter into it at all: this is perfectly clear from the whole contents of Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33. On the other hand we find the idea of moral cleanness and uncleanness fully formed in the Psalms, Proverbs, and in the Prophets, including the earlier prophets, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. In H (the Law of Holiness, Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46) we find an intermediate conception. We find that whereas in Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33 sexual acts which were lawful rendered unclean equally with those which were unlawful, in H, adultery and incest are denounced as rendering specially unclean, the idea being that their technical uncleanness became more intensely unclean through their immorality (Leviticus 18:24-30). Similarly, converse with familiar spirits and wizards, which probably involved physical defilement (perhaps through the ingredients used in charms), is mentioned as specially causing defilement, probably as such technical defilement would be intensified by the unlawfulness of dealing with familiar spirits and wizards at all (Leviticus 19:31). Sins, however, which did not in themselves entail physical uncleanness, such e.g. as injustice, are not mentioned in H as rendering unclean, though they are so regarded in the Prophets. First, then, we have ritual uncleanness, which is physical only in the rules of Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33 (Mosaic rules undoubtedly embodying a pre-Mosaic conception); lastly, we have moral wrong in itself rendering unclean, in the Psalms and the Prophets; intermediately we have the transitional conception in H. The date therefore of the Law of Holiness may be Mosaic, but must be considerably earlier than the earliest of the writing prophets.
6. The Final Compilation: The remaining groups of Mosaic laws would appear to have been extant in their original form (i.e. without interpolation), no doubt in the custody of the priesthood for probably a very considerable time, it may have been for centuries, before their final compilation in their present form. The arrangement of these groups as they now stand, before and after H and with narrative intermingled, is by no means haphazard, as it might at first appear.
(1) Exodus. As the directions for the erection of the tabernacle with the purpose of its several parts were given to Moses immediately after the making of the covenant, they follow the account of it immediately. Thus Exodus contains the history of the covenant-making, of what led up to it, and of what immediately followed it, namely, the provision of the home for the covenant-worship.
(2) Leviticus. This book follows with the rules of that worship; not indeed with all its details, but with an account of all that was essential to it. First (in Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38) we have the law of sacrifice, including what was so especially peculiar to the covenant-worship, the law of the sin offering. Then in Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20 we have the consecration of the tabernacle and its contents, the consecration of its priests and the inauguration of the newly prescribed system of worship. Then in Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33 we have the rules for purification from ritual uncleanness, without which it would have been impossible for this system of covenant-worship to be carried on. Then there follows in Leviticus 16:1-34 the account of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, the crown and completion of the whole. Thus in these 16 chapters we have an account of the essentials of the newly instituted covenant-worship. And then immediately we have in the Law of Holiness the great motive that underlay both this ceremonial law and the preceding moral and religious law of the Book of the Covenant, namely, the principle that God's people must be holy, because He is holy. The emphasizing of this principle in H thus closes this whole statement of law, as its first enunciation had introduced it in Exodus 19:6.
(3) Numbers. The purpose of Numbers is supplementary. Numbers 1:1-54 through Numbers 6:1-27, containing the numbering and ordering of the tribes and rules as to the representative Levitical ministry, sets forth the corporate character of Israel's service of God. The Israelites were not to be a mere aggregation of tribes, but a single nation, the bond of their union being the covenant with God. The camp itself, ordered and carefully guarded against pollution, was to be a symbol of this holy unity. Numbers 7:1-89 through Numbers 10:1-36 narrate the remaining occurrences at Sinai, including (Numbers 9:1-14) the important account of the first commemorative Passover. The remaining chapters contain, alternately, a narrative of events following the departure from Sinai and groups of laws usually in some way connected with the events narrated, but all of them supplementary to the more essential laws already recorded.
(4) Deuteronomy. As a separate work and based upon sayings and doings at the very close of the 40 years, Deuteronomy naturally follows last.
III. The General Character and Design of the Law. Both in civil matters and in ceremonial the Law had to deal with men who lived in a comparatively early age of human history. Its rules were necessarily adapted in both departments to the standards of the age. At the same time they inculcated principles, the working out of which would by degrees bring about a great advance in men's conceptions both of what is true and of what is right.
1. The Civil Law: As J.B. Mozley says (Lectures on the Old Testament), "The morality of a progressive revelation is not the morality with which it starts but that with which it concludes"; yet the excellence of the Old Testament Law is evident, not only in its great underlying principles, but in the suitability of its individual rules to promote moral advance.
(1) Servants and the Poor. We have already noted the similarity between the "judgments" of Exodus 20:1-26 and Exodus 21:1-36 and the "judgments" of Hammurabi, in respect to form and subject. Notwithstanding the practical wisdom found in many of the latter, there is in one matter a marked contrast in spirit between them and the former, for while both the Law of the Covenant and its enlargement in Dt guarded the interest of and secured justice, and mercy too, to slaves and the poor, the laws of Hammurabi were framed rather in the interests of the well-to-do. Compare (e.g.) with the rule as to a runaway slave in Deuteronomy 23:15 f, the following (Code of Hammurabi, section symbol 16): "If a man has harbored in his house a manservant or a maidservant fugitive from the palace, or a poor man, and has not produced them at the demand of the commandant, the owner of that house shall be put to death." The Law indeed permitted slavery, an institution universal in the ancient world, but it made provisions which must very greatly have mitigated its hardship. It was enjoined, both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, that after six years' service a Hebrew manservant should "go out free for nothing," unless he himself preferred to remain in servitude (Exodus 21:2-6; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). The rule in Exodus 21:7-11 as to women servants was not exactly the same, but it nevertheless guarded their interests, while Hebrew women servants were afterward included in the rule of Deuteronomy 15:12. A still greater amelioration was brought in by a later rule connected with the law of the Jubilee as set out in Leviticus 25:39-55. Again, though servitude was permitted on account of debt, or as a rescue from poverty (Exodus 21:2, 7; Deuteronomy 15:12), manstealing was a capital offense (Exodus 21:16).
(2) Punishments. The rule of Exodus 21:22-25 ("eye for eye," etc.; compare Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:16-19) sounds harsh to us, but while the justice it sanctioned was rough and ready according to the age, it put a restraint on vindictiveness. The punishment might be so much, but no more: and the same spirit of restraint in punishment is seen in the rule as to flogging (Deuteronomy 25:2 f). Similarly the rule that murder was to be avenged by "the avenger of blood," a rule under the circumstances of the age both necessary and salutary, was protected from abuse by the appointment of places of refuge, the rule with respect to which was designed to prepare the way for a better system (see Exodus 21:12-14; Numbers 35:9-24; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).
(3) Marriage. The marriage customs of the Mosaic age permitted polygamy and concubinage, marriage by purchase or by capture in war, slave-marriage, and divorce. The Law allowed the continuance of these customs, but did not originate them; on the contrary, its provisions were designed to restrict the old license, giving protection to the weaker party, the woman, limiting as far as possible the evils of the traditional system, a system which could not suddenly be changed, and preparing the way for a better. Consider the effect of the following rules: as to slave-wives (Exodus 21:7-11); captives of war (Deuteronomy 21:10-14); plurality of wives (Deuteronomy 21:15-17); adultery (Exodus 20:14, 17; Deuteronomy 22:22); fornication (Deuteronomy 22:23-29; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; Leviticus 21:19); divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4); Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10); incest (Leviticus 18:6-18); marriage of priests (Leviticus 21:7, 10-15); royal polygamy (Deuteronomy 17:17).
(4) Sabbaths and Feasts. The law as to these, though partly ceremonial, yet served social ends. The Sabbath day gave to all, and particularly to servants and the poor, and domestic cattle too, a needful respite from daily toil; it also served men's spiritual welfare, and did honor to God (Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14-15; Exodus 31:12-17). The seventh year's rest to the land--it also "a sabbath of solemn rest, a sabbath unto Yahweh"--was for the land's recuperation, but it served also to safeguard common rights at perhaps a time of transition as to customs of land tenure: connected with it also there were rules as to release of slaves and relief of debtors (Exodus 23:9-11; Leviticus 25:2-7; Deuteronomy 15:1-18). The observance of the Sabbath year as a rest to the land seems to have fallen into disuse, perhaps as early as some 500 years before the Babylonian captivity (2 Chronicles 36:21), and it is probable that the Jubilee (the design of which seems to have been to adjust conflicting rights under new customs of land tenure and in the relation of employer to employed) was instituted to take its place (Leviticus 25:1-55). The law as to the annual feasts insured both the social advantages of festive gatherings of the people, and their sanctification by the worship of God, and the public recognition of His hand in matters agricultural and political, which were either the occasion of, or connected with, these gatherings. Considerate liberality to the poor and dependent was, on these occasions, especially enjoined (Exodus 23:14-17; Deuteronomy 16:1-17; Deuteronomy 12:12, 18-19).
2. The Ceremonial Law: We have already noted that the conception of sin as uncleanness, rendering the sinner therefore unfit for the presence of God, must have been an outgrowth from the earlier conception of purely ritual (physical) uncleanness. This development, and an accompanying sense of the heinousness of sin and of its need of atonement by sacrifice, were undoubtedly brought about by the gradual working of the law of the sin offering (Leviticus 4:1 through Leviticus 5:13; Leviticus 12:1-8 through Leviticus 15:1-33; Leviticus 16:1-34). Similarly the rules as to guilt offerings (Leviticus 5:14 through Leviticus 6:7) must by degrees have led to a true conception of repentance, as including both the seeking of atonement through sacrifice and restitution for wrong committed. The sin offering was, however, a peculiarly Mosaic institution, marking a development in the sacrificial system. The only sacrifices of which we have any trace in pre-Mosaic times were meal and drink offerings, whole burnt offerings and sacrifices (or, to use the Levitical term, peace offerings).
(1) Origin of Sacrifice. We read of the offering of sacrifice all through the patriarchal history, and farther back even than Noah in the story of Cain and Abel; and there can be no doubt that the Levitical scheme of sacrifice was based upon, and a development (under Divine ordering) of, the sacrificial system already traditional among the Hebrews. Sacrifice was undoubtedly of Divine origin; yet we have no account, or even hint, of any formal institution of sacrifice. The sacrifices of Cain and Abel are spoken of in a way that leaves the impression that they were offered spontaneously, and the most probable assumption would seem to be that the very first offering of sacrifice was the outcome of a spontaneous desire (Divinely implanted, we may be sure) in early men to render service to the higher Being of whose relation to themselves they were, if ever so dimly, conscious.
Prehistoric research has not yet been able to present to us a distinct picture of primitive men; and even if the results of anthropology were more certain than they can yet claim to be, what in this connection we are concerned in is the conceptions, not of early men everywhere, but of the early ancestors of the Hob race. However infantile their ideas may have been and probably were, there may well have been far more of elementary truth in them--in simple ideas Divinely implanted--than students of anthropology have any knowledge of. Sooner or later early men did make offerings to God; and as the Mosaic sacrificial system was certainly based upon the patriarchal, so we may fairly assume that the ideas underlying the latter were an outgrowth from those which underlay the sacrifice of the patriarch's own still earlier ancestors.
It is well observed by Dr. A.B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology, p. 315) that the sacrifices of Cain and Abel are called a minchah or present; and this idea of sacrifice as a gift to God most easily accounts for the facts with which we have to deal in the history of Old Testament sacrifice. When early men first made offerings to God, they probably did so in the spirit of young children who give gifts to older persons without knowing whether, or in what way, the gifts will be of any use to them. They simply give in affection what is of value in their own eyes. The one only thing of prime value to the earliest men must have been food; hence, offerings to God were everywhere in the first place offerings of food. But here a difficulty must soon have arisen, for men must have become convinced very soon that the Divine Being did not feed upon the food offered, at least in men's way of feeding. Ultimately, among the Israelites, the idea of His actual feeding became eliminated altogether (Psalms 50:13-14), but in the meantime the difficulty seems to have been met by the assumption that the Divine Being consumed an inner essence of food; and this being supposed to be set free by fire, food offered in sacrifice came to be burnt in order to fit it to become the food of God. This certainly appears from Leviticus 3:11, 16 (compare Leviticus 21:6, 8, 17, 21).
Coming, however, to animal as distinguished from vegetable sacrifice, we do not find that its origin can be accounted for as at the first being an offering of food. We learn from Leviticus 17:10-14 that the essential part of animal sacrifice was the offering of the blood, and that blood was offered because blood was life. The idea that life can be given by giving blood lay at the root of a custom which must have been well-nigh universal in primitive times, that of blood covenanting (see H. Clay Trumbull, Blood Covenant). In this, two persons would give each to the other of his own blood, drawn from the living vein. Persons united in blood covenant were supposed, by the commingling of their blood, to become actual sharers of one life. To give to another of one's own blood was to give one's own life, i.e. one's own self, with all the dedication of love and service which that would imply. Now a similar idea would seem to have lain at the root of the primitive offering of blood to God: it was the offering of the life of the offerer.
In the very first blood offerings it is probable that the blood offered was the blood of the offerer, and that there was no infliction of death--only in this way the dedication of life. The dedicatory rite of circumcision may have been a survival of sacrifice in this its earliest form; so also what is narrated in 1 Kings 18:28. When, however, the blood offered had come to be the blood of a substitute, and that a substitute animal, the sacrifice would come (no doubt soon) to include the slaughter of the animal and further the consumption, in whole or in part, of its carcass by fire as an offering of food.
(2) The Levitical Ritual. Whether the above theory be accepted or not, in so far as animal sacrifice became an offering of food, it would stand in line with vegetable sacrifice; but in both the excellence of the Levitical ritual stood in this, that while it was framed for a people whose conceptions were in a stage of transition, it was yet adaptable to higher conceptions, and fitted to become at length symbolical of purely spiritual truth. It was through the teaching, not only of prophets but of the Lcvitical ritual itself, and while it was still in full force, that the words of Psalms 50:13-14 were uttered: "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High." The Levitical ritual, as respects animal sacrifice in particular, was so framed as, on the one hand, to keep alive the idea of sacrifice as the offering of life, not of death, of life's dedication, not its destruction, and therefore to make it a true type of Christ's living sacrifice. On the other hand, the rules of sacrifice guarded against abuses which, as a matter of fact, sprang up widely among the heathen. The rule, e.g. in Leviticus 1:2 and elsewhere, that "ye shall offer your oblation of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock," excluded human sacrifice. The rule that the first act in every sacrifice must be to slay the creature offered excluded the infliction of unnecessary suffering. The detailed rules as to the offering and disposal of the blood, and the varying modes of disposal of the carcass, kept alive the essential idea of all such sacrifice, and saved it from degenerating into a mere heaping up, as in Egypt, of altars with mere loads of food. The rules of the peace offering, clothing it always with a spiritual motive (see Leviticus 7:12, 16), raised it to a level far above the sacrifice of that class among the surrounding heathen, guarding it against their licentious festivity (compare Hosea 2:11-13; Hosea 4:13-14; Amos 2:8; Amos 5:21-23) and gross ideas as to the part of God in the feasting.
(3) The Law Truly a Torah. In every one of its departments the Law proved itself to be indeed a torah directing God's people in the upward way; leading them on from the state of advancement, such as it was, to which they had already attained by Moses' time, to higher and higher standards, both of faith and of duty, till they were prepared for the gospel of Christ, who Himself said of the old Law, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18 the King James Version). Meanwhile we have, in the teaching of the prophets, not a counter influence, not a system rivaling the Law, but its unfolding, both inspired of God, both instruments in His progressive revelation. "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" were the words of Samuel, a faithful servant of the Law, and himself a frequent offerer of sacrifice. What the Law was to the heart of devout Israelites in the prophetic age is seen in the fervent words of Psalms 119:1-176.
IV. The Passing Away of the Law. The great general principles of the Law were not transitory but abiding, and reappear under the gospel dispensation. Otherwise, however, i.e. in those particulars, whether ceremonial or civil, in which it was adapted to merely passing needs, the Law passed away when Christ came. It is not always realized that already before Christ came it had begun to pass away. The following are illustrations:
(1) The whole rationale of the Levitical worship consisted in its being based upon the covenant made at Sinai, and the symbol of the Covenant was the ark containing the tables of the Law and surmounted by the mercy-seat. Therefore one of its most significant acts was the sprinkling of the blood of sin offering within the veil upon the mercy-seat, or without the veil, but yet before the mercy-seat. But this most significant act could no longer be performed when, after the Babylonian captivity, there was no longer either ark or mercy-seat.
(2) The law that tithe should be paid to the Levites, a tithe only of it being paid by them to "Aaron the priest" (Numbers 18:1-32), was practicable so long as the priests were a small portion only of the whole Levitical body, as they appear in the history down to the middle period of the monarchy. But by the time of the exile they disappeared from history except as actual temple ministrants, and, after the return from the exile, even these were in number a mere handful compared with the priests (Ezra 2:36-42; Ezra 8:15-20, 24-30; Nehemiah 11:10-19). The attempt to revive the old law (Nehemiah 10:38-39) was well-intentioned but impracticable: it was evidently soon abandoned (Nehemiah 13:10-13; Malachi 3:8-10). We learn from Josephus that tithes were regarded later as due to the priests, not to the Levites (Josephus, Ant, XX, viii, 8; ix, 2).
(3) That the Mosaic law as to divorce was to give place to one more stringent appears not only from our Lord's words in Matthew 19:7-9, but from Malachi 2:16.
(4) It is probable that some of the supplementary rules in Nu may have been designed for temporary use only, and may have passed away before the close of the Old Testament. It may have been so, e.g., with the law of Numbers 5:11-31, a law probably most useful in the circumstances of the Mosaic age, and perhaps itself an endorsement of a pre-Mosaic custom.
LITERATURE.
Driver, Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, with which should be read Moller, Are the Critics Right? and Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; A.B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament; J.B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages; Rule, Old Testament Institutions, Their Origin and Development; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament; Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce levitique; Edouard Naville,
La decouverte de la loi sous le roi Josias; H. Clay Trumbull, The Blood Covenant; Milligan, Resurrection of our Lord (274 ff, on "blood-offering").
Ulric Z. Rule
Law, Judicial
Law, Judicial - joo-dish'-al: This was the form of Divine law which, under the dominion of God, as the Supreme Magistrate, directed the policy of the Jewish nation, and hence, was binding only on them, not on other peoples. The position of Yahweh, as the Supreme Ruler, was made legally binding by a formal election on the part of the national assembly (Exodus 19:3-8); and that there might be no question about the matter, after the death of Moses, Joshua, in accordance with instructions received by his great predecessor in the office of federal judge, in the public assembly caused the contract to be renewed in connection with most solemn exercises (Joshua 8:30-35). No legal contract was ever entered into with more formality and with a clearer understanding of the terms by the several parties than was the contract which made it binding on the Hebrews permanently to recognize Yahweh as the Supreme Ruler (Exodus 24:3-8). He was to be acknowledged as the Founder of the nation (Exodus 20:2); Sovereign, Ruler, and Judge (Exodus 20:2-6); and in these capacities was to be the object of love, reverential fear and worship, service, and absolute obedience. Flagrant disregard of their obligations to Him manifested in idolatry or blasphemy was regarded as high treason, and like high treason in all nations and history was punishable by death (Exodus 20:3-5, 7; 22:20; Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 17:2-5). The will of Yahweh in critical cases was to be ascertained through special means (Numbers 9:8; Judges 1:1-2; 18, 23, 28; 1 Samuel 10:22).
The ruling official recognized by the Hebrews as a nation was the chief magistrate, but he stood as Yahweh's vicegerent, and therefore combined various authorities in his person. We must distinguish the functions of the chief magistrate (1) under the republic, (2) under the constitutional monarchy, and (3) under the senatorial oligarchy after the Babylonian captivity. Moses was the first chief magistrate under the republic; after him, Joshua, and the other judges. Under the constitutional monarchy, it was the king whose government was limited, for he was to be elected by the people; must be a native Hebrew; must not keep a large cavalry; must not support a harem; must not multiply riches; must be a defender of the national religion; must be guided by law, not whim; must be gracious and condescending to the people (Deuteronomy 17:15-20). After the Babylonian captivity, the senatorial oligarchy combined ecclesiastical and state authority, later sharing it with the Roman government.
See also SANHEDRIN.
Frank E. Hirsch
Law, Roman
Law, Roman - See ROMAN LAW.
Lawful
Lawful - lo'-fool (usually mishpaT, "relating to judgment," or "a pronounced judgment" tsaddiq, "relating to that which is righteous" or "just"; exesti, eunomos, "that which is authorized according to law," or "a privilege according to legitimate custom" (compare Ezekiel 18:5, 19, Ezekiel 21:1-32, 27; Isaiah 49:24; Matthew 12:10; Acts 16:21; 19:39)): Used of persons: of God, as being righteous both in the punishment of the wicked and the rewarding of the righteous (Psalms 145:17 Hebrew); of man, as being just and equitable in all his dealings with his fellow-man (Ezekiel 33:19). It is used of things when the same are in accord with a pronounced judgment or a declared will of God, and thus pleasing in His sight (Mark 3:4). When the course of individual conduct is according to God's law of righteousness, it is declared to be "lawful" (Ezekiel 33:19). The word is used in a forensic sense as declaring the legal status of a person conforming to law. The idea of straighthess, rigid adherence to God's law, whether religious, civil or ceremonial, cannot be excluded from the definition of the word "lawful."
Neither the King James Version nor the American Standard Revised Version is consistent in its translation of the Hebrew and Greek words translated "lawful." Ofttimes the words "just" and "righteous" are used. To arrive at the full and proper meaning of "lawful," therefore, it is necessary that we study the passages containing these synonymous terms. The written Law of God is the recognized standard by which things, actions and persons are to be judged as being lawful or unlawful.
William Evans
Lawgiver
Lawgiver - lo'-giv-er (mechoqeq; nomothetes): There are two words, one Hebrew and one Greek, which are translated "lawgiver." The former occurs 7 times in the Old Testament, and in the King James Version in every case except Judges 5:14 is thus translated. In the Revised Version (British and American) it bears the translation "lawgiver" but twice (Deuteronomy 33:21; Isaiah 33:22), though in the other passages (Genesis 49:10; Numbers 21:18; Judges 5:14; Psalms 60:7; 108:8) this meaning is retained in the margin. The Greek word occurs in the New Testament but once (James 4:12), where it has a meaning that is almost the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word in Isaiah 33:22. In both passages God is declared to be the "lawgiver," and in the New Testament passage is so called because He has the power to rule and judge, to save and destroy. Man is denied the authority to judge because he is not the lawgiver. God is the lawgiver, and therefore possesses the right to pronounce judgment (compare Isa, supra). The word, however, implies more than mere legislative function; it also connotes the idea of ruling. Isaiah makes this very plain, since he adds to the statement that God is our judge and lawgiver the further declaration that He is also king. This meaning adheres in the very history of the word. It is based upon the monarchical conception in which the legislative, judicial and administrative functions are all vested in one person. In James the two terms "lawgiver and judge" express the idea of God's absolute sovereignty. The verb nomothetein occurs in Hebrews 7:11; 8:6, but it does not extend beyond the meaning "to enact laws."
The Hebrew word is restricted to poetic passages, and except in Isaiah 33:22 is applied to a tribal or kingly ruler. Moses is pre-eminently the lawgiver in Jewish and Christian circles, but it should be noted that in the Scriptures of neither is he given this title. The primary meaning of the verb from which mechoqeq is derived is "to cut," "to carve," and a derived meaning is "to ordain." The meaning of the participle mechoqeq is based upon this last. It means (1) the symbol which expresses the lawmaker's authority, that is, the commander's staff; and (2) the person who possesses the authority (Deuteronomy 33:21). It has the first of these meanings in Numbers 21:18; Psalms 60:7; 108:8, and probably in Genesis 49:10, though here it may have the second meaning. The parallelism, however, seems to require an impersonal object to correspond to scepter, and so the reading of the text (The Revised Version) is to be preferred to that of the margin (Skinner, at the place). In Deuteronomy 33:21; Judges 5:14; Isaiah 33:22, it means the person who wielded the symbol of authority, that is the prescriber of laws. In a primitive community this would be a military commander. In Genesis 49:10 the "ruler's staff" is the symbol of kingly authority (Driver), and this verse consequently implies the supremacy of Judah which came in with the Davidic kingdom. This word contains no reference to the Messiah. In Numbers 21:18 there is an allusion to the custom of formally and symbolically opening fountains under the superintendence and at the instruction of the leader of the tribe. Such a custom seems to have been in vogue till comparatively modern times. Gray cites Budde in the New World for March, 1895, and Muir's Mohamet and Islam, 343 f. In Judges 5:14 the word means "military commander," as the context shows. This is the meaning also in Deuteronomy 33:21, where it is affirmed that Gad obtained a position worthy of its warlike character. Targum, Vulgate, Peshitta, and some moderns have seen here a reference to the grave of Moses, but Nebo was in Reuben and not in Gad.
W. C. Morro
Lawless
Lawless - lo'-les (anomos): While occurring but once in the King James Version (1 Timothy 1:9), is translated in various ways, e.g. "without law" (1 Corinthians 9:21); "unlawful" (2 Peter 2:8 the King James Version); "lawless" (1 Timothy 1:9); "transgressor" (Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37); "wicked" (Acts 2:23 the King James Version; 2 Thessalonians 2:8 the King James Version). When Paul claims to be "without law," he has reference to those things in the ceremonial law which might well be passed over, and not to the moral law. Paul was by no means an antinomian. Those are "lawless" who break the law of the Decalogue; hence, those who disobey the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," are lawless (1 Timothy 1:9). The civil law is also the law of God. Those breaking it are lawless, hence, called "transgressors." Those who are unjust in their dealings are also "lawless"; for this reason the hands of Pilate and those who with him unjustly condemned Jesus are called "wicked (unlawful) hands" (Acts 2:23 the King James Version). The most notable example of lawlessness is the Antichrist, that "wicked (lawless) one" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
William Evans
Lawyer
Lawyer - lo'-yer (nomikos, "according or pertaining to law," i.e. legal; as noun, "an expert in law," "about the law," "lawyer" (Matthew 22:35; Luke 7:30; 10:25; Luke 11:45-46, 52; 14:3; Titus 3:13)): The work of the "lawyers," frequently spoken of as "scribes," also known as "doctors" of the law (Luke 2:46 margin), was first of all that of jurists. Their business was threefold: (1) to study and interpret the law; (2) to instruct the Hebrew youth in the law; (3) to decide questions of the law. The first two they did as scholars and teachers, the last as advisers in some court. By virtue of the first-named function, they gradually developed a large amount of common law, for no code can go into such detail as to eliminate the necessity of subsequent legislation, and this usually, to a great extent, takes the form of judicial decisions founded on the code rather than of separate enactment. And so it was among the Hebrews. The provisions of their code were for the most part quite general, thus affording much scope for casuistic interpretation. As a result of the industry with which this line of legal development had been pursued during the centuries immediately preceding our era, the Hebrew law had become a very complicated science; and since it was forbidden to record these judicial decisions, a protracted study was necessary in order to commit them to memory.
But since the law must have universal application, the views of the individual scribe could not be taken as a standard; hence, the several disciples of the law must frequently meet for discussion, and the opinion of the majority then prevailed. To these meetings the youth interested in the study would be invited, that they might memorize the formulas agreed upon and might clear up the points upon which they were uncertain by asking questions of the recognized doctors (Luke 2:46).
Such centers of legal lore, of course, would seldom be found in rural communities; the authorities would naturally gather in large centers of population, especially--until 70 AD--in Jerusalem. While the deliverances of these law schools were purely theoretical, yet they stood in close relation to the practical. Whenever doubt arose regarding the application of the law to a particular case, the question was referred to the nearest lawyer; by him to the nearest company of lawyers, perhaps to the Sanhedrin; and the resultant decision was henceforth authority. Thus the lawyers became law makers, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, which brought an end to the existence of the Sanhedrin, the rabbinical doctors were recognized as the absolute authority in such matters. Frequently a single lawyer of great rank, as for instance Hillel or Gamaliel I, might pronounce dicta of unquestioned recognition with as much authority as a supreme court in our day, though sometimes his opinions were received and corrected by the legal tribunal, especially the Sanhedrin. Of course, frequently, these tribunals were under the sway of such a man's influence, so that what he said upon his own authority would be ratified in the assembly of the doctors.
The second function of the lawyers was that of teachers. The renowned rabbis always sought to gather a company of pupils about them whose business it was to repeat the teachers' law formulas until they had "passed into their flesh and blood." For the purposes of such instruction as well as for the discussion of the teachers and the students, there were special schoolhouses, which are often mentioned in connection with the synagogues as places of special merit and privilege. In Jerusalem, these law schools were conducted in the temple--probably in the hall dedicated to this special purpose (Matthew 21:23; 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:46; 20:1; 21:37; John 18:20). The students during the lectures sat on the floor, the teacher on a raised platform, hence, the expression "sitting at the feet of" (Acts 22:3; Luke 2:46). Finally, the lawyers were called upon to decide cases in court or to act as advisers of the court. Before the destruction of Jerusalem, technical knowledge of the law was not a condition of eligibility to the office of judge. Anyone who could command the confidence of his fellow-citizens might be elected to the position, and many of the rural courts undoubtedly were conducted, as among us, by men of sterling quality but of limited knowledge. Naturally such men would avail themselves of the legal advice of any "doctor" who might be within reach, especially inasmuch as the latter was obliged to give his services gratuitously. And in the more dignified courts of large municipalities; it was a standing custom to have a company of scholars present to discuss and decide any new law points that might arise. Of course, frequently, these men were elected to the office of judge, so that practically the entire system of jurisprudence was in their hands.
Frank E. Hirsch
Lay; Laying
Lay; Laying - la, la'-ing: (1) sim, "to put," and the Greek equivalent, tithemi, are very frequently translated by "to lay." the Revised Version (British and American) very often changes the King James Version rendering of sim, but never that of tithemi: 1 Samuel 15:2, "how he set himself against him in the way" (the King James Version "he laid wait for him"); 2 Kings 11:16, "So they made way for her" (the King James Version "And they laid hands on her"); compare 2 Chronicles 23:15; Job 24:12, "God regardeth not the folly" (the King James Version "God layeth not folly"); Job 34:23, "For he needeth not further to consider a man" (the King James Version "For he will not lay upon man more"); Isaiah 28:17, "And I will make justice the line" (the King James Version "Judgment also will I lay to the line"); Job 17:3, "Give now a pledge" (the King James Version "Lay down now"). (2) nathan, literally, "to give," is very commonly translated by "to lay." the Revised Version (British and American) changes the translation of the King James Version in Ezekiel 4:5, "I have appointed"; Ezekiel 33:28 f, "I will make the land a desolation" (the King James Version "I will lay the land most desolate"). (3) "To lay" of the King James Version is frequently rendered differently in the Revised Version (British and American); Isaiah 54:11, "I will set thy stones" (the King James Version "lay thy stones"); Deuteronomy 29:22, "the sicknesses wherewith Yahweh hath made it sick" (the King James Version "sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon"). For other differences of the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version compare Deuteronomy 21:8; 2 Kings 9:25 m; 2 Kings 12:11; Ezra 8:31; Psalms 104:5 m; Isaiah 53:6; Jeremiah 5:26; Mark 7:8; Luke 19:44; James 1:21; 1 Peter 2:1. In most of these passages the change of the Revised Version (British and American) is due to the peculiar use of the word "to lay" in the King James Version. The following expressions are found very frequently: "to lay hands on," "to lay wait," "to lay up," "to lay aside," "to lay upon," "to lay down," etc.
"Laying of wait," the King James Version, is rendered "lying in wait" in Numbers 35:20 ff; Acts 9:24 reads: "But their plot became known" (the King James Version "But their laying await was known"). The "laying on of hands" is a very general expression.
See HANDS, IMPOSITION,LAYING ON OF .
A. L. Breslich
Lazarus
Lazarus - laz'-a-rus (Lazaros, an abridged form of the Hebrew name Eleazar, with a Greek termination): Means "God has helped." In Septuagint and Josephus are found the forms Eleazar, and Eleazaros. The name was common among the Jews, and is given to two men in the New Testament who have nothing to do with each other.
1. Lazarus of Bethany: The home of the Lazarus mentioned in John 11:1 was Bethany. He was the brother of Martha and Mary (John 11:1-2; see also Luke 10:38-41). All three were especially beloved by Jesus (John 11:5), and at their home He more than once, and probably often, was entertained (Luke 10:38-41; John 11:1-57). As intimated by the number of condoling friends from the city, and perhaps from the costly ointment used by Mary, the family was probably well-to-do. In the absence of Jesus, Lazarus was taken sick, died, and was buried, but, after having lain in the grave four days, was brought back to life by the Saviour (John 11:3, 14, 17, 43-44). As a result many Jews believed on Jesus, but others went and told the Pharisees, and a council was therefore called to hasten the decree of the Master's death (John 11:45-53). Later, six days before the Passover, at a feast in some home in Bethany where Martha served, Lazarus sat at table as one of the guests, when his sister Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (John 12:1-3). Many of the common people came thither, not only to see Jesus, but also the risen Lazarus, believed in Jesus, and were enthusiastic in witnessing for Him during the triumphal entry, and attracted others from the city to meet Him (John 12:9, 11, 17-18). For that reason the priests plotted to murder Lazarus (John 12:10). This is all that we really know about the man, for whether the Jews accomplished his death we are not informed, but it seems probable that, satiated with the death of Jesus, they left Lazarus unmolested. Nothing is told of his experiences between death and resurrection (compare Tennyson, "In Memoriam," xxxi), of his emotions upon coming out of the tomb, of his subsequent life (compare Browning, "A Letter to Karshish"), and not a word of revelation does he give as to the other world. His resurrection has been a favorite subject for various forms of Christian art, and according to an old tradition of Epiphanius he was 30 years old when he was raised from the dead, and lived 30 years thereafter.
As might be expected this miracle has been vigorously assailed by all schools of hostile critics. Ingenuity has been exhausted in inventing objections to it. But all told, they really amount only to three.
(1) The Silence of the Other Gospels. There is here, no doubt, some difficulty. But the desire of the early Christians, as many scholars think, to screen the family from danger may have kept the story from becoming current in the oral tradition whence the Synoptics drew their materials, though Matthew was probably an eyewitness. But, in any case, the Synoptics do not pretend to give all the deeds of Jesus, and in the report by them we have few save those which were wrought in Galilee. Each of them has omitted elements of highest interest which others have preserved. Thus, Luke alone gives us the raising of the widow's son at Nain. John, knowing that the others had omitted this, tells us what he had himself witnessed, since all danger to the family had long ago passed away, as it was of especial interest to his story, and he had recorded no other case of resurrection. At any rate, the Gospel writers do not seem to regard a resurrection from the dead by the power of Jesus as so much more stupendous than other miracles, as they seem to modern scholars and to the Jews, and, moreover, the Synoptics do unconsciously attest this miracle by describing a sudden outburst of popular excitement in favor of Jesus which can be accounted for only by some extraordinary event.
(2) The Stupendous Character of the Miracle. But to a philosophical believer in miracles this is no obstacle at all, for to omnipotence there are no such things as big miracles or little ones. Of course, Martha's statement as to the decomposition of the body was only her opinion of the probability in the case, and He, who sees the end from the beginning and who had intended to raise Lazarus, might well in His providence have watched over the body that it should not see corruption. When all is said, "He who has created the organic cell within inorganic matter is not incapable of reestablishing life within the inanimate substance."
(3) Its Non-use as an Accusation against Jesus. The objection that John 11:47-53 is inconsistent with the fact that in accusing Jesus before Pilate no mention is made of this miracle by the enemies of Jesus has little weight. Who would expect them to make such a self-convicting acknowledgment? The dismay of the priests at the miracle and their silence about it are perfectly compatible and natural.
No one of the attempted explanations which deny the reality of the miracle can offer even a show of probability. That Lazarus was just recovering from a trance when Jesus arrived; that it was an imposture arranged by the family and sanctioned by Jesus in order to overwhelm His enemies; that it was a fiction or parable translated into a fact and made up largely of synoptic materials, an allegorical illustration of the words, "I am the resurrection, and the life," a myth--such explanations require more faith than to believe the fables of the Talmud They well illustrate the credulity of unbelief. The narrative holds together with perfect consistency, is distinguished by vivacity and dramatic movement, the people who take part in it are intensely real and natural, and the picture of the sisters perfectly agrees with the sketch of them in Luke. No morbid curiosity of the reader is satisfied. Invented stories are not like this. Even a Renan declares that it is a necessary link in the story of the final catastrophe.
The purpose of the miracle seems to have been: (1) to show Himself as Lord of life and death just before He should be Himself condemned to die; (2) to strengthen the faith of His disciples; (3) to convert many Jews; (4) to cause the priests to hasten their movements so as to be ready when His hour had come (Plummer, HDB, III, 87).
2. The Beggar: In the parable in Luke 16:19-31, Lazarus is pictured as in abject poverty in this world, but highly rewarded and honored in the next. It is the only instance of a proper name used in a parable by Jesus. Some think that he was a well-known mendicant in Jerusalem, and have even attempted to define his disease. But this is no doubt simple invention, and, since "in Christ's kingdom of truth names indicate realities," this was probably given because of its significance, suggesting the beggar's faith in God and patient dependence upon Him. It was this faith and not his poverty which at last brought him into Abraham's bosom. Not one word does Lazarus speak in the parable, and this may also be suggestive of patient submission. He does not murmur at his hard lot, nor rail at the rich man, nor after death triumph over him. The parable is related to that of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21). This latter draws the veil over the worldling at death; the other lifts it. It is also a counterpart of that of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13), which shows how wealth may wisely be used to our advantage, while this parable shows what calamities result from failing to make such wise use of riches. The great lesson is that our condition in Hades depends upon our conduct here, and that this may produce a complete reversal of fortune and of popular judgments. Thus, Lazarus represents the pious indigent who stood at the opposite extreme from the proud, covetous, and luxury-loving Pharisee. The parable made a deep impression on the mind of the church, so that the term "lazar," no longer a proper name, has passed into many languages, as in lazar house, lazaretto, also lazzarone, applied to the mendicants of Italian towns. There was even an order, half-military, half-monastic, called the Knights of Lazarus, whose special duty it was to minister to lepers.
The rich man is often styled Dives, which is not strictly a proper name, but a Latin adjective meaning "rich," which occurs in this passage in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) But in English literature, as early as Chaucer, as seen in the "Sompnoure's Tale" and in "Piers Plowman," it appears in popular use as the name of the Rich Man in this parable. In later theological literature it has become almost universally current. The name Nineuis given him by Euthymius never came into general use, though the Sahidic version has the addition, "whose name was Ninue." His sin was not in being rich, for Abraham was among the wealthiest of his day, but in his worldly unbelief in the spiritual and eternal, revealing itself in ostentatious luxury and hard-hearted contempt of the poor. Says Augustine, "Seems he (Jesus) not to have been reading from that book where he found the name of the poor man written, but found not the name of the rich, for that book is the book of life?"
G. H. Trever
Leach
Leach - lech.
See HORSELEACH.
Lead
Lead - led (`ophereth): Lead was one of the first metals to be used in the free state, probably because it was so easily obtained from its ores. Lead was found in ancient times in Egypt and the Sinaitic peninsula. There is no lead found in Palestine proper, but in Northern Syria and Asia Minor it occurs in considerable quantities, usually associated with silver. These sources no doubt furnished an important supply in Bible times. It was also brought by the Phoenicians from Spain (Tarshish) (Ezekiel 27:12) and the British Isles.
Lead was used, as it still is, all along the Mediterranean shores for sinkers. Pieces of Egyptian fishnets probably dating from 1200 BC are now preserved in the British Museum, with their lead sinkers still attached. Since lead was the heaviest metal known to the ancients, gold excepted, it was generally used for fish-lines and sounding lines (compare Acts 27:28), especially in the dense waters of the Mediterranean. Moses mentioned the sinking qualities of lead in the sea in his simile of the sinking of Pharaoh's hosts "as lead in the mighty waters" (Exodus 15:10).
Lead was used by the ancients for binding stones together. In most of the ancient ruins of Syria the Arabs have dug holes at the seams between stones in walls and columns in order to remove the iron, bronze, or lead thus used. In the museum of the Syrian Protestant College, Beirut, there are several specimens of cast-lead sarcophagi dating from the time of Christ.
In Job 19:23, 14, lead is mentioned as used in the engraving of permanent records. Two inferences might he drawn from this passage: either that the letters were cut with a chisel (pen) and then the cutting was filled with lead, or that sheets of lead were used as tablets on which to grave the record with an iron tool. Lead is frequently referred to along with iron, brass, silver and tin (Numbers 31:22; Ezekiel 22:18, 20; 27:12). The use of lead for plumblines is implied in Amos 7:7-8; Zechariah 4:10; as a weight in Zechariah 5:7-8. That Old Testament writers understood the use of lead for purifying gold is shown by Jeremiah 6:29 and Ezekiel 22:18-22 (compare Malachi 3:2-3).
See METALS; REFINER.
James A. Patch
Leaf; Leaves
Leaf; Leaves - lef, levz: Used in three different senses, with reference: (1) To trees (`aleh, "a coming up"), Genesis 3:7; 8:11; Leviticus 26:36 (Tereph); Ezekiel 17:9; phullon. Figuratively (a) of spiritual blessings (Ezekiel 47:12; compare Revelation 22:2) and prosperity (Psalms 1:3); (b) of moral decay (Isaiah 64:6), and (c) of a formal, empty profession (Matthew 21:19). (2) To a book (deleth), Jeremiah 36:23 (margin "columns"; see Jeremiah 36:2); as the parchment was gradually unfolded the successive columns could be read. (3) To doors (tsela`, "side," qela`,"a screen," "hanging"), 1 Kings 6:34. The door of the Holy Place consisted of two halves, but each half had two leaves (compare Ezekiel 41:24).
M. O. Evans
League
League - leg.
See CONFEDERACY .
Leah
Leah - le'-a (le'ah; Leia, "weary," "dull"(?), "wild cow"): Rachel's sister, and the elder daughter of Laban (Genesis 29:16). We are told that her eyes were "tender" rakkoth). Gesenius renders it "weak," Septuagint astheneis; accordingly, she was weak-eyed, but by no means "blear-eyed" (compare Vulgate). Her eyes were lacking that luster which always and everywhere is looked upon as a conspicuous part of female beauty. Josephus (Ant., I, xix, 7) says of her, ten opsin ouk euprepe, which may safely be rendered, "she was of no comely countenance."
Leah became the wife of Jacob by a ruse on the part of her father, taking advantage of the oriental custom of heavily veiling the prospective bride. When taken to task by his irate son-in-law, Laban excused himself by stating it was against the rule of the place "to give the younger before the first-born" (Genesis 29:21-26). Although Rachel was plainly preferred by Jacob to Leah, still the latter bore him six sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah (Genesis 29:31 ff), Issachar, Zebulun, and a daughter, Dinah (Genesis 30:17-21). Up to this time Rachel had not been blessed with children of her own. Thus the lesson is brought home to us that Yahweh has a special and kindly regard for the lowly and despised, provided they learn, through their troubles and afflictions, to look to Him for help and success. It seems that homely Leah was a person of deep-rooted piety and therefore better suited to become instrumental in carrying out the plans of Yahweh than her handsome, but worldly-minded, sister Rachel.
When Jacob decided to return to the "land of his fathers," both of his wives were ready to accompany him (Genesis 31:4, 14). Before they reached the end of their journey their courage was sorely tried at the time of the meeting between Jacob and his brother Esau. Although Leah was placed between the handmaids in the front, and Rachel with her son Joseph in the rear, she still cannot have derived much comfort from her position. We may well imagine her feeling of relief when she saw Esau and his 400 men returning to Seir (Genesis 33:2, 16).
According to Genesis 49:31, Leah was buried at Machpelah. We cannot know for a certainty that she died before Jacob's going down to Egypt, though it is very likely. If she went down with her husband and died in Egypt, he had her body sent to the family burying-place. Ruth 4:11 discloses the fact that her memory was not forgotten by future generations. When Boaz took Ruth for a wife the witnesses exclaimed, "Yahweh make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel."
William Baur
Leannoth
Leannoth - le-an'-oth (Psalms 88:1-18, title).
See PSALMS.
Leaping
Leaping - lep'-ing.
See GAMES.
Leasing
Leasing - lez'-ing (kazabh "to devise," "to fabricate," hence, "to lie"; occurs but twice in the King James Version (Psalms 4:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "falsehood"; Psalms 5:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "lies"); the Hebrew word is translated "liars" (Psalms 116:11); "lie" or deceive (Job 6:28)): The idea of treachery, lying, and deceit, lies at the root of this word. Joab's conduct is a good illustration of the meaning (2 Samuel 3:27; 2 Samuel 20:8-10). In Psalms 5:6 David is referring to the cunning, treachery, and falsehood of his adversaries; compare 2 Samuel 13:28; 2 Samuel 15:7-9. Doubtless David had a special person in mind as being guilty of "leasing," probably Ahithophel.
William Evans
Leather
Leather - leth'-er.
Leaven
Leaven - lev'-n (se'or, chamets; zume; Latin fermentum): The nomadic ancestors of the Hebrews, like the Bedouin of today, probably made their bread without leaven; but leaven came to play a great part in their bread-making, their law and ritual, and their religious teaching (see Exodus 12:15, 19; 13:7; Leviticus 2:11; Deuteronomy 16:4; Matthew 13:33; Matthew 16:6-12; Mark 8:15 f; Luke 12:1; 13:21).
(1) In Bread-Making.
The form of leaven used in bread-making and the method of using it were simple and definite. The "leaven" consisted always, so far as the evidence goes, of a piece of fermented dough kept over from a former baking. There is no trace of the use of other sorts of leaven, such as the lees of wine or those mentioned by Pliny (NH, xviii.26). The lump of dough thus preserved was either dissolved in water in the kneading-trough before the flour was added, or was "hid" in the flour (the King James Version "meal") and kneaded along with it, as was the case mentioned in the parable (Matthew 13:33). The bread thus made was known as "leavened," as distinguished from "unleavened" bread (Exodus 12:15, etc.).
See BREAD.
(2) In Law and Ritual.
The ritual prohibition of leaven during "the feast of unleavened bread" including the Passover (Exodus 23:15, etc.) is a matter inviting restudy. For the historical explanation given in the Scriptures, see especially Exodus 12:34-39; 13:3 ff; Deuteronomy 16:3. The antiquity of the prohibition is witnessed by its occurrence in the earliest legislation (Exodus 23:18; 34:25). A natural reason for the prohibition, like that of the similar exclusion of honey, is sought on the ground that fermentation implied a process of corruption. Plutarch voices this ancient view of the matter when he speaks of it as "itself the offspring of corruption, and corrupting the mass of dough with which it is mixed." Fermentatum is used in Persius (Sat., i.24) for "corruption." For this reason doubtless it was excluded also from the offerings placed upon the altar of Yahweh, cakes made from flour without leaven, and these only, being allowed. The regulation name for these "unleavened cakes" was matstsoth (Leviticus 10:12). Two exceptions to this rule should be noted (Leviticus 7:13; compare Amos 4:5): "leavened bread" was an accompaniment of the thank offering as leavened loaves were used also in the wave offering of Leviticus 23:17. Rabbinical writers regularly use leaven as a symbol of evil (Lightfoot).
(3) In Teaching.
The figurative uses of leaven in the New Testament, no less than with the rabbins, reflect the ancient view of it as "corrupt and corrupting," in parts at least, e.g. Matthew 16:6 parallel, and especially the proverbial saying twice quoted by Paul, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6 f; Galatians 5:9). But as Jesus used it in Matthew 13:33, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," it is clearly the hidden, silent, mysterious but all-pervading and transforming action of the leaven in the measures of flour that is the point of the comparison.
LITERATURE.
Nowack, Hebrew Arch., II, 145 f; Talmud, Berakhoth, 17a; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebrew. on Matthew 16:6.
George B. Eager
Lebana
Lebana - le-ba'-na, leb'-a-na (lebhana'), or family of returning exiles (Ezra 2:45; Nehemiah 7:48; compare 1 Esdras 5:29).
Lebanon
Lebanon - leb'-a-non (lebanon; Septuagint Libanos; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Libanus):
1. Name: Derived from the root labhen, "to be white," probably from the snow which covers its summits the greater part of the year. "White mountains" are found in almost every country. The light color of the upper limestone may, however, form a sufficient reason for the name. In prose the article is usually connected with the name. In poetry it is more often without the article. In the Septuagint, however, the article is generally present both in prose and poetry.
2. General Description: The Lebanon range proper borders the east coast of the Mediterranean, for a distance of 100 miles, running North-Northeast and South-Southwest from the mouth of the Litany river, the classic Leontes (which enters the sea a little North of Tyre), to the mouth of the Eleuthurus (Nahr el-Kebir), a few miles North of Tripolis. This river comes through a depression between Lebanon and the Nuseiriyeh mountains, known as "the entrance to Hamath," and connects with a caravan route to the Euphrates through Palmyra. For a considerable distance North of the Litany, the mountain summits average from 4,000 to 6,000 ft. in height, and the range is more or less dissected by short streams which enter the Mediterranean. Most prominent of these is the Nahr ez-Zaherany, which, after running 25 or 30 miles in a southerly direction through the center of the range, like the Litany, turns abruptly West opposite Mt. Hermon, reaching the sea between Tyre and Sidon. In roughly parallel courses Nahr el-`Awleh and Nahr Damur descend to the sea between Sidon and Beyrout, and Nahr Beyrout just North of the city. Throughout this district the mountain recesses are more or less wooded. Opposite Beyrout the range rises in Jebel Sannin to an elevation of 8,560 ft. Thirty miles farther Northeast the summit is reached in Jebel Mukhmal, at an elevation of 10,225 ft., with several others of nearly the same height. An amphitheater here opens to the West, in which is sheltered the most frequented cedar grove, and from which emerges the Nahr Qadisha ("sacred stream") which enters the Mediterranean at Tripolis. Snow is found upon these summits throughout the year (Jeremiah 18:14), while formerly the level area between them furnished the snow fields from which a glacier descended several miles into the headwaters of the Qadisha, reaching a level of about 5,000 ft. The glacier deposited in this amphitheater a terminal moraine covering several square miles, which at its front, near Bsherreh, is 1,000 ft. in thickness. It is on this that the grove of cedars referred to is growing.
The view from this summit reveals the geographical features of the region in a most satisfactory manner. Toward the East lies Coele-Syria (the modern Buka), 7,000 ft. below the summit, bordered on the eastern side by the mountain wall of Anti-Lebanon, corresponding to the cliffs of Moab East of the Jordan valley, opposite Judea. This depression in fact is but a continuation of the great geological fault so conspicuous in the Jordan valley (see ARABAH). As one looks down into this valley, Ba`albek appears at the base of Anti-Lebanon, only 20 miles away. The valley is here about 10 miles wide, and forms the watershed between the Orontes and the Litany. To the Northeast the valley of the Orontes is soon obscured by intervening peaks, but to the Southwest the valley of the Litany closes up only where the glistering peak of Mt. Hermon pierces the sky, as the river turns abruptly toward the sea 40 miles distant. Toward the West, the blue waters of the Mediterranean, only 25 miles distant as the crow flies, show themselves at intervals through the gorges cut by the rapid streams which have furrowed the western flanks of the mountain (Song of Solomon 4:15); 3,500 ft. beneath is the amphitheater many square miles in area, filled with the terminal moraine from which the Qadisha river emerges, and on which the grove of cedars (compare 1 Kings 4:33; Psalms 92:12; Hosea 14:5) appears as a green spot in the center. Onward to the West the river gorge winds its way amid numerous picturesque village sites and terraced fields, every foot of which is cultivated by a frugal and industrious people. To the traveler who has made the diagonal journey from Beirut to the cedars, memory fills in innumerable details which are concealed from vision at any one time. He has crossed Nahr el-Kelb ("Dog River"), near its mouth, where he has seen Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions dating from the time of Sennacherib's invasion. Ascending this river, after passing numerous villages surrounded by mulberry and olive groves, vineyards, and fields of wheat, and pausing to study the ruins of a temple dating from Roman times, and having crossed a natural bridge at Jisr el-Hagar with a span of 120 ft., rising 75 ft. above the stream, he arrives, at the end of the second day, at the ruins of the famous temple of Venus destroyed by the order of Constantine on account of the impurity of the rites celebrated in it. Here, too, is a famous spring, typical of many others which gush forth on either side of the Lebanon range from beneath the thick deposits of limestone which everywhere crown its summit. The flow of water is enormous, and at certain seasons of the year is colored red with a mineral matter which the ancients regarded with mysterious reverence (see LB ,III , 244). The lower part of the amphitheater is covered with verdure and a scanty growth of pine and walnut trees, but the upper part merges in the barren cliffs which lie above the snow line. Onward, alternately through upturned limestone strata, left by erosion in fantastic forms, and through barren areas of red sandstone, where the cedars of Lebanon would flourish if protected from the depredations of man and his domestic animals, he crosses by turns at higher and higher levels the headwaters of the Ibrahim, Fedar, Jozeh, Byblus and the Botrys rivers, and at length reaches, on the fourth day, the Qadisha, 5 miles below the cedars of Lebanon. Viewed from the Mediterranean the Lebanon range presents a continuous undulating outline of light-colored limestone peaks, the whole rising so abruptly from the sea that through most of the distance there is barely room for a road along the shore, while in places even that is prevented by rocky promontories projecting boldly into the sea. The only harbors of importance are at Beyrout and Tripolis, and these are only partially protected, being open to the Northwest. The eastern face of the range falling down into Coele-Syria is very abrupt, with no foothills and but one or two important valleys.
3. Geology: Geologically considered, the Lebanon consists of three conformable strata of rock thrown up in an anticline with its steepest face to the East. The lowest of these are several thousand ft. thick, consisting of hard limestone containing few fossils, the most characteristic of which is Cidaris glandaria, from which the formation has been named Glandarian limestone. In its foldings this has been elevated in places to a height of 5,000 ft. Through erosion it is exposed in numerous places, where it presents picturesque castellated columns, whose bluish-gray sides are beautifully fluted by atmospheric agencies. The second formation consists of several hundred feet of red-colored sandstone alternating with soft limestone and clay deposits, occasionally containing a poor quality of bituminous coal, with pyrites and efflorescent salts. It is this that occasionally colors the water of the spring at Adonis. The characteristic fossil is Trigonia syriaca. Altogether this formation attains a thickness of 1,000 ft., and it is on its exposed surfaces that the most of the Lebanon pines are found. It contains also many signs of volcanic action. The third formation consists of hippurite limestone, a cretaceous formation, in some places almost wholly composed of fragments of the fossils from which it derives its name. This formation appears on all the highest summits, where in most cases it is nearly horizontal, and in places attains a thickness of 5,000 ft. Between the summits of the range and the foothills this formation has been almost wholly carried away by erosion, thus exposing the underlying formations. Cretaceous strata of still later age are found at low levels near the sea, which in places are covered by small deposits of Tertiary limestone, and by a porous sandstone of the Pleistocene age.
4. Scenery: The scenery of the western slopes of Lebanon is most varied, magnificent, and beautiful, and well calculated, as indeed it did to impress the imagination of the Hebrew poets. Originally it was heavily covered with forests of pine, oak and cedar; but these have for the most part long since disappeared, except in the valley of Nahr Ibrahim, which is still thickly wooded with pine, oak and plane trees. Of the cedars there remain, besides the grove at the head of the Qadisha, only two or three, and they are of less importance. Every available spot on the western flanks of the Lebanon is cultivated, being sown with wheat or planted with the vine, the olive, the mulberry and the walnut. Irrigation is extensively practiced. When we let the eye range from the snowy summits of the mountain over all that lies between them and the orange groves of Sidon on the seashore, we understand why the Arabs say that "Lebanon bears winter on its head, spring on its shoulders, autumn in its lap, while summer lies at its feet."
In the more desolate places jackals, hyenas, wolves, and panthers are still found (compare 2 Kings 14:9).
5. History: The original inhabitants of Lebanon were Hivites and Gebalites (Judges 3:3; Joshua 13:5-6). The whole mountain range was assigned to the Israelites, but was never conquered by them. It seemed generally to have been subject to the Phoenicians. At present it is occupied by various sects of Christians and Mohammedans, of whom the Maronites, Druzes and Orthodox Greeks are most active and prominent. Since 1860 the region has been under the protection of European powers with a Christian governor. No exact figures are available, but the population at present numbers probably about 275,000.
Ruins of ancient temples are numerous throughout Lebanon. Bacon estimates that within a radius of 20 miles of Ba`albek there are 15 ruined sun-temples, the grandeur and beauty of which would have made them famous but for the surpassing splendor of Ba`albek.
6. Anti-Lebanon: Anti-Libanus (Judith 1:7; Joshua 13:5; Song of Solomon 7:4) is an extension northward of the great mountain system facing on the East the great geological fault most conspicuous in the valley of the Jordan (see JORDAN, VALLEY OF), extending from the Gulf of Akabah to Antioch on the Orontes River. The system begins at the Barada River just North of Mt. Hermon, and, running parallel to Mt. Lebanon for 65 miles, terminates at Chums, the "entering in of Hamath." The highest points of the range reach an elevation of over 8,000 ft. Eastward the range merges into the plateau of the great Syrian desert. South of Ba`albek the Yahfufah, a stream of considerable importance, empties into the Litany, while the Barada (the "Abana" of Scripture), rising in the same plateau, flows eastward to Damascus, its volume being greatly increased by fountains coming in from the base of the dissected plateau.
LITERATURE.
The geographical and geological descriptions are largely obtained by the writer from an extended excursion through the region in the company of Professor Day of the Protestant College at Beirut, whose knowledge of the region is most intimate and comprehensive. For more detailed information see Robinson,BRP 2,II , 435 ff, 493; G. A. Smith, HGHL, 45 ff; Burton and Drake, Unexplored Syria; Benjamin W. Bacon, and G.F. Wright in Records of the Past, 1906, V, 67-83, 195-204; Baedeker-Socin, Palestine.
George Frederick Wright
Lebaoth
Lebaoth - le-ba'-oth, -oth (lebha'oth): An unidentified city in the South of the territory of Judah (Joshua 15:32). It is the same as Bethlebaoth of Joshua 19:6, which, by a clerical error appears in 1 Chronicles 4:31 as "Beth-biri."
Lebbaeus
Lebbaeus - le-be'-us (Lebbaios): Mentioned in Matthew 10:3 the King James Version as "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" (the Revised Version (British and American) omits); one of the twelve apostles.
See THADDAEUS.
Lebonah
Lebonah - le-bo'-na (lebhonah): A place on the great north road between Shiloh and Shechem (Judges 21:19). It is represented by the modern Khan el-Lubban, about 3 miles West-Northwest of Seilun ("Shiloh"), on the way to Nablus. It is a wretched village lying on the slope of a hill, with many rock tombs in the vicinity.
Lecah
Lecah - le'-ka (lekhah): A descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:21).
Ledge
Ledge - lej (shalabh): The word in the sense of side-projection is used in 1 Kings 7:28-29 in connection with the bases of Solomon's Molten Sea (see SEA,THE MOLTEN ); in 1 Kings 7:35-36, where the King James Version uses the same word, the Revised Version (British and American) has "stay" (yadh, literally, "hand"). The Revised Version (British and American) likewise has "ledge" (round) for the King James Version "compass" (karkobh) in the description of the altar in Exodus 27:5; 38:4 (see ALTAR), and the American Standard Revised Version substitutes "ledge" for "settle" (`azarah) in Ezekiel 43:14, 17, 20; 45:19.
See TEMPLE.
Leeks
Leeks - leks (chatsir; ta prasa): This word, elsewhere translated "grass," is in Numbers 11:5 rendered "leeks" in all the ancient VSS, on account of its association with garlic and onions; such a use of the word occurs in the Talmud The leek (Allium porrum) is much grown today in Palestine, while in ancient Egypt this vegetable was renowned.
Lees
Lees - lez.
See WINE.