International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Left — Loop
Left
Left - left (sama'l, "to go to the left," "to turn to the left," semo'l, "the left hand," sema'li, "belonging to the left," "situated on the left"; aristeros, and euphemistically euonumos, literally, "having a good name," "of good omen"): The words are chiefly used in orientation with or without the addition of the word "hand." So Abraham says to Lot: "If thou wilt take the left hand (semo'l), then I will go to the right; or if thou take the right hand, then I will go to the left (sama'l)" (Genesis 13:9). Frequently in Hebrew idiom the right hand and the left are mentioned together in order to express the idea "everywhere," "anywhere," "altogether" (Genesis 24:49; Exodus 14:22, 29; Numbers 22:26; Deuteronomy 2:27; 5:32; 2 Corinthians 6:7). In the geographical sense the left is synonymous with north (Genesis 14:15; Joshua 19:27; Ezekiel 16:46; Acts 21:3). While the left hand is considered as weaker than the right (see LEFTHANDED), it is the hand which holds the bow (Ezekiel 39:3). The left hand is the side from which bad omens come, and therefore less lucky and less honored than the right hand (see HAND, note).
H. L. E. Luering
Lefthanded
Lefthanded - left'-hand-ed ('iTTer yadh-yamin; Septuagint amphoterodexios, i.e. "ambidextrous"): The Hebrew presents a combination of words signifying literally, a man whose right hand is impeded or lame, who therefore uses the left hand instead, or one who by habit prefers the use of the left hand, where others use the right. It is interesting to note that in both instances, where the expression occurs in the Scripture, it refers to individuals belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (which name itself signifies "a son of the right hand"!). The first is Ehud, son of Gera, who killed Eglon, king of Moab, and thereby delivered Israel from paying tribute to the Moabites (Judges 3:15). The other instance is that of the 700 selected Benjamites, who, though lefthanded, "could sling stones at a hair-breadth, and not miss" (Judges 20:16; of 1 Chronicles 12:2).
H. L. E. Luering
Leg
Leg - (1) shoq, Aramaic shoq; (2) kara`, dual kera`ayim; (3) reghel; skelos; the King James Version translates also shobhel, and tse`adhah, with "leg," but mistakenly): (1) The first Hebrew word (shoq) denotes the upper leg, and is therefore synonymous with THIGH (which see). It expresses metaphorically the muscular strength, and the pride of the runner. "He taketh no pleasure in the legs of a man" (Psalms 147:10). "His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold" (Song of Solomon 5:15). If the legs have lost their strength as in the lame or the Beri-beri patient, they become a metaphor for anything useless, inefficient or disappointing: "The legs of the lame hang loose; so is a parable in the mouth of fools" (Proverbs 26:7). The Aramaic form is found in the description of the image of Nebuchadnezzar, "its legs of iron" (Daniel 2:33). (2) Kara`, dual kera`ayim, the "leg," "respecting the legs," mentioned as a portion of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:9), or, usually, in connection with the head and the inwards, as a sacrificial portion (Exodus 29:17; Leviticus 1:9, 13; Amos 3:12). The word designates also the legs of leaping insects of the orthopterous family, locusts, etc., which were permitted as food to the Israelites (Leviticus 11:21). (3) Reghel, literally, "foot" (which see), found in this sense only once: "He (Goliath) had greaves of brass upon his legs" (1 Samuel 17:6).
Two passages of wrong translation in the King James Version have been corrected by the Revised Version (British and American). The virgin daughter of Babylon is addressed: "Make bare the leg, uncover the thigh" (Isaiah 47:2), the Revised Version (British and American) renders: "Strip off the train (shobhel), uncover the leg," the idea being that the gentle maid, who has been brought up in affluence and luxury, will have to don the attire of a slave girl and do menial work, for which her former garments are unsuited. The other passage is in Isaiah 3:20, where the King James Version reads: "the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs," the Revised Version (British and American) corrects: "the headtires (ts`adhah), and the ankle chains."
In the New Testament the word "leg" is found only in connection with the breaking of the legs of the persons crucified with the Saviour (John 19:31-32, 33). We know from Roman and Greek authors that this was done as a coup de grace to shorten the miseries of criminals condemned to die on the cross. The practice bore the technical name of skelokopia, Latin crurifragium. The verb skelokopein ("to break the legs"), is found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (1 Peter 4:14), where it is distinctly stated that the legs of Jesus were not broken, that His sufferings on the cross might be extended, while the two malefactors crucified with Him were mercifully dispatched in this way. The crurifragium consisted of some strokes with a heavy club or mallet, which always materially hastened the death of the sufferer, and often caused it almost immediately.
Edersheim, in LTJM, II, 613, suggests that the breaking of legs was an additional punishment, and that it was always followed by a coup de grace, the perforatio or percussio sub alas, a stroke with sword or lance into the side. This, however, is not borne out by any classical information which is known to me, and is contradicted by the statement of the evangelist that Jesus received the percussio, while the malefactors endured the crurifragium. Compare on this subject, especially for parallels from classical authors, Sepp, Das Leben Jesu,VII , 441, and Keim, Jesus von Nazara (English translation),VI , 253, note 3.
H. L. E. Luering
Legion
Legion - le'-jun.
Legislation, of Sanctity
Legislation, of Sanctity - lej-is-la'-shun.
See ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 5.
Lehabim
Lehabim - le-ha'-bim (lehdbhim): Named in Genesis 10:13; 1 Chronicles 1:11 as descendants of Mizraim. They are probably to be identified with the LUBIM (which see), and the one word may be a corruption of the other.
Lehi
Lehi - le'-hi.
See RAMATH-LEHI.
Lemuel
Lemuel - lem'-u-el (lemu'el, or lemo'-el): A king whose words, an "oracle (taught him by his mother)," are given in Proverbs 31:1-9; and possibly the succeeding acrostic poem (Proverbs 31:10-31) is from the same source. Instead of translating the word after this name as "oracle" some propose to leave it as a proper name, translating "king of Massa," and referring for his kingdom to Massa (Genesis 25:14), one of the sons of Ishmael, supposedly head of a tribe or sheikh of a country. It is to be noted, however, that the words of Agur in the previous chapter are similarly called massa', "oracle" with not so clear a reason for referring it to a country. See for a suggested reason for retaining the meaning "oracle" in both places, PROVERBS,THE BOOK OF ,II , 6.
John Franklin Genung
Lend, Loan
Lend, Loan - lon: The translation of 7 Hebrew and 2 Greek vbs.:
1. Lexical Usages: In the Old Testament: lawah, "to join," "cause to join," "lend" (Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 28:12, 44; Psalms 37:26; Proverbs 19:17); nashah, "to bite," "lend" (Deuteronomy 24:11; Jeremiah 15:10); nashah (same root as last, though different verb stem, Hiphil), "to cause to bite," "lend on usury" (Deuteronomy 15:2; 24:10); nashakh, "to bite," "lend" "(cause to lend) on usury" (Deuteronomy 23:19-20); nathan, "to give" (Leviticus 25:37, the Revised Version (British and American) "to give"); `abhat (Hiphil), "to cause to borrow," "to lend" (Deuteronomy 15:6, 8); sha'al (Hiphil), "to cause to ask," "to lend" (Exodus 12:36, the Revised Version (British and American) "ask"; 1 Samuel 1:27). In Septuagint daneizo, danizo, "to lend," translates lawah, and `abaT in above passages and in Nehemiah 5:4; Proverbs 22:7, and Isaiah 24:2; kichrao, also translations lawah and sha'al (Psalms 112:5; Proverbs 13:11); daneion(-ion), "loan," occurs in Deuteronomy 15:8, 10; 24:11; 4 Maccabees 2:8. In the New Testament "lend" translations two Greek verbs, daneizo, "to lend money" (Luke 6:34-35, usually in commercial sense); kichremi, "to lend (as a friendly act)" (Luke 11:5).The substantive "loan," she'elah, occurs only once in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 2:20 the King James Version and the English Revised Version), not at all in the New Testament.
2. History of Lending in the Bible and Apocrypha: (1) Lending on interest to the poor is prohibited in the code in Exodus 22:25. (2) In the code in Deuteronomy 15:1-6; Deuteronomy 23:19-20; Deuteronomy 24:10-11; 12, 44, borrowing and lending are taken for granted as existing in Israel, but the creditor is required to release his Hebrew brother as debtor in the Deuteronomy 7:11-26th year (either the cancellation of the loan (so in Jewish literature and early Christian scholars) or suspension of payment that year (so most modern scholars)), though he may exact payment from a foreigner. Israel may lend, and will be able to lend, because of Yahweh's blessing, to other nations, but must not borrow from them. A pledge, or security, must not be taken in person by the creditor from the house of the debtor, nor kept overnight, if the debtor be poor. (3) The code in Leviticus 25:35-38 requires that the Israelite receive no interest from his poor brother, because of the goodness of Yahweh to Israel. (4) Notwithstanding the prohibition of the early laws against lending on interest or usury, the same seems to have become common in Israel before the exile (Isaiah 24:2; Jeremiah 15:10), was practiced on the return, and was an evil to be corrected by Nehemiah (Nehemiah 5:7, 10). (5) According to Psalms 37:26; 112:5; Proverbs 19:17, lending to the needy was regarded as a mark of the pious Hebrew, but no interest is to be charged. (6) According to Apocrypha (Wisdom of Solomon 15:16; Sirach 8:12; 18:33; 15, 29; 4 Maccabees 2:8), borrowing is discouraged, and lending is exalted as a mark of the merciful man. (7) Jesus teaches that His followers should lend, even to enemies, to men from whom they have no reasonable hope of expecting anything in return, because thus to do is to be like the Most High (Luke 6:34-35). He did not discuss lending for commercial purposes, and so does not necessarily forbid it.
LITERATURE.
See Driver on Deuteronomy 15:1-6; Benzinger, Hebrew Archaeology, (1894), 350 f; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, 150, 10; Plummer on Luke 6:34-35.
Charles B. Williams
Lentils
Lentils - len'-tilz ('adhashim; phakos; Genesis 25:34; 2 Samuel 17:28; 23:11; Ezekiel 4:9; the King James Version Lentiles): These are undoubtedly identical with the Arabic `adas, a small, reddish bean, the product of Ervum lens, a dwarf leguminous plant, half a foot high, which is extensively cultivated in Palestine as a summer crop. The flour is highly nutritious, and the well-known food, Revalenta arabica, is simply one form, specially prepared; `adas are highly esteemed in Palestine, and are used in soup and as a "pottage" known as mujedderah. This last is of a reddish-brown color and is without doubt the "pottage" of Genesis 25:34. Lentils were part of the provisions brought to David when fleeing from Absalom (2 Samuel 17:28) and were used in the making of the bread for the prophet Ezekiel (2 Samuel 4:9). In a "plot of ground full of lentils," Shammah, one of David's "mighty men," stood and defended it and slew the marauding Philistines (2 Samuel 23:11-12).
E. W. G. Masterman
Leopard
Leopard - lep'-erd ((1) namer (Song of Solomon 4:8; Isaiah 11:6; Jeremiah 5:6; 13:23; Hosea 13:7; Habakkuk 1:8); compare Arabic nimr, "leopard." (2) Chaldaic nemar (Daniel 7:6). (3) pardalis (Revelation 13:2; Ecclesiasticus 28:23); compare nimrim Nimrim (Isaiah 15:6; Jeremiah 48:34), nimrah, Nimrah (Numbers 32:3), and beth-nimrah, Beth-nimrah (Numbers 32:36; Joshua 13:27)): The leopard is found throughout Africa and ranges through Southern Asia from Asia Minor to Japan, being absent from Siberia and Central Asia. Its range is much the same as that of the lion, which latter, however, does not extend so far to the East. Like other animals of wide range, it has local varieties, but these shade into each other imperceptibly, and the one specific name, Felis pardus, includes all. Leopards live in some of the valleys East and South of the Dead Sea, and in the mountains of Sinai and Northwestern Arabia. They have but rarely been seen of recent years in Lebanon or the more settled portions of Palestine. So far as can be judged from skins which are available for comparison, the leopard of Palestine is rather light in color, and is not as large as. some found in Africa or India. It is not certain that the place-names, NIMRIM, NIMRAH, and BETH-NIMRAH (which see), have to do with namer, "leopard," but their location is in Moab, where leopards are well known, even at the present day. One of the valleys entering the Dead Sea from the East, South of the Arnon, is called Wadi-en-Numeir ("valley of the little leopard"; numeir, diminutive of nimr).
In the Bible "leopard" occurs mainly in figurative expressions, as a large and fierce beast. The leopard is mentioned with the lion and bear in Daniel 7:6; Hosea 13:7; Revelation 13:2; with the lion, wolf and bear in Isaiah 11:6; with the lion and wolf in Jeremiah 5:6; with the lion alone in Ecclesiasticus 28:23; with the wolf alone in Habakkuk 1:8. The leopard is smaller than the lion and the tiger, but is more active than either. Its swiftness is referred to in Habakkuk 1:8: "Their horses also (of the Chaldeans) are swifter than leopards." The spots of the leopard are referred to in Jeremiah 13:23: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?"
The Greek pardalis, and panther, were both applied to the leopard. "Panther" is sometimes used of large leopards, while in America, with its corrupt form "painter," it is one of the names applied to the cougar or puma, Felis concolor, which, as the specific name implies, is not spotted like the leopard, or striped like the tiger.
Alfred Ely Day
Leper; Leprosy
Leper; Leprosy - lep'-er, lep'-ro-si (tsara`ath; lepra): A slowly progressing and intractable disease characterized by subcutaneous nodules (Hebrew se'eth; Septuagint oule; the King James Version "rising"), scabs or cuticular crusts (Hebrew cappachath; Septuagint semasia) and white shining spots appearing to be deeper than the skin (Hebrew bahereth; Septuagint telaugema). Other signs are (1) that the hairs of the affected part turn white and (2) that later there is a growth of "quick raw flesh." This disease in an especial manner rendered its victims unclean; even contact with a leper defiled whoever touched him, so while the cure of other diseases is called healing, that of leprosy is called cleansing (except in the case of Miriam (Numbers 12:13) and that of the Samaritan (Luke 17:15) where the word "heal" is used in reference to leprosy). The disease is described in the Papyrus Ebers as ukhedu (the Coptic name for leprosy is tseht). It is also mentioned in ancient Indian and Japanese history. Hippocrates calls it "the Phoenician disease," and Galen names it "elephantiasis." In Europe it was little known until imported by the returning soldiers of Pompey's army after his Syrian campaign in 61 BC; but after that date it is described by Soranus, Aretaeus and other classic authors.
1. Old Testament Instances: The first Old Testament mention of this disease is as a sign given by God to Moses (Exodus 4:6 (Jahwist)), which may be the basis of the story in Josephus' Apion, I, 31, that Moses was expelled from Heliopolis on account of his being a leper (see also I, 26 and Ant,III , xi, 4). The second case is that of Miriam (Numbers 12:10), where the disease is graphically described (EP2). In Deuteronomy 24:8 there is a reference to the oral tradition concerning the treatment of lepers, without any details, but in Leviticus 13:1-59; Leviticus 14:1-57 (Priestly Code) the rules for the recognition of the disease, the preliminary quarantine periods and the ceremonial methods of cleansing are given at length. It is worthy of note that neither here nor elsewhere is there any mention of treatment or remedy; and Jehoram's ejaculation implies the belief that its cure could be accomplished only by miracle (2 Kings 5:7).
The case of Naaman (2 Kings 5:1) shows that lepers were not isolated and excluded from society among the Syrians. The leprosy of Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27) is said to have been the transference of that of Naaman, but, as the incubation period is long, it must have been miraculously inflicted on him. The four lepers of Samaria of 2 Kings 7:3 had been excluded from the city and were outside the gate.
The leprous stroke inflicted on Uzziah (2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chronicles 26:23) for his unwarrantable assumption of the priestly office began in his forehead, a form of the disease peculiarly unclean (Leviticus 13:43-46) and requiring the banishment and isolation of the leper. It is remarkable that there is no reference to this disease in the prophetical writings, or in the Hagiographa.
2. Leprosy in the New Testament: In the New Testament, cleansing of the lepers is mentioned as a specific portion of our Lord's work of healing, and was included in the commission given to the apostles. There are few individual cases specially described, only the ten of Luke 17:12, and the leper whom our Lord touched (Matthew 8:2; Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12), but it is probable that these are only a few out of many such incidents. Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3) may have been one of those cured by the Lord.
3. Nature and Locality of the Disease: The disease is a zymotic affection produced by a microbe discovered by Hansen in 1871. It is contagious, although not very readily communicated by casual contact; in one form it is attended with anesthesia of the parts affected, and this, which is the commonest variety now met with in the East, is slower in its course than those forms in which nodular growths are the most prominent features, in which parts of the limbs often drop off. At present there are many lepers to be seen at the gates of the cities in Palestine. It is likewise prevalent in other eastern lands, India, China, and Japan. Cases are also to be seen in most of the Mediterranean lands and in Norway, as well as in parts of Africa and the West Indies and in South America. In former times it was occasionally met with in Britain, and in most of the older English cities there were leper houses, often called "lazarets" from the mistaken notion that the eczematous or varicose ulcers of Lazarus were leprous (Luke 16:20). Between 1096 and 1472, 112 such leper houses were founded in England. Of this disease King Robert Bruce of Scotland died. There was special medieval legislation excluding lepers from churches and forbidding them to wander from district to district. Leprosy has been sometimes confounded with other diseases; indeed the Greek physicians used the name lepra for the scaly skin disease now called psoriasis. In the priestly legislation there was one form of disease (Leviticus 13:13) in which the whiteness covers all the body, and in this condition the patient was pronounced to be clean. This was probably psoriasis, for leprosy does not, until a very late stage, cover all the body, and when it does so, it is not white. It has been surmised that Naaman's disease was of this kind. Freckled spots (Hebrew bohaq), which were to be distinguished from true leprosy (Leviticus 13:39), were either spots of herpes or of some other non-contagious skin disease. The modern Arabic word of the same sound is the name of a form of eczema. the Revised Version (British and American) reads for freckled spot "tetter," an old English word from a root implying itchiness (see Hamlet, I, v, 71).
The homiletic use of leprosy as a type of sin is not Biblical. The only Scriptural reference which might approach this is Psalms 51:7, but this refers to Numbers 19:18 rather than to the cleansing of the leper. The Fathers regarded leprosy as typical of heresy rather than of moral offenses. (See Rabanus Maurus, Allegoria, under the word "Lepra.")
(1) Leprosy in Garments. The occurrence of certain greenish or reddish stains in the substance of woolen or linen fabrics or in articles made of leather is described in Leviticus 13:47 ff, and when these stains spread, or, after washing, do not change their color, they are pronounced to be due to a fretting leprosy (tsara`ath mam'ereth), and such garments are to be burnt. As among the fellahin articles of clothing are worn for years and are often hereditary, it is little wonder that they become affected by vegetable as well as animal parasites, and that which is here referred to is probably some form of mildew, such as Penicillium or mold-fungus. The destruction of such garments is a useful sanitary precaution. Possibly this sort of decaying garment was in Job's mind when he compares himself to a "rotten thing that consumeth, like a garment that is moth-eaten" (Job 13:28); see also Jude 1:23, "the garment spotted (espilomenon) by the flesh."
(2) Leprosy in the House (Leviticus 14:34 ff). The occurrence of "hollow streaks, greenish or reddish," in the plaster of a house is regarded as evidence that the wall is affected with leprosy, and when such is observed the occupant first clears his house of furniture, for if the discoloration be pronounced leprous, all in the home would become unclean and must be destroyed. Then he asks the priest to inspect it. The test is first, that the stain is in the substance of the wall, and, second, that it is spreading. In case these conditions are fulfilled, it is pronounced to be leprosy and the affected part of the wall is taken down, its stones cast outside the city, its plaster scraped off and also cast outside the city; new stones are then built in and the house is newly plastered. Should the stain recur in the new wall, then the whole house is condemned and must be destroyed and its materials cast outside the city. The description is that of infection by some fungus attacking whatever organic material is in the mud plaster by which the wall is covered. If in woodwork, it might be the dry rot (Merulius lacrimans), but this is not likely to spread except where there is wood or other organic matter. It might be the efflorescence of mural salt (calcium nitrate), which forms fiocculent masses when decomposing nitrogenous material is in contact with lime; but that is generally white, not green or reddish. Considering the uncleanly condition of the houses of the ordinary fellah, it is little wonder that such fungus growths may develop in their walls, and in such cases destruction of the house and its materials is a sanitary necessity.
4. The Legal Attitude: It should be observed here that the attitude of the Law toward the person, garment or house suspected of leprosy is that if the disease be really present they are to be declared unclean and there is no means provided for cure, and in the case of the garment or house, they are to be destroyed. If, on the other hand, the disease be proved to be absent, this freedom from the disease has to be declared by a ceremonial purification. This is in reality not the ritual for cleansing the leper, for the Torah provides none such, but the ritual for declaring him ceremonially free from the suspicion of having the disease. This gives a peculiar and added force to the words, "The lepers are cleansed," as a testimony to our Lord's Divine mission.
Alexander Macalister
Leshem
Leshem - le'-shem.
See LAISH.
Lessau
Lessau - les'-o (Lessaou; the King James Version Dessau): A place mentioned only in 2 Maccabees 14:16 as the scene of a battle between Nicanor and the Jews. "Dessau" of the King James Version arises from confusion of the captical Greek letters, Lambda ("L") with Delta ("D"). The place may be identical with ADASA (which see).
Let
Let - (katecho): Usually in the sense of "permit" (Anglo-Saxon, leetan), but also in Old English with meaning of "hinder" (Anglo-Saxon, lettan). This latter sense is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 the King James Version, "Only he who now letteth will let," where the Revised Version (British and American) has, "Only there is one that restraineth now."
Lethech
Lethech - le'-thek (lethekh): A liquid measure equivalent to half a homer (Hosea 3:2 margin) and containing about 5 1/2 bushels.
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Letter
Letter - let'-er.
See EPISTLE.
Letters
Letters - let'-erz.
See ALPHABET; WRITING.
Letushim
Letushim - le-too'-shim, le-tu'-shim (leTushim): A Dedanite tribe in North Arabia (Genesis 25:3). With it are connected the ASSHURIM and LEUMMIM (which see).
Leummim
Leummim - le-um'-im (le'ummim): A Dedanite tribe of North Arabia, connected with the LETUSHIM (which see).
Levi (1)
Levi (1) - le'-vi (Lewi; Leui; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Leuei):
(1) The 3rd son of Jacob by Leah. See separate article.
(2) (3) Two ancestors of Jesus in Luke's genealogy (Luke 3:24, 29).
(4) The apostle Matthew.
See MATTHEW.
Levi (2)
Levi (2) - (Lewi; Leuei): The third of Leah's sons born to Jacob in Paddan-aram (Genesis 29:34). In this passage the name is connected with the verb lawah, "to adhere," or "be joined to," Leah expressing assurance that with the birth of this third son, her husband might be drawn closer to her in the bonds of conjugal affection. There is a play upon the name in Numbers 18:2, 4, where direction is given that the tribe of Levi be "joined unto" Aaron in the ministries of the sanctuary. The etymology here suggested is simple and reasonable. The grounds on which some modern scholars reject it are purely conjectural. It is asserted, e.g., that the name is adjectival, not nominal, describing one who attaches himself; and this is used to support theory that the Levites were those who joined the Semitic people when they left Egypt to return to Palestine, who therefore were probably Egyptians. Others think it may be a gentilic form le'ah, "wild cow" (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 146; Stade, Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 152); and this is held to be the more probable, as pointing to early totem worship!
Levi shared with Simeon the infamy incurred at Shechem by the treacherous slaughter of the Shechemites (Genesis 34:1-31). Jacob's displeasure was expressed at the time (Genesis 34:3), and the memory was still bitter to him in his last days (Genesis 49:5 f). The fate predicted for the descendants of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 49:7), in the case of the latter on account of the tribe's stedfast loyalty in a period of stern testing, was changed to a blessing (Exodus 32:26). In later literature the action condemned by Jacob is mentioned with approval (Judith 9:2 ff). Levi was involved in his brothers' guilt with regard to Joseph (Genesis 37:1-36), and shared their experiences in Egypt before Joseph made himself known (Genesis 42:1-38 through Genesis 45:1-28). Three sons, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, were born to him in Canaan, and went down with the caravan to Egypt (Genesis 46:11). Nothing further is known of the personal history of this patriarch. He died and found sepulture in Egypt. For the tribal history and possessions, see PRIESTS AND LEVITES.
W. Ewing
Leviathan
Leviathan - le-vi'-a-than (liwyathan (Job 41:1-34), from [~lawah, "to fold"; compare Arabic
name of the wry neck, Iynx torquilla, abu-luwa, from kindred lawa, "to bend"):
(1) The word "leviathan" also occurs in Isaiah 27:1, where it is characterized as "the swift serpent .... the crooked serpent"; in Psalms 104:26, where a marine monster is indicated; also in Psalms 74:14 and Job 3:8. The description in Job 41:1-34 has been thought by some to refer to the whale, but while the whale suits better the expressions denoting great strength, the words apply best on the whole to the crocodile. Moreover, the whale is very seldom found in the Mediterranean, while the crocodile is abundant in the Nile, and has been known to occur in at least one river of Palestine, the Zarqa, North of Jaffa. For a discussion of the behemoth and leviathan as mythical creatures, see EB , under the word "Behemoth" and "Leviathan." The points in the description which may well apply to the crocodile are the great invulnerability, the strong and close scales, the limbs and the teeth. It must be admitted that there are many expressions which a modern scientist would not use with reference to the crocodile, but the Book of Job is neither modern nor scientific, but poetical and ancient.
(2) See ASTRONOMY, sec. II, 2, 5.
Alfred Ely Day
Levirate; Law
Levirate; Law - lev'-i-rat.
See MARRIAGE.
Levis
Levis - le'-vis (Leuis): 1 Esdras 9:14, properly the Levite of Ezra 10:15; "Shabbethai the Levite" for "Levis and Sabbateus."
Levites
Levites - le'-vits.
See PRIESTS AND LEVITES.
Levitical Cities
Levitical Cities - le-vit'-i-kal
I. LEGAL PROVISIONS
1. Numbers
2. Deuteronomy
II. WELLHAUSEN'S VIEW
III. ALTERNATIVE VIEW AND EVIDENCE
1. Traces of the Cities
2. Wellhausen's Arguments Answered
3. Van Hoonacker's Reply
4. Ezekiel's Vision
5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell
LITERATURE
I. Legal Provisions. 1. Numbers: Numbers 35:1-8 provides that 48 cities should be given to the Levites, each surrounded by a pasturage. The exact details are not quite clear, for in the Hebrew, Numbers 35:4 would naturally be read as meaning that the pasturage was a radius of Numbers 1:1-54, 000 cubits from the city walls, while Numbers 35:5 makes each city the center of a square, each side of which was Numbers 2:1-34, 000 cubits long. Extant variants in the versions suggest, however, that the text has suffered slightly in transmission. Originally there seems to have been no discrepancy between the two verses, and it may be doubted whether the intent was that the city was always to be in the mathematical center of the patch. The Levites were to have the right of redeeming the houses at any time, and in default of redemption they were to go out in the Jubilee. The field was not to be sold (Leviticus 25:32 f).
2. Deuteronomy: Deuteronomy 18:8 undoubtedly recognizes patrimonial possessions of the Levites outside the religious capital, and sees no inconsistency with its earlier statement that Levi had no portion or inheritance with Israel (Deuteronomy 18:1). The explanation lies in the fact that these cities were not a tribal portion like the territories of the secular tribes. The area occupied by the whole 48 jointly would only have amounted to less than 16 miles.
II. Wellhausen's View. Joshua 21:1-45 relates that this command was fulfilled by the allocation of 48 cities, but it is clear that some of those cities were not in fact reduced into possession; see e.g. Joshua 16:10; Judges 1:29 as to Gezer, and Judges 1:27 as to Taanach. Wellhausen treats the whole arrangement as fictitious. His main reasons are: (1) that the arrangement is physically impracticable in a mountainous country, and (2) that "there is not a historical trace of the existence of the Levitical cities." Many remained in the hands of the Canaanites till a late period, while others were "important but by no means ecclesiastical towns" (Prolegomena, 160). Two pages later he says that "four of them were demonstrably famous old seats of worship," and conjectures that most, if not all, were ancient sanctuaries. He also regards Ezekiel's scheme of a heave offering of land (Ezekiel 45:1-25) as the origin of the idea. Yet "Jerus and the temple, which, properly speaking, occasioned the whole arrangement, are buried in silence with a diligence which is in the highest degree surprising" (p. 164).
III. Alternative View and Evidence. 1. Traces of the Cities: In point of fact, there are traces of some of the Levitical cities in the later history. Such are Anathoth (1 Kings 2:26; Jeremiah 1:1; Jeremiah 32:1-44), Jattir (2 Samuel 20:26, where, as shown in the article PRIESTS AND LEVITES (which see), Jattirite should be read for the Massoretic Jairite), Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:13-15; see PRIESTS AND LEVITES as to the text). (From Amos 7:17 it appears that Amaziah of Bethel had land, but we do not know that he was of Levitical descent or where the land was.)
2. Wellhausen's Arguments Answered: Further, the fact that many other Levitical cities appear to have been centers of worship points to the presence of priests. Was the great high place of Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4) unserved by priests? It is surely natural to suppose that during the period between the capture of the Ark and its transport to Jerusalem there was a tendency for high places to spring up in cities where there were priests rather than elsewhere; indeed there would probably be a disposition on the part of unemployed priests to go astray in a direction that would prove lucrative.
3. Van Hoonacker's Reply: With regard to the other objection, Van Hoonacker's answer is convincing: "As to the way in which the measurements were to be carried out in the mountainous country of Palestine, the legislator doubtless knew what method was usually employed. Besides, we are free to believe that he only gives these figures as approximate indications" (Sacerdoce levitique, 433).
4. Ezekiel's Vision: The same writer's reply to theory that the idea originated with Ezekiel is wholly admirable. "Strictly we could ask .... whether Ezekiel did not found himself on the description of the camp of the Israelites in the desert. It is only too manifest that the division and appointment of the territory as presented in Ezekiel 48:1-35 of the prophet are scarcely inspired by practical necessities, that they have a very pronounced character of ideal vision; and `as no fancy is pure fancy,' we ought also to find the elements which are at the basis of Ezekiel's vision. The tents of the tribe of Levi ranged around the tabernacle explain themselves in the Priestly Code; we may doubt whether the Levites, deprived of territory (Ezekiel 44:28) and nevertheless grouped on a common territory, in the conditions described in Ezekiel 48:1-35, explain themselves with equal facility. A camp is readily conceived on the pattern of a chessboard, but not the country of Canaan. We need not stop there. It is in fact certain that Ezekiel here has in view the protection of the holiness of the temple from all profanation; and in the realm of the ideal, the means are appropriate to the end" (op. cit., 425 f).
5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell:
Lastly there runs through Wellhausen's discussion the confusion between a city where priests may be dwelling and a priestly city. There were priests in Jerusalem, as there are today in London or Chicago; but none of these three places can be regarded as a priestly city in the same sense as the Levitical cities. Not one of them has ever been a patrimonial city of priests, or could be the origin of such an arrangement.
While therefore the whole of the cities mentioned in Joshua 21:1-45 were certainly not reduced into possession at the time of the conquest, the Wellhausen theory on this matter cannot be sustained.
LITERATURE.
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 159-63; A. Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce levitique, 423-35 (very brilliant and important).
Harold M. Wiener
Leviticus, 1
Leviticus, 1 - le-vit'-i-kus:
I. GENERAL DATA
1. Name
2. Character of Book
3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness Examination of Critical Theory
II. STRUCTURE
1. Modern Analyses
(1) Theories of Disintegration
(2) Reasons for Dismemberment
(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons
2. Structure of the Biblical Text
(1) Structure in General
(2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes
III. ORIGIN
1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis
(1) The Argument from Silence
(2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System
(3) The People's Disobedience
(4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing
(5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code
2. Connection with Mosaic Period
(1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions
(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin
IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE
1. Positive
(1) The Law Contains God's Will
(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity
(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ
2. Negative
LITERATURE
I. General Data. 1. Name: The third book of the Pentateuch is generally named by the Jews according to the first word, wayyiqra' (Origen Ouikra, by the Septuagint called according to its contents Leuitikon, or Leueitikon, by the Vulgate, accordingly, "Leviticus" (i.e. Liber), sometimes "Leviticum"). The Jews have also another name taken from its contents, namely, torath kohanim, "Law of the Priests."
2. Character of Book: As a matter of fact ordinances pertaining to the priesthood, to the Levitical system, and to the cults constitute a most important part of this book; but specifically religious and ethical commands, as we find them, e.g. in Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27, are not wanting; and there are also some historical sections, which, however, are again connected with the matter referring to the cults, namely the consecration of the priests in Leviticus 8:1-36 and Leviticus 9:1-24, the sin and the punishment of two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1 ff), and the account of the stoning of a blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10 ff). Of the Levites, on the other hand, the book does not treat at all. They are mentioned only once and that incidentally in Leviticus 25:32 ff. The laws are stated to have been given behar Cinay (Leviticus 7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34), which expression, on account of Leviticus 11:1-47, in which Yahweh is described as speaking to Moses out of the tent of meeting, is not to be translated "upon" but "at" Mt. Sinai. The connection of this book with the preceding and following books, i.e. Exodus and Numbers, which is commonly acknowledged as being the case, at least in some sense, leaves for the contents of Leviticus exactly the period of a single month, since the last chronological statement of Exodus 40:17 as the time of the erection of the tabernacle mentions the Exodus 1:11-22st day of the Exodus 1:11-22st month of the Exodus 2:11-25nd year of the Exodus, and Numbers 1:1 takes us to the Numbers 1:11-54st day of the Numbers 2:11-34nd month of the same year. Within this time of one month the consecration of the priests fills out 8 days (Leviticus 8:33; 9:1). A sequence in time is indicated only by Leviticus 16:1, which directly connects with what is reported in Leviticus 10:1-20 concerning Nadab and Abihu. In the same way the ordinances given in Leviticus 10:6 ff are connected with the events described in Leviticus 8:1 through Leviticus 10:5. The laws are described as being revelations of Yahweh, generally given to Moses (compare Leviticus 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; 19, 24 (Hebrews 12:1-29, 17); 7:22,28, etc.); sometimes to Moses and Aaron (compare 11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1, etc.), and, rarely, to Aaron alone (10:8). In 10:12 ff, Moses gives some directions to the priests, which are based on a former revelation (compare 6:16 (Hebrews 9:1-28) ff; 7:37 ff). In 10:16 ff, we have a difference of opinion between Moses and Aaron, or rather his sons, which was decided on the basis of an independent application of principles given in Leviticus. Most of these commands are to be announced to Israel (1:2; 4:2; 7:23,19; 9:3 ff; 11:2; 12:2; 15:2; 18:2, etc.); others to the priests (6:9,25 (Hebrews 2:1-18, 18); 21:2; 22:2, etc.); or to the priests and the Israelites (17:2; 22:18), while the directions in reference to the Day of Atonement, with which Aaron was primarily concerned (16:2), beginning with 16:29, without a special superscription, are undeniably changed into injunctions addressed to all Israel; compare also 21:24 and 21:2. As the Book of Exodus treats of the communion which God offers on His part to Israel and which culminates at last in His dwelling in the tent of meeting (40:34 ff; compare under EXODUS, I, Hebrews 2:1-18), the Book of Leviticus contains the ordinances which were to be carried out by the Israelites in religious, ethical and cultural matters, in order to restore and maintain this communion with God, notwithstanding the imperfections and the guilt of the Israelites. And as this book thus with good reason occupies its well established place in the story of the founding and in the earliest history of theocracy, so too even a casual survey and intelligent glance at the contents of the book will show that we have here a well-arranged and organic unity, a conviction which is only confirmed and strengthened by the presentation of the structure of the book in detail (see underII , below).
3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness: As a rule, critics are accustomed first of all to regard Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 25:1-55 or Leviticus 26:1-46 as an independent section, and find in these chapters a legal code that is considered to have existed at one time as a group by itself, before it was united with the other parts.
It is indeed true that a series of peculiarities have been found in these chapters of Leviticus. To these peculiarities belongs the frequent repetition of the formula: "I am Yahweh your God" (18:2,4; 19:2,4, etc.); or "I am Yahweh" (18:5,6,21; 19:14,16, etc.), or "I am Yahweh .... who hath separated you" (20:24), or "who sanctifieth you" (20:8; 21:8,15,23, etc.). To these peculiarities belong the references in words, or, in fact, to the land of Canaan, into which Israel is to be led (18:3,14 ff; 19:23 ff,29; 20:22 ff; 23; 25), and also to Egypt, out of which He has led the people (18:3; 19:34; 22:33; 26:13,15, etc.); as, further, the demand for sanctification (19:2), or the warning against desecration (19:12; 21:23, etc.), both based on the holiness of Yahweh. In addition, a number of peculiar expressions are repeatedly found in these chapters. Because of their contents these chapters have, since Klostermann, generally been designated by the letter H (i.e. Law of Holiness); or, according to the suggestion of Dillmann, by the letter S (i.e. Sinaitic Law), because, according to 25:1; 26:46, they are said to have been given at Mt. Sinai, and because in certain critical circles it was at one time claimed that these chapters contain old laws from the Mosaic period, although these had been changed in form. These earlier views have apparently now been discarded by the critics entirely.
Examination of Critical Theory.
We, however, do not believe that it is at all justifiable to separate these laws as a special legal code from the other chapters. In the first place, these peculiarities, even if such are found here more frequently than elsewhere, are not restricted to these chapters exclusively. The Decalogue (Exodus 20:2) begins with the words, "I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Exodus 22:31 contains the demand, "Ye shall be holy men unto me." Exodus 29:44-45 contains a promise that God will dwell in the midst of the Israelites, so that they shall learn that He is Yahweh, their God, who has brought them out of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst as Yahweh, their God (compare, further, Exodus 6:6-8; 31:13 f; Leviticus 10:10-11; 11:44; Numbers 15:37-41; 33:52 f,55 f; Deuteronomy 14:2, 21). It is a more than risky undertaking to find in these and in other sections scattered remnants of H, especially if these are seen to be indispensable in the connection in which they are found, and when no reason can be given why they should be separated from this collection of laws. Then, too, the differences of opinion on the part of the critics in assigning these different parts to H, do not make us favorably inclined to the whole hypothesis. Hoffmann, especially (Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, 16 ff), has shown how impossible it is to separate H from the other ordinances of the Priestly Code in so radical a manner. In saying this we do not at all wish to deny the peculiar character of these chapters, only we do not believe that Leviticus 17:1-16 can be added or Leviticus 26:1-46 can be taken away from this section; for in Leviticus 17:1-16 all the characteristic peculiarities of the Holiness Law are lacking; and, on the other hand, in Leviticus 26:1-46 the expression "I am Yahweh your God," or a similar one in Leviticus 26:12-13, 14 f, is found. The subscription in Leviticus 26:46 connects Leviticus 26:1-46 with the preceding; and, further, the reference to the Sabbatical year as described in Leviticus 25:1-55, found in Leviticus 26:34 f,43, is not to be overlooked. Finally, also, other legal codes, such as that in the first Book of the Covenant (Exodus 23:20-33) and that of Dt (Exodus 27:11-21:Exodus 40:38) close with the offer of a blessing or a curse.
The chapters under consideration (Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 26:1-46) are most closely connected with each other solely through their contents, which have found expression in a particular form, without these facts being sufficient to justify the claim of their being a separate legal code. For since in Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 17:1-16 all those things which separate the Israelites from their God have been considered and bridged over (compare Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38, the laws concerning sacrifices; Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20, the mediatorship of the priests; Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33, the unclean things; Leviticus 16:1-34, the Day of Atonement; Leviticus 17:1-16, the use made of blood), we find in Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 26:1-46 an account of the God-pleasing conduct, which admits of nothing that desecrates; namely, Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27 contain laws dealing with marriage and chastity and other matters of a religious, ethical or cultural kind, together with the punishments that follow their transgression; Leviticus 21:1-24 f determine the true character of the priests and of the sacred oblations; Leviticus 23:1-44 f, the consecration of the seasons, of life and death, etc.; Leviticus 25:1-55, the Sabbath and the Jubilee year; Leviticus 26:1-46 contains the offer of a blessing or a curse. Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 17:1-16 have, as it were, a negative character; Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 26:1-46 a positive character. In Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 17:1-16 the consciousness of what is unclean, imperfect and guilty is awakened and the possibility of their removal demonstrated; while in Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 26:1-46 the norm of a holy life is set forth. Even if these two parts at certain places show so great a likeness that the occurrence of an interchange of ordinances could be regarded as possible, nevertheless the peculiar character of each part is plainly recognized; and this is also a very essential argument for the view that both parts have one and the same author, who intentionally brought the two parts into closer connection and yet separated the one from the other. On this supposition the peculiarities of Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 26:1-46 are sufficiently explained, and also the positive contents of these chapters and the fact that just these chapters are referred to in pre-exilic literature oftener than is the case with Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 17:1-16, and particularly the close connection between Ezekiel and H is to be regarded as a consequence of the common tendency of both authors and not as the result of their having used a common source (see EZEKIEL,II , 2). In Leviticus 26:46 we have what is clearly a conclusion, which corresponds to Leviticus 25:1; 7:37 f; Leviticus 1:1, and accordingly regards Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 26:1-46 as a unity; while Leviticus 27:1-34, which treats of vows and of tithes, with its separate subscription in Leviticus 27:34, shows that it is an appendix or a supplement, which is, however, in many ways connected with the rest of the book, so that this addition cannot, without further grounds, be regarded as pointing to another author.
II. Structure. 1. Modern Analyses: Modern criticism ascribes the entire Book of Leviticus, being a special legal code, to the Priestly Code (P). The questions which arise in connection with this claim will be discussed under III, below. At this point we must first try to awaken a consciousness of the fact, that in this special particular, too, the documentary theory has entered upon the stage of total disintegration; that the reasons assigned for the separation of the sources are constantly becoming more arbitrary and subjective; and that the absurd consequences to which they consistently lead from the very outset arouse distrust as to the correctness of the process. Just as in the historical parts the critics have for long been no longer content with J (Jahwist) and E (Elohist), but have added a J1 and Later additions to J, an E1 and Later additions to E, and as Sievers and Gunkel have gone farther, and in detail have completely shattered both J and E into entirely separate fragments (see GENESIS), So the Priestly Code (P), too, is beginning to experience the same fate. It is high time that, for both the historical and the legal sections, the opposite course be taken, and that we turn from the dismemberment to the combination of these documents; that we seek out and emphasize those features which, in form and content, unite the text into a clear unity. For this reason we lay the greatest stress on these in this section, which deals with the structure of the book, and which treats of the matter (1) negatively and (2) positively (see also EXODUS,II ).
(1) Theories of Disintegration. We have already seen in the article DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, (2)) in connection with Leviticus 16:1-34 an example of these attempts at dissection, and here still add several examples in order to strengthen the impression on this subject.
(a) General Considerations: If we for the present disregard the details, then, according to Bertholet (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament), not only Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46 (see, above, under I) at one time existed as a separate legal corpus, but also the sacrificial legislation in Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38, and also the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33. Concerning Leviticus 16:1-34 see above. Then, too, Leviticus 27:1-34 is regarded as a supplement and is ascribed to a different author. Finally, the so-called "fundamental document" of P (marked Pg) contained only parts from Leviticus 9:1-24 f (also a few matters from Leviticus 8:1-36), as also one of the three threads of Leviticus 16:1-34, for Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20, it is said, described the consecration of the priests demanded in Exodus 25:1-40 ff, which also are regarded as a part of Pg, and Leviticus 16:1 is claimed to connect again with Leviticus 10:1-20 (compare on this point DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2). All these separate parts of Leviticus (i.e. Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38;, 8 through Leviticus 10:1-20; Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33; Leviticus 16:1-34; Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46; Leviticus 27:1-34) are further divided into a number of more or less independent subparts; thus, e.g., Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38, containing the sacrificial laws, are made to consist of two parts, namely, Leviticus 1:1-17 through 5 and Leviticus 6:1-30 through Leviticus 7:1-38; or the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33 are divided into the separate pieces, Leviticus 11:1-47; Leviticus 12:1-8; 13:1 through 46; and these are regarded as having existed at one time and in a certain manner independently and separated from each other. But how complicated in detail the composition is considered to be, we can see from Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46.
(b) Leviticus 17 through 26 Considered in Detail: While Baentsch (Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament) accepts, to begin with, three fundamental strata (H1 = Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27 and certain portions from Leviticus 23:1-44 through Leviticus 25:1-55; H2 = Leviticus 21:1-24 f; H3 = Leviticus 17:1-16), Bertholet, too (op. cit., x), regards the development of these chapters as follows: "In detail we feel justified in separating the following pieces: (i) Leviticus 17:3-4 (5,7a),8,9,10-14; (ii) 18:7-10,12-20,22 f; and this united with (iii) 19:3 f,11 f,27 f,30,31,35,36, which was probably done by the author of (iii). The following were inserted by the person who united these parts, namely, 18:6,27,25,26,28,30; (iv) 19:9,10,13-18,19,29,32; (v) 19:5-8,23-26; (vi) 20:2(3),6(27); (vii) 20:9,10-21; 19:20; (viii) 21:1b-5,7,9-15,17b-24; 22:3,8,10-14,18b-25,27-30; (ix) 23:10-20,39-43; (x) 24:15-22, except verses 16a(?)b; (xi) 25:2-7 (4),18-22,35-38,39,40a,42 f,47,53,15; (xii) 25:8a,9b,10a,13,14-16,17,24 f. In uniting these pieces Rh (the Redactor of the Law of Holiness) seems to have added de suo the following: 17:5 (beginning); 18:2b-5,21,24,26 a(?),29; 19:33 f,37; 20:4 f,7 f,22-26; 21:6,8; 22:2,9,15 f,31-33; 23:22; 25:11 f; 26:1 f. At the same time he united with these an older parenetic section, 26:3-45, which, by inserting 26:10,34 f,39-43, he changed into a concluding address of this small legal code. All the rest that is found in Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46 seems to be the result of a revision in the spirit of the Priestly Code (P), not, however, as though originally it all came from the hand of Rp (Redactor P). That he rather added and worked together older pieces from P (which did not belong to Pg) is seen from an analysis of Leviticus 23:1-44. .... As far as the time when these parts were worked together is concerned, we have a reliable terminus ad quem in a comparison of Nehemiah 8:14-18 with Leviticus 23:36 (P),39 ff (H). Only we must from the outset remember, that still, after the uniting of these different parts, the marks of the editorial pen are to be noticed in the following Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46, i.e. that after this union a number of additions were yet made to the text. This is sure as far as Leviticus 23:26-32 is concerned, and is probable as to Leviticus 24:1-9, 10-14, 23; Leviticus 25:32-34; and that this editorial work even went so far as to put sections from P in the place of parts of H can possibly be concluded from Leviticus 24:1-9."
(c) Extravagance of Critical Treatment: This is also true of all the other sections, as can be seen by a reference to the books of Bertholet and Baentsch. What should surprise us most, the complicated and external manner in which our Biblical text, which has such a wonderful history back of it, is declared by the critics to have originated, or the keenness of the critics, who, with the ease of child's play, are able to detect and trace out this growth and development of the text, and can do more than hear the grass grow? But this amazement is thrust into the ackground when we contemplate what becomes of the Bible text under the manipulations of the critics. The compass of this article makes it impossible to give even as much as a general survey of the often totally divergent and contradictory schemes of Baentsch and Bertholet and others on the distribution of this book among different sources; and still less possible is it to give a criticism of these in detail. But this critical method really condemns itself more thoroughly than any examination of its claims would. All who are not yet entirely hypnotized by the spell of the documentary hypothesis will feel that by this method all genuine scientific research is brought to an end. If the way in which this book originated had been so complicated, it certainly could never have been again reconstructed.
(2) Reasons for Dismemberment. We must at this place confine ourselves to mentioning and discussing several typical reasons which are urged in favor of a distribution among different authors.
(a) Alleged Repetitions: We find in the parts belonging to P a number of so-called repetitions. In Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 we find a twofold discussion of the five kinds of sacrifices (1-5; 6:1 ff); in Leviticus 20:1-27 punitive measures are enacted for deeds which had been described already in Leviticus 18:1-30; in Leviticus 19:3, 10; 23:3; 26:2 the Sabbath command is intensified; in Leviticus 19:5 ff; Leviticus 22:29 f, we find commands which had been touched upon already in Leviticus 7:15 ff; Leviticus 19:9 f we find almost verbally repeated in Leviticus 23:22; 24:2 ff repeats ordinances concerning the golden candlestick from Exodus 27:20 ff, etc. The existence of these repetitions cannot be denied; but is the conclusion drawn from this fact correct? It certainly is possible that one and the same author could have handled the same materials at different places and from different viewpoints, as is the case in Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 in regard to the sacrifices. Leviticus 18:1-30 and Leviticus 20:1-27 (misdeeds and punishments) are even necessarily and mutually supplementary. Specially important laws can have been repeated, in order to emphasize and impress them all the more; or they are placed in peculiar relations or in a unique light (compare, e.g., Leviticus 24:1 ff, the command in reference to the golden candlestick in the pericope Leviticus 23:1-44 through Leviticus 24:1-23; see below). Accordingly, as soon as we can furnish a reason for the repetition, it becomes unobjectionable; and often, when this is not the case, the objections are unremoved if we ascribe the repetitions to a new author, who made the repetition by way of an explanation (see EXODUS,II , 2, (5)).
(b) Separation of Materials: Other reasons will probably be found in uniting or separating materials that are related. That Leviticus 16:1-34 is connected with Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20, and these connect with Exodus 25:1-40 ff, is said to prove that this had been the original order in these sections. But why should materials that are clearly connected be without any reason torn asunder by the insertion of foreign data? Or has the interpolator perhaps had reasons of his own for doing this? Why are not these breaks ascribed to the original author? The sacrificial laws in Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 are properly placed before Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20, because in these latter chapters the sacrifices are described as already being made (Leviticus 9:7, 15, the sin offering; Leviticus 9:7, 12, 16, the burnt offering; Leviticus 9:17; 10:12, the meal offering; Leviticus 9:18, the peace offering; Leviticus 9:3 f, all kinds). In the same way Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33, through Leviticus 15:31, are inwardly connected with Leviticus 16:1-34, since these chapters speak of the defiling of the dwelling-place of Yahweh, from which the Day of Atonement delivers (Leviticus 16:16 f,33). As a matter of course, the original writer as well as a later redactor could have at times also connected parts in a looser or more external manner. In this way, in Leviticus 7:22 ff, the command not to eat of the fats or of the blood has been joined to the ordinances with reference to the use of the peace offerings in Leviticus 7:19 ff. This again is the case when, in Leviticus 2:1-16, verses Leviticus 11:1-47-Leviticus 13:1-59 have been inserted in the list of the different kinds of meal offering; when after the general scheme of sin offerings, according to the hierarchical order and rank in Leviticus 4:1-35, a number of special cases are mentioned in Leviticus 5:1 ff; and when in Leviticus 5:7 ff commands are given to prevent too great poverty; or when in Leviticus 6:19 ff the priestly meal offerings are found connected with other ordinances with references to the meat offerings in general (Leviticus 6:14 ff); or when the share that belongs to the priest (Leviticus 7:8 ff) is found connected with his claim to the guilt offering (Leviticus 7:1 ff); or the touching of the meat offering by something unclean (Leviticus 7:19 ff) is found connected with the ordinances concerning the peace offerings; or when in Leviticus 11:1-47 the ordinances dealing with the unclean animals gradually pass over into ordinances concerning the touching of these animals, as is already indicated by the subscription Leviticus 11:4, 6 f (compare with Leviticus 11:2). Still more would it be natural to unite different parts in other ways also. In this way the ordinances dealing with the character of the sacrifices in Leviticus 22:17-30 could, regarded by themselves, be placed also in Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38. But in Leviticus 22:1-33 they are also well placed. On the other hand, the character of Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 would have become too complicated if they were inserted here. In such matters the author must have freedom of action.
(c) Change of Singular and Plural: Further, the frequent change between the singular and the plural in the addresses found in the laws which are given to a body of persons is without further thought used by the critics as a proof of a diversity of authors in the section under consideration (compare Leviticus 10:12 ff; Leviticus 19:9, 11 ff,Leviticus 15:1-33 ff, etc.). But how easily this change in numbers can be explained! In case the plural is used, the body of the people are regarded as having been distributed into individuals; and in the case of a more stringent application the plural can at once be converted into the singular, since the author is thinking now only of separate individuals. Naturally, too, the singular is used as soon as the author thinks again rather of the people as a whole. Sometimes the change is made suddenly within one and the same verse or run of thought; and this in itself ought to have banished the thought of a difference of authors in such cases. In the case of an interpolator or redactor, it is from the outset all the more probable that he would have paid more attention to the person used in the addresses than that this would have been done by the original writer, who was completely absorbed by the subject-matter. Besides, such a change in number is frequently found in other connections also; compare in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 22:20-25, 29 f; Exodus 23:9 ff; compare Deuteronomy 12:2 ff,Deuteronomy 13:1-18 ff). In regard to these passages, also, the modern critics are accustomed to draw the same conclusion; and in these cases, too, this is hasty. In the same way the change in the laws from the 3rd to the 2nd person can best be explained as the work of the lawgiver himself, before whose mind the persons addressed are more vividly present and who, when speaking in the 2nd person, becomes personal (compare Leviticus 2:4 ff with Leviticus 2:1-3, and also Leviticus 1:2; 3:17; 18, 21, 25 ff).
(d) Proofs of Religious Development: A greater importance seemingly must be attributed to the reasons based on a difference in the terminology or on contradictions in the laws, as these appear to lead to a religio-historical development. But the following examples are intended to show how all important it is to be slow in the acceptance of the materials which the critics offer in this connection.
(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons. (a) In Leviticus 5:1-7, in the section treating of the sin offering (Leviticus 4:1 through Leviticus 5:13), we find the word 'asham, which also signifies "guilt offering" (compare Leviticus 5:14 ff; Leviticus 7:1 ff). Accordingly, it is claimed, the author of Leviticus 5:1-7 was not yet acquainted with the difference between the two kinds of offerings, and that this part is older than that in Leviticus 4:1 ff; Leviticus 5:14 ff. However, in Leviticus 5:1 ff the word 'asham is evidently used in the sense of "repentance," and does not signify "sin offering" at all; at any rate, already in Leviticus 5:6 f we find the characteristic term chaTTath to designate the latter, and thus this section appears as entirely in harmony with the connection.
(b) Critics find a contradiction in Leviticus 6:26; 33, 7, and in 6:29; 7:31,6, since in the first case the officiating priest and in the other case the entire college of priests is described as participating in the sacrifice. In reply it is to be said that the first set of passages treat of the individual concrete cases, while the second set speak of the general principle. In 7:8 f, however, where the individual officiating priest is actually put in express contrast with all the sons of Aaron, the matter under consideration is a difference in the meal offerings, which, beginning with Leviticus 2:1-16, could be regarded as known. Why this difference is made in the use of this sacrifice is no longer intelligible to us, as we no longer retain these sacrifices, nor are we in possession of the oral instruction which possibly accompanied the written formulation of these laws; but this is a matter entirely independent of the question as to the author.
(c) According to Exodus 29:7; Leviticus 4:3, 5, 16; 20, 22; 8:12; 16:32; 10, 12, the high priest is the only one who is anointed; while, on the other hand, in Exodus 28:41; 29:21; 30:30; 40:15; Leviticus 7:36; 10:7, all the priests are anointed. But the text as it reads does not make it impossible that there was a double anointing. According to the first set of passages, Aaron is anointed in such a manner that the anointing oil is poured out upon his head (compare especially Exodus 29:7 and Leviticus 8:12). Then, too, he and all his sons are anointed in such a way that a mixture of the oil and of the blood is sprinkled upon them and on their garments (compare especially Exodus 29:21 and Leviticus 8:30). Were we here dealing with a difference in reference to theory and the ranks of the priesthood, as these discussions were current at the time of the exile (see III , below), then surely the victorious party would have seen to it that their views alone would have been reproduced in these laws, and the opposing views would have been suppressed. But now both anointings are found side by side, and even in one and the same chapter!
(d) The different punishments prescribed for carnal intercourse with a woman during her periods in Leviticus 15:24 and Leviticus 20:18 are easily explained by the fact that, in the first passage, the periods are spoken of which only set in during the act, and in the second passage, those which had already set in before.
(e) As far as the difference in terminology is concerned, it must be remembered that in their claims the critics either overlook that intentional differences may decide the preference for certain words or expressions; or else they ignore the fact that it is possible in almost every section of a writer's work to find some expressions which are always, or at least often, peculiar to him; or finally, they in an inexcusable way ignore the freedom of selection which a writer has between different synonyms or his choice in using these.
All in all, it must be said that however much we acknowledge the keenness and the industry of the modern critics in clearing up many difficulties, and the fact that they bring up many questions that demand answers, it nevertheless is the fact that they take the matter of solving these problems entirely too easily, by arbitrarily claiming different authors, without taking note of the fact that by doing this the real difficulty is not removed, but is only transferred to another place. What could possibly be accepted as satisfactory in one single instance, namely that through the thoughtlessness of an editor discrepancies in form or matter had found their way into the text, is at once claimed to be the regular mode of solving these difficulties--a procedure that is itself thoughtlessness. On the other hand, the critics overlook the fact that it makes little difference for the religious and the ethical value of these commands, whether logical, systematic, linguistic or aesthetic correctness in all their parts has been attained or not; to which must yet be added, that a failure in the one particular may at the same time be an advantage in the other. In this respect we need recall only the anacoluths of the apostle Paul.
2. Structure of the Biblical Text: (1) Structure in General. The most effective antidote against the craze to split up the text in the manner described above will be found in the exposition of all those features which unite this text into one inseparable whole. What we have tried to demonstrate in the arts GENESIS; EXODUS, II; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2 (compare also EZEKIEL, I, 2, (2)) can be repeated at this point. The Book of Leviticus shows all the marks of being a well-constructed and organic literary product, which in its fundamental characteristics has already been outlined under I above. And as this was done in the several articles just cited, we can here add further, as a corroborative factor in favor of the acceptance of an inner literary unity of the book, that the division of the book into its logical parts, even down to minute details, is here, as is so often the case elsewhere, not only virtually self-evident in many particulars, but that the use made of typical numbers in many passages in this adjustment of the parts almost forces itself upon our recognition. In other places the same is at least suggested, and can be traced throughout the book without the least violence to the text. The system need not be forced upon the materials. We often find sections but loosely connected with the preceding parts (compare under 1 above) and not united in a strictly logical manner, but which are nevertheless related in thought and association of ideas. In harmony with the division of the Book of Gen we find at once that the general contents, as mentioned under I above, easily fall into 10 pericopes, and it is seen that these consist of 2 sets each of 5 pericopes together with an appendix.
(a) Ten Pericopes in Two Parts: Part I, the separation from God and the removal of this separation: (i) Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38; (ii) Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20; (iii) Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33; (iv) Leviticus 16:1-34; (v) Leviticus 17:1-16.
Part II, the normal conduct of the people of God: (i) Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27; (ii) Leviticus 21:1-24 through Leviticus 22:1-33; (iii) Leviticus 23:1-44 through Leviticus 24:1-23; (iv) Leviticus 25:1-55; (v) Leviticus 26:1-46.
Appendix, Leviticus 27:1-34; compare for the number Leviticus 10:1-20 the division of Exodus 1:8 through Exodus 7:7-8 through Exodus 13:16-17 through Exodus 18:27; also the Decalogue, Exodus 20:1 ff; Exodus 21:1 through Exodus 23:19; 32:1 through Exodus 35:1; and see EXODUS,II , Exodus 2:1-25; and in Lev probably Exodus 18:6-18; Exodus 19:9-18, and with considerable certainty Exodus 19:1-25 (see below).
(b) Correspondence and Connections: I leave out of consideration in this case the question whether an intentional correspondence among the different parts be traced or not, even in their details. Thus, e.g.; when the 2nd pericope (Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20 and Leviticus 21:1-24 f) treats particularly of the order of the priests, or when the 4th pericope of the 2nd set (Leviticus 25:1-55) states that the beginning of the Year of Jubilee fell on the 10th day of the 7th month, i.e. on the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus 16:1-34, in the Leviticus 4:11-35th pericope of the Leviticus 1:11-17st set (compare Leviticus 25:9 with Leviticus 16:29); or when both sets close with two shorter pericopes, which evidently express high stages of development (Leviticus 16:1-34 and Leviticus 17:1-16, respectively, Leviticus 25:1-55 and Leviticus 26:1-46 treating of the Day of Atonement, of the use made of blood and the purposes of blood for the altar or the Jubilee Year, of the blessing and the curse).
And, as far as the order in other respects is concerned, it is throughout to be regarded as founded in the subject-matter itself that Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 17:1-16 must precede Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 26:1-46. First that which separates the people from God must be removed, and then only is a God-pleasing conduct possible. Just as easily, and in agreement with the context, it is possible that the consecration of the priests in Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20 presupposes the sacrificial torah (Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38; compare under 1 above) and follows the latter, and is immediately introduced by the mention made of the installation sacrifices for which otherwise there are no reasons assigned in the concluding formula in Leviticus 7:37 (compare Leviticus 8:22-32). The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1-34), which in Leviticus 16:16 f and 33 is spoken of in connection with the purification of the sanctuary, is in turn introduced by Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33, or more particularly by the remark in Leviticus 15:31, where mention is made of the pollution of the dwelling-place of Yahweh. And on the other hand, the ordinances dealing with the priests (Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20) in Leviticus 10:10, where the command is given to discriminate between what is holy and what is unholy and to teach Israel accordingly, already point to the contents of Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33. The sacrifices, with which the first part in Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 begins, are taken up again by the conclusion in Leviticus 17:1-16, in the commandment concerning the blood for the altar. The second part, too, already at the beginning (Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27) in its religiously cultural and ethical ordinances, shows in the clearest possible manner what matters it proposes to discuss. In this way the systematic structure of the book is apparent in all particulars.
Close connections: comparison with Exodus: And, further, the different pericopes are also so closely Connected among themselves and with the corresponding pericopes in the books of Ex and Nu, that many have thought it necessary to regard them as a special body of laws. But the connection is so close and involves all the details so thoroughly, that all efforts to divide and distribute them after the examples described under 1 above must fail absolutely. We shall now give the proofs for the different pericopes in Lev, but in such a manner as to take into consideration also Exodus 25:1-40 through Exodus 31:1-18; Exodus 35:1-35 ff, treating of the tabernacle and its utensils and the Aaronitic priesthood, which are most intimately connected with Lev. All details in this matter will be left out of consideration.
(i) Tabernacle and priesthood: That Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20 (the consecration of the priests, etc.), together with Exodus 25:1-40 ff, constitutes a single whole is accepted on all hands. But the tent of meeting and its utensils, and also the priesthood, both with and without any emphasis on the Aaronitic origin, are presupposed also in almost each one of the other pericopes of Leviticus; compare for Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38, e.g., Leviticus 1:3, 1; 2, 8, 13; Leviticus 4:4-5, 7, 14, 16, 18; 6:26 (tent of meeting); Leviticus 1:5, 12; 3:5; 7, 25, 30; 6:12 (altar of burnt sacrifices); Leviticus 4:7, 18 (altar of incense sacrifices); Leviticus 4:6, 17 (veil); Leviticus 6:9, 19 (court); Leviticus 1:5, 7-8, 11; 2:2; 2, 5, 8, 13; 9, 14, 16, 20, 25, etc. (Aaron and his sons as priests); for Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33 see Leviticus 12:4, 6; 11, 23; 14, 29, 31 (sanctuary, tent of meeting, dwelling-place); Leviticus 11:1; 12:6 f; Leviticus 13:1 ff; Leviticus 14:2 ff,33 ff; Leviticus 15:1 (priesthood); for Leviticus 16:1-34 see verses Leviticus 2:1-16, 7, 16 f,Leviticus 20:1-27, 23, 13 (sanctuary and Holy of Holies tent of meeting); Leviticus 16:2, 12 (veil); Leviticus 16:2, 13 ff (lid of the Ark of the Covenant); Leviticus 16:12, 18, 20, 33 (altar); Leviticus 16:1 ff (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 17:1-16 see verses Leviticus 4:1-35-Leviticus 6:1-30, 9 (tent of meeting); Leviticus 17:6, 11 (altar); Leviticus 17:5 (priesthood); for Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27 see Leviticus 19:30, 21 (sanctuary of Yahweh, tent of meeting); Leviticus 19:22 (priesthood); for Leviticus 21:1-24 f see Leviticus 21:12 (sanctuary); Leviticus 21:23 (sanctuaries of Yahweh); Leviticus 21:23 (veil, altar); Leviticus 21:1 ff,Leviticus 21:1-24 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 23:1-44; Leviticus 24:1-23 see Leviticus 23:2, 4, 21, 24, 27, 36 f (sanctuary); Leviticus 24:1 ff (candlestick, tent of meeting); Leviticus 24:5 ff (table of showbread); Leviticus 23:10, 20 (priesthood); Leviticus 24:3, 1 (Aaronitic priesthood); for Leviticus 26:1-46 see verses Leviticus 2:1-16, 11 (sanctuary, dwelling-place of Yahweh, sanctuaries); for Leviticus 27:1-34 see verses Leviticus 10:1-20 (sanctuary); Leviticus 27:8 ff (priesthood).
(ii) In the same way the sacrificial laws of Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 are mentioned in the following pericopes as matters that are well known. For Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20 see Leviticus 9:7, 15 (sin offering); Leviticus 9:7, 12, 16 (burnt offering); Leviticus 9:17; 10:12 (meal offering); Leviticus 9:18 (peace offering); Leviticus 9:3 f (all together); compare also Exodus 29:14, 18, 28. In Leviticus 9:21; 10:14 f (wave-breasts and heave-thigh) direct reference is made to Leviticus 7:30-36. In the same manner Leviticus 10:16 ff presupposes the ordinances dealing with the different ways of offering the sin offerings in Leviticus 4:3 ff,Leviticus 13:1-59 ff; Leviticus 6:24-30; for Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33 see Leviticus 12:6 ff; Leviticus 14:12 ff (compare especially Leviticus 14:13 with Leviticus 4:24); Leviticus 14:21 ff; Leviticus 15:14 f,29 f; for Leviticus 16:1-34 see verses Leviticus 3:1-17, 5 f,Leviticus 9:1-24, 11, 15, 24 f,Leviticus 27:1-34; for Leviticus 17:1-16 see verses 5 ff,Leviticus 8:1-36, 11; for Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27 see Leviticus 19:6 ff,Leviticus 21:1-24 f (here is therefore the 'asham found in H, which is claimed to be of a later date); for Leviticus 21:1-24 f see Leviticus 21:6, 21 f; Leviticus 22:17 ff,29 f; for Leviticus 23:1-44; Leviticus 24:1-23 see Leviticus 23:12 f; Leviticus 18:19, 27, 30; 24:9; for Leviticus 26:1-46 see verses 30 f; for Leviticus 27:1-34 compare verses Leviticus 15:1-33, 19, 27, 31 with Leviticus 5:16; 6:5.
(iii) Laws on clean and unclean: The laws in reference to the clean and the unclean in Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33 are also interwoven with the whole book. For Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 see Leviticus 5:2 f; Leviticus 6:27; 7:19 ff; for Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20 see Leviticus 10:10 f; for Leviticus 16:1-34 see verses Leviticus 16:1-34, 19; for Leviticus 17:1-16 see verses Leviticus 13:1-59, 15 f; for Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27 compare Leviticus 20:25 with Leviticus 11:44, and in general with Leviticus 11:1-47; for Leviticus 21:1-24 f see Leviticus 21:10; 13:45; 22:3 ff with Leviticus 13:1-59 through Leviticus 15:1-33; for Leviticus 27:1-34 see verses Leviticus 11:1-47 and Leviticus 27:1-34, as also Leviticus 11:1-47.
(iv) The laws in reference to the Day of Atonement found in Leviticus 16:1-34 are prepared for by those found in Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33, namely, in Leviticus 14:4 ff,49 ff (the ceremony with the two birds in connection with the purification from leprosy), and in Leviticus 15:31 (compare Leviticus 16:16, 19; see above). For Leviticus 23:1-44; Leviticus 24:1-23 compare Leviticus 23:26 ff with Leviticus 16:29 if, and for Leviticus 25:9 with Leviticus 16:29 see above; compare also Exodus 30:10.
(v) Leviticus 17:1-16 is re-echoed in Leviticus 1:1-17 through 7 (Leviticus 7:26 f) and in Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27 (Leviticus 19:26).
(vi) Finally Leviticus 25:1-55 (Year of Rest and Year of Jubilee) is presupposed in Leviticus 26:34 f,43 and in Leviticus 27:17 ff,Leviticus 23:1-44 f.
The above, however, by no means exhausts this list of references and similar thoughts, and we have here given only some leading illustrations. What literary tricks must be resorted to when, over against this overwhelming mass of evidence, critics yet insist that the different parts of the book were originally independent writings, especially, too, when the entire tabernacle and utensils of the Aaronitic priesthood, the Day of Atonement, the Year of Jubilee, the whole sacrificial scheme and the laws dealing with the great festivals, the restriction of the slaying of the sacrificial animals to the central sanctuary, are regarded as the products of imagination alone, according to the Wellhausen hypothesis (compare III , below, and see also EXODUS,III , 5; DAY OF ATONEMENT,III , 1; EZEKIEL,II , 2). And how little is gained in addition when, as is sometimes done, in a most arbitrary manner, the statements found in Leviticus 1:1-17 through 3 concerning the tabernacle of revelation ("tent of meeting") and concerning Aaron's sons, or concerning Aaron and his sons together, are regarded as later additions. In Lev and Exodus 25:1-40 ff; Exodus 35:1-35 ff, everything is so entirely of one and the same character and has so clearly emanated from one and the same spirit, that it is impossible to separate from this product any constituent parts and to unite these into groups that were originally independent, then to split up these still further and to trace the parts to their sources, and even to construct a scheme of religious and historical development on this reconstruction of the sources.
(2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes. As the windows and the column capitals of a medieval cathedral are arranged according to different schemes and this divergence is regarded as an enrichment of the structure, thus, too, we find it to be in the structure of the various pericopes of the Book of Leviticus. These latter, too, possess a certain symphony of different tones, but all are rhythmically arranged, and only when united do they produce the entire symphony.
(a) The Laws Concerning the Sacrifices (Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38):
In the first place, the five different kinds of sacrifices in Israel are mentioned in succession twice, in Leviticus 1:1 through Leviticus 7:21: Part I, Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 5:1-19, namely (i) Leviticus 1:1-17, burnt offerings; (ii) Leviticus 2:1-16, meal offering; (iii) Leviticus 3:1-17, peace offerings; (iv) Leviticus 4:1 through Leviticus 5:13, sin offering; (v) Leviticus 5:14-19, guilt offering; Part II, Leviticus 6:1 through Leviticus 7:21, namely (i) Leviticus 6:8-13, burnt offerings; (ii) Leviticus 6:14-23, meal offering; (iii) Leviticus 6:24-30, sin offering; (iv) Leviticus 7:1-7 with appendix, Leviticus 7:8-10, dealing with that part of the sacrifices which belongs to the priest (see under 1, above), guilt offering; (v) 7:11-21, peace offerings. With this is found connected in 7:22-27 the prohibition of the use of the fat or the blood, and in 7:28-36, the laws concerning the wave-breast and the heave-thigh. We have accordingly at once twelve of these laws (compare on Exodus 25:1 through Exodus 30:10 in article on EXODUS, II, Exodus 2:1-25, (5) and on EZEKIEL, I, 2, 5)). But even apart from this we have no right to ascribe Leviticus 1:1-17 through 5 and Leviticus 6:1 through Leviticus 7:21, on the ground that they are duplicates, to different authors.
That there is a difference between these two accounts is proved, not only by the fact that the first set of laws from Leviticus 1:1-17 through 5 is addressed to all the Israelites (compare Leviticus 1:2; 4:2), and the second set Leviticus 6:8; 7:21 to Aaron and his sons (compare Leviticus 6:9, 25); but the second set has also in content a number of altogether different viewpoints as compared with the first set, so that the same author found himself induced or compelled to write both sets. On the other hand, the fact that both have the same author is evident from the very close connection between the two sections. In addition to the fact that both make mention of all five kinds of sacrifices, we can yet compare Leviticus 3:5 with Leviticus 6:22 (fat pieces of the peace offering over the burnt sacrifices upon the pieces of wood); and, further, the express reference of Leviticus 6:17 to Leviticus 4:1-35, while Leviticus 6:30 presupposes the distinct separation of the sin offering, the blood of which is brought into the tent of meeting, from the other sacrifices, as these are given in Leviticus 4:3 ff,Leviticus 13:1-59 ff over against Leviticus 4:22 ff,Leviticus 27:1-34 ff. Leviticus 4:1-35, with its reference to the peace offerings (Leviticus 4:10, 26, 31, 35), is again most closely connected with Leviticus 3:1-17. We must accordingly insist that the whole account is most intimately interwoven. Over against this, the omission within the first set, Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 5:1-19, in Leviticus 5:14-16, of the ritual for the peace offering, is sufficiently explained only by the fact that this ritual was to be used in the second set (Leviticus 6:8 through Leviticus 7:21), and here for the first time only in Leviticus 7:1-15, which fact again speaks for the same author for both sets and against the supposition that they were merely mechanically united by a redactor. The fact that the second set Leviticus 6:8 through Leviticus 7:21 has a different order from that of Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 5:1-19, by uniting the sin offering immediately with the meal offering (Leviticus 6:24 ff with Leviticus 6:14-23), is probably on account of the similar ordinances in Leviticus 7:9 and Leviticus 7:19 (manner of eating the meal offering and the sin offering). On the other hand, the position of the peace offering at the close of the second set (Leviticus 7:11 ff) furnished the possibility of giving to the piece of the entire pericope embraced in Leviticus 7:22-27, 28-36 a suitable conclusion; since Leviticus 7:22 ff (prohibition of the eating of the fat and the blood), connected with Leviticus 7:19 ff, contained in Leviticus 7:28 ff an ordinance that pertained to the peace offering (heave-breast and wave-thigh). At any rate, these last two pieces are to be regarded separately from the rest, since they are no longer addressed to the priests, as is Leviticus 6:8 through Leviticus 7:21, but to all Israel; compare Leviticus 7:23, 29. On some other data less intimately connected with the matter, compare above under 1.
(b) Consecration of priests and related matters (Leviticus 8:1-36 through Leviticus 10:1-20): In this pericope, as in the following, down to Leviticus 17:1-16 inclusive, but especially from Leviticus 11:1-47 on, the principle of division on the basis of the number four predominates, in many cases in the details, too; so that this could scarcely be regarded as an accidental feature (compare also the history of Abraham in Genesis 12:1-20 through Genesis 26:1-35; further, in Exodus 35:4 through Exodus 40:38; and in EXODUS, II, Exodus 2:1-25, (7); Leviticus 16:1-34, under DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, Leviticus 2:1-16, (1)); Deuteronomy 12:1-32 through Deuteronomy 26:1-19, too, is probably to be divided on this principle, even to the minutest details (compare finally Leviticus 21:1-24 through Leviticus 22:16, 17-30; Leviticus 23:1-44 f and Leviticus 26:1-46).
(i) Leviticus 8:1-36, treating of the first seven days of the consecration of the priests: The outline is found in Leviticus 8:2, namely Aaron, the sacred garments, the anointing oil, the bullock of the sin offering, two rams, unleavened bread (compare Leviticus 8:6-7 ff,Leviticus 10:1-20 ff,Leviticus 14:1-57 ff,Leviticus 18:1-30 ff,Leviticus 22:1-33 ff,Leviticus 26:1-46 ff). (ii) Leviticus 9:1-24 the first sacrifices of Aaron and his sons on the Leviticus 8:11-36th day (Leviticus 9:2-4 contain the outline, after the manner of Leviticus 8:2; compare Leviticus 9:7 ff,Leviticus 11:1-47 ff, the sin offering and the burnt offering of Aaron, with Leviticus 9:2; also Leviticus 9:15-18, treating of what the people brought for the sacrifices, with Leviticus 9:3 f; but it is to be noticed that the meal offering and the peace offering (Leviticus 9:17-18) are given in inverted order from that found in Leviticus 9:3 f). Here too we find the number seven, if we add the burnt offering for the morning (Leviticus 9:17). (iii) Leviticus 10:1-7, the sin of Nadab and Abihu and their punishment by death; (iv) Leviticus 10:8-20, ordinances concerning the priests, occasioned by Leviticus 8:1 through Leviticus 10:7 and provided with a new superscription in Leviticus 10:8, namely Leviticus 10:8, dealing with the prohibition of the use of wine and intoxicants; Leviticus 10:9 f, distinction between the holy and the unholy; Leviticus 10:12-15, the eating of the sacred oblations; Leviticus 10:16-20, the treatment of the goat for the sin offering.
(c) Laws Concerning the Clean and Unclean (Leviticus 11:1-47 through Leviticus 15:1-33):
(i) Leviticus 11:1-47, treating of clean and unclean animals. The outline of the chief content1s is found in Leviticus 11:46 with a free transposition of one number. There are accordingly four pieces, namely, Leviticus 11:2-8, quadrupeds; Leviticus 11:9-12, water animals; Leviticus 11:13-23, birds (with an appendix, treating of contact with the unclean, Leviticus 11:24-28, which give a summary of the animals mentioned (see under 1); 11:29-45, the small animals upon the earth (again in four subdivisions, namely, (i) 11:29-38; (ii) 11:39 ff; (iii) 11:41 f; (iv) 11:44 f).
(ii) Leviticus 12:1-8 treats of women in confinement, also in four pieces (Leviticus 12:2-4, birth of a male child; Leviticus 12:5, birth of a female child; Leviticus 12:6 f, purification ceremony; Leviticus 12:8, ordinances in case of extreme poverty). These parts are not joined logically, but in a rather external manner.
(iii) The passage 13:1 through 14:53, containing the laws of leprosy, with the subscription in 14:54 ff. (Because seven points are to be enumerated, 14:55 (garments and houses), this is not as in its further exposition separated from the other laws and is placed in their midst.) The exposition contains four pieces, namely, 13:1-44, leprosy on human beings (with concluding 13:45 f), with seven subdivisions, of which the first five longer ones are constructed along fairly parallel lines, and again can be divided into four sub-subdivisions, namely, 13:1-8; 1:9-17; 1:18-23; 1:24-28; 1:29-37; 1:38 f; 1:40-44. The significance of the number seven for the structure (see (2), (b), i, above) is akin to that found, e.g., in Exodus 24:1; Exodus 8:1-32 b through Exodus 31:18 (see EXODUS,II , 2, (5)); Leviticus 8:1-36; (9) (see above); Leviticus 23:1-44; Leviticus 25:1-55; and Leviticus 27:1-34; and possibly Leviticus 26:3-13, 14-39 (see below); finally, the whole Book of Ex is divided into seven parts (see EXODUS,II , 1). 13:47-59, leprosy in connection with garments, with four subdivisions, namely 13:47-50; 13:51 f; 13:53 f; 13:55 ff. The last subdivision can again be readily separated into four sub-subdivisions, namely, 13:55; 13:56; 13:57; 13:58; 14:1-32, purifications (14:2 being a special superscription), with 4 subdivisions, namely, (i) 14:2b-3a, the leper before the priest; (ii) 14:3b-9, the purification ceremonies on the first seven days, again divided into 4 sub-subdivisions: 14:3b f; 14:5-7; 14:8; 14:9; (iii) 14:10-20, the ceremony of the eighth day (4 sacrifices, namely 14:12-18, guilt offering; 14:19a, sin offering; 14:19b, burnt offering; 14:20, meal offering; in the 4 sacrifices (5:12 through 6:7) there are again 4 different actions: 14:14; 14:15 f; 14:17; 14:18; (iv) 14:21-32 (in cases of poverty) 14:33-53, leprosy in houses, with four subdivisions: 14:33-35; 14:36-38; 14:39-42; 14:43-53.
(iv) Leviticus 15:1-33, sickness or natural issues, with 4 subdivisions, namely, Leviticus 15:1-15, checked or running issues together with their purification (Leviticus 15:3-12 contain Leviticus 12:1-8 laws: Leviticus 15:33-4a; Leviticus 155:4b; Leviticus 15:5-6, 7-8, 99-10a; Leviticus 155:10b; Leviticus 15:11-12); Leviticus 15:16-18, issue of seed; Leviticus 15:19-24, periods; Leviticus 15:25-30, other flows of blood and their purification. Leviticus 15:1-15 and Leviticus 15:16-18 refer to men, and Leviticus 15:19-24 and Leviticus 15:25-30 to women; and in addition to these implied suggestions, as Leviticus 15:1-15 and Leviticus 15:25-30 to dealing with abnormal issues and their purification ceremonies, Leviticus 15:16-18 and Leviticus 15:19-24 deal with normal issues.
(d) The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16): See IV , 1, (2), 2, and under ATONEMENT, DAY OF.
(e) Uses and significance of the blood of sacrifices (Leviticus 17:1-16): (i) Leviticus 17:3-7, only one place for killing the Sacrifices and the rejection of all foreign cultures; (ii) Leviticus 17:8-9, only one place for sacrificing; (iii) Leviticus 17:10-14, prohibitive of eating the blood; (iv) Leviticus 17:15, pertaining to carcasses of animals found dead or which have been torn by wild beasts.
Here the form and the contents of the section have been brought into perfect harmony by the author. Leviticus 17:3 ff,8 ff,Leviticus 10:1-20 ff,Leviticus 13:1-59 ff begin with same words, and each contains a similar formula in reference to the punishment, while logically Leviticus 17:10 ff and Leviticus 13:1-59 ff are evidently only subdivisions of the third part in Leviticus 17:10-14, which treats of the prohibition of eating blood. In the fourth division, again, while in substance connected with the rest, there is lacking the formal agreement with the first three divisions.
(f) (g) (Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27; Leviticus 21:1-24): These naturally fall each into 2 parts. Leviticus 18:1-30 through Leviticus 20:1-27 contain (i) Leviticus 18:1-30 f, religious and ethical laws; (ii) Leviticus 20:1-27, laws dealing with punishments.
(f) (i) Religious and ethical laws (Leviticus 18:1-30 f): (a) Leviticus 18:1-30: Ordinances with reference to marriage and chastity. Leviticus 18:1-5, introductory; Leviticus 18:6-18, prohibition of marriage between kindred of blood; Leviticus 18:19-23, prohibition of other sexual sins; Leviticus 18:24-30, warnings.
The subdivision can perhaps be divided into 10 subordinate parts, if it is permitted to combine the different degrees of relationship mentioned in Leviticus 18:12-14 (namely, 18:7,8,9,10,11,12-14,15,16,17,18). Since it, of itself, manifestly consists of 5 ordinances (18:19,20,21,22,23), this whole section, if we are permitted to divide it into 5 commandments (18:2,3a,3b,4,5) and also into 5 (18:24 f,26-28,29,30a,30b), would contain 5 X 5 words; but this is uncertain.
(b) Leviticus 19:1-37: various commands of the deepest significance. In order to discover the divisions of this chapter we must note the characteristic formula, "I am Yahweh, your Gods" or a similar expression, which often appears at the beginning and at the end of certain divisions, e.g. in series (1) (9) and (10), but which in the middle series appears in each case only once, and which in all the series is found also at the conclusion.
In this way we can compute 10 tetralogues. Thus after the superscription in 19:2 containing a summary, we have (i) 19:3,1 (19:3a,3b,4a,4b); (ii) 19:5-10 (19:5 f,7 f,9,10); (iii) 19:11 f (19:11a,11b(?),11b(?),12); (iv) 19:13 f (19:13a,13b,14a,14b); (v) 19:15 f (15a,15b,16a,16b); (vi) 19:17 f (19:17a,17b,18a,18b); (vii) 19:19-25 (19:19a,19b,20-22,23-25); (viii) 19:26-28 (19:26a,26b,27,28), (ix) 19:29-32 (19:29,30,31,32); (x) 19:33-36 (19:33,14,35,36); 19:37 constitutes the conclusion of the whole. (Note that the number ten here is certain in the conviction of the present writer; but he is not quite so sure of the number of subdivisions within the main divisions; we may have to do here with pentalogues and not with tetralogues. If this is the case, then the agreements with Leviticus 18:1-30 would under certain circumstances be even greater.)
Possibly groupings of two can yet form a closer union (compare on Exodus 1:1-22 through Exodus 18:1-27; Exodus 21:1-36 through Exodus 23:1-33, EXODUS, II, Exodus 2:1-25, (1-4)). At any rate (iii) and (iv) can be summarized under the general heading of defrauding one's neighbors; (v) and (vi) under that of observation of the laws; (vii) and (viii) under that of heathen abuses; while (ix) and (x) perhaps intentionally mingle together the religious and cultural and ethical elements, in order thereby already to express that all these things are most intimately connected (but compare also Leviticus 19:12, 14, 17, in the middle sections). In 19:5 ff,20 ff,23 ff, the author develops his subject somewhat more fully.
(f ii) Laws dealing with punishments (Leviticus 20:1-27): The regulations in reference to punishments stand in such close relation to the contents of Leviticus 18:1-30 and to parts of Leviticus 19:1-37, that it is absolutely incomprehensible how the Critics can assign these three chapters to different authors. Even if certain regulations of Leviticus 18:1-30 are not found here in Leviticus 20:7, 100,1Le 7:1-38b,Leviticus 18:1-30, and even if another order has been followed, this variation, which doubtless also hangs together with a new grouping of the materials, is rather an advantage than a disadvantage for the whole. It is impossible to conceive that a redactor would have altered anything in two entirely parallel and similar texts, or would himself have written a parallel text differing from the other. Leviticus 20:1-27 can probably be divided into 4 parts, namely, (i) Leviticus 20:1-8, punishments for idolatry and witchcraft with a concluding formula, Leviticus 20:7 f; (ii) Leviticus 20:9-18, punishment of death for ten crimes, all of which, with the exception of the first, are of a sexual nature (Leviticus 20:9-18). It is a question whether the first in the second group (Leviticus 20:14), i.e. the sixth in the whole series, was intended to be made prominent by the peculiar character of the punishment (burning to death); (iii) Leviticus 20:19-21, other sexual sins, with lighter punishments; (iv) Leviticus 20:22-27, with 4 subdivisions (warning, Leviticus 20:22 f; promise, Leviticus 20:24; emphatic repetitions of two commands already given, Leviticus 20:25 ff; (compare with Leviticus 11:44 ff, and in general with Leviticus 11:1-47); and Leviticus 20:27 with Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6). Perfectly certain in this chapter is the fact that the different kinds of punishments are likewise decisive for their order. It is doubtless not to be regarded as accidental that both at the beginning and at the end death by stoning is mentioned.
(g) (Leviticus 21:1 through Leviticus 22:33): (i) Laws concerning the quality of the priests (Leviticus 21:1-22, 16); and (ii) concerning sacred oblations (Leviticus 22:17-30) with the subscription Leviticus 22:31-33.
(g i) Qualities of priests: Leviticus 21:1 through Leviticus 22:16 in four sections (Leviticus 21:1 ff,Leviticus 10:1-20 ff,Leviticus 16:1-34 ff; Leviticus 22:1 ff; note also in Leviticus 21:18-20 the Leviticus 12:1-8 blemishes; in Leviticus 22:4-8 the 7 cases of uncleanness).
(g ii) Sacred oblations: Leviticus 22:17-30 in four sections (Leviticus 22:18-20, 21-25, 26-28, 29 f).
(h) Consecration of seasons, etc. (Leviticus 23:1-44; Leviticus 24:1-23): (i) Leviticus 23:1-44, laws for the feasts (7 sections, namely, Leviticus 23:3-4 f,Leviticus 6:1-30-Leviticus 14:1-57, 15-Leviticus 22:1-33, 23-Leviticus 25:1-55, 26-32, 33-36, with the appendix that in every particular suits the connection, in Leviticus 23:39 ff, added to the feast of the tabernacles); (ii) Leviticus 24:1-4, treating of the sacred candlestick, which represents the moral conduct of the Israelites, and for this reason suits admirably in the connection; as this is true also of (iii) Leviticus 24:5-9, treating of the showbread, which represents the results of the labor of Israel; (iv) Leviticus 24:10-23, containing the report of the punishment of a blasphemer of God and of one who cursed.
Probably the example was made of a person who took the name of God in vain at the time which this chapter describes. But possibly there is a still closer connection to be found with that which precedes. The showbread and the candlestick were found in the holy place, which with its utensils pictured the relation of Israel's character to their God; while the utensils in the Holy of Holies indicated God's relation to His people (compare Hengstenberg, Beitrage,III , 644 ff). But since the holy place, in addition to the showbread and the candlestick, contained only the incense altar, which symbolized the prayers of Israel, and as the blasphemer represents the exact opposite of prayer, it is probable that in 24:10 ff prayer is indicated by its counterpart. This section consists of 4 parts, namely, 24:10-12; 24:13-14; 24:15-22 (giving a series of punishments for certain wrongdoings which are more or less closely connected with that found in the text); 24:23.
(i) Sabbatic and Jubilee years (Leviticus 25:1-55): Sabbatic and Jubilee years in 7 sections, namely, Leviticus 25:1-7, 8-12, 13-28, 29-34, 35-38, 39-46, 47-55.
(j) Conclusion: Curse and blessing (Leviticus 26:1-46): The grand concluding chapter, offering a curse and a blessing and containing all the prophetic utterances of later times in a nutshell, namely, (i) Leviticus 26:1-2, repetition of four important demands (Leviticus 266:1a,Leviticus 1:11-17b,Leviticus 2:11-16a,Leviticus 2:11-16b); (ii) Leviticus 26:3-13, the blessing, possibly to be divided into 7 stages, one more spiritual than the other; (iii) Leviticus 26:4-39, the curse, possibly to be divided into seven stages, one more intense than the other (compare also the play on words 7 times repeated, in reference to shabbath, possibly found in Leviticus 26:34 f, and certainly found in Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, 27 f); (iv) Leviticus 26:40-45, the mercy finally shown by Yahweh for His covenant's sake.
(k) Appendix: Finally, the appendix in Leviticus 27:1-34, dealing with vows and tithes, in 7 parts, namely, Leviticus 27:1-8, 9-13, 14-15, 16-21, 26 f; Leviticus 27:28-29, 30-33.
Continued in LEVITICUS, 2.
Leviticus, 2
Leviticus, 2 - Continued from LEVITICUS, 1.
III. Origin. 1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis: As in the article ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. I, 2, (2), we took a stand against the modern attempts at splitting up the text, and in III, 1 against theory of the late origin of the whole pericope, we must, after trying under II to prove the unity of the Book of Leviticus, yet examine the modern claim that the book as a whole is the product of later times. Since the entire book is ascribed to the Priestly Code (see II , 1 above), the answer to the question as to the time when it was written will depend on the attitude which we take toward the Wellhausen hypothesis, which insists that the Priestly Code was not published until the time of the exile in 444BC (Nehemiah 8:1-18 through Nehemiah 10:1-39).
(1) The Argument from Silence. One of the most important proofs for this claim is the "argument from silence" (argumentum e silentio). How careful one must be in making use of this argument can be seen from the fact that, e.g., the high priest with his full title is mentioned but a single time in the entire Book of Leviticus, namely in 21:10; and that the Levites are not mentioned save once (25:32 ff), and then incidentally. As is well known, it is the adherents of the Wellhausen hypothesis themselves who now claim that the bulk of the entire literature of the Old Testament originated in the post-exilic period and long after the year 444 BC. Leaving out of consideration for the present the Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, all of which describe the history of Israel from the standpoint of the Priestly Code (P), we note that this later literature is not any richer in its references to P than is the older literature; and that in those cases where such references are found in this literature assigned to a late period, it is just as difficult to decide whether these passages refer merely to a custom or to a codified set of laws.
(2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System.
A further proof against the pre-exilic origin of the priestly legislation is found in what is claimed to be the hostile attitude of the prophets to the sacrificial system (compare Amos 5:21 ff; Amos 4:4 f; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6 ff; Isaiah 1:11 ff; Jeremiah 6:20; 7:21 ff; Psalms 40:6; Psalms 50:8-9; 51:16 f). But this cannot possibly be an absolute antithesis; for in this case, it would be directed also against the Books of the Covenant and, in part, too, against Deuteronomy, which books in Exodus 20:24; 22:19; 23:18; 34:25; Deuteronomy 12:5 f,Deuteronomy 11:1-32, 13, 17, 26; Deuteronomy 15:19-23; 2, 5 f; Deuteronomy 17:1; 1, 3 also give directions for sacrifices, and which, at least in part, are yet regarded as older writings. Further, these passages under discussion are also, in part, assigned to a later and even a very late period (compare even such cases as Psalms 40:6; 50:8 f; Psalms 51:16 f; Micah 6:6 ff, and in addition also Malachi 1:10), i.e. they are assigned to a time in which, according to the views of the critics, the priestly laws are said to have had their origin or were already regarded as authoritative. As a rule, the prophets make sacrifices, Sabbaths, sacred places and persons a part of their pictures of the future; cf, as far as sacrifices are concerned, e.g. Jeremiah 17:26; 31:14; 33:14 ff. Finally, Leviticus 26:31 shows how, under certain circumstances, even P can declare sacrifices to be useless.
(3) The People's Disobedience. Further, the transgressions of the Levitical laws in the course of Israel's history cannot be regarded as a proof of the non-existence of the priestly legislation in pre-exilic times. This is clear from an analogous case. Idolatry was forbidden by the Books of the Covenant (Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 24:1-18; Exodus 34:1-35), which are recognized as ancient documents; but according to 2 Kings 22:1-20 the pious king Josiah down to the year 622 BC takes no offense at idolatry. Even after the reformation, which had been inaugurated in consequence of the finding of the Book of the Law in the temple during the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 22:1-20 f), idolatry was again practiced in Israel, as is proved by Ezekiel 8:1-18 and Jeremiah 44:1-30, notwithstanding that the Books of the Covenant and Deuteronomy already were extant at that time, even according to the views of the critics.
But let us pass on to P itself, and not forget that the directions given for the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25:1-55), according to Jewish tradition, were never actually observed. According to the reasoning of the critics, this law could not be in existence even in the present day. According to all reports the transgressions of the Divine ordinances began even as early as the Mosaic period; compare Exodus 32:1-35 (J, E, golden calf); Amos 5:25; Ezekiel 20:1-49; Deuteronomy 12:8 and also Leviticus 17:7 (sacrifice to the Satyrs in Priestly Code). This condition of affairs can readily be understood because the religion of Yahweh does not claim to be an emanation from the spirit of the people, but the result of a revelation from on high. In the light of these facts can we be surprised, that in the times of the Judges, when a great prophetic leader was so often not to be found in Israel, the apostasy was so great and so widespread? But all of these cases of disobedience, that have been demonstrated as actual facts in Israel's history, are not able to eliminate the fact that there are many data to prove the existence of a central sanctuary already in the earliest history of the people, which fact presupposes as a matter of course that there were also laws for the cults in existence (see EXODUS,III , 5). We must further not forget how the sacrifices of the sons of Samuel (1 Samuel 2:11 ff), notwithstanding all their arbitrary conduct, presupposes such passages as Leviticus 7:30-32; 10:15; Exodus 29:31 f; Leviticus 8:31; Numbers 6:19 f; Leviticus 7:23-32; or that the high priest, as described in Priestly Code, is already before the year 444 BC as well-known a character as he is after the exile (compare EZEKIEL,II , 2); or that the question of Haggai 2:11 ff takes into consideration a code of cult- laws, and that the answer is given on the basis of Leviticus 6:27; Numbers 19:22.
(4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing. To this must be added that the transgressions, to which the critics appeal in proof of their claims, and which they abuse for their own purposes, must in part be interpreted differently from what they are. In the case of sacrificing indiscriminately at any place whatever, and by any person whatever, we have in many cases to deal with extraordinary instances of theophanies (compare Judges 2:1 ff; Judges 6:11 ff; Judges 13:1 ff), as these had been foreseen in Exodus 20:24. Even the Book of Deuteronomy does not insist throughout (compare Exodus 16:21) that the sacrifices, must be made at one and the same place (compare also PC : Leviticus 24:23; Joshua 22:1-34). After the rejection of Shiloh, at which the central sanctuary had been deposited, as recorded in 1 Samuel 4:1-22, the cultural ordinances of Priestly Code, as we learn from Jeremiah 7:11 ff; Jeremiah 26:6; Psalms 78:59 ff, became more or less a dead letter. Even the Books of Chronicles, which throughout record history from the standpoint of the Priestly Code, at this period and down to the dedication of the temple take no offense at the cultural acts of a Solomon in contrast with their attitude toward the conduct of Uzziah (see 2 Chronicles 1:6; 2 Chronicles 6:1-4; 2 Chronicles 7:1-7, as compared with 2 Chronicles 26:16 ff). In the same way the pious people in the Northern Kingdom, after it had, by Divine consent, been separated from the Southern, could not do otherwise than erect altars for themselves, since they could not participate in the worship of the calves in Bethel and Dan. Further, modern criticism overlooks the fact that what is regular and normal is much less liable to be reported in historical narrative than that which is irregular and abnormal.
(5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code. It is not possible at this place to enter into further details; we accordingly refer only to EXODUS, III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, III, and especially EZEKIEL, II, 2, where the proof has been furnished that this prophet belongs to a later period than Priestly Code as far as Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 48:1-35 (containing his picture of the future) in general is concerned, and as far as Ezekiel 44:4 ff (where it is claimed that the prophet first introduces the distinction between priests and Levites) in particular is concerned. All the important problems that are connected with this matter, especially the difficulties which result from the Wellhausen hypothesis, when the questions as to the purpose, the form, the success and the origin of the priestly legislation come under consideration, are discussed in my book, Are the Critics Right? The result of this investigation is all the more noteworthy, as I was myself formerly an adherent of the Wellhausen school, but was forced to the conclusion that this hypothesis is untenable.
We have here yet to refer to the one fact that the relation of Deuteronomy (D) and the Priestly Code (P), as far as Leviticus in particular is concerned, justifies the scheme of P followed by D as the historical order, while Wellhausen makes D older than P. Deuteronomy 10:8 f; Deuteronomy 33:8 ff presuppose more detailed ordinances in reference to the priests such as those which have been given in P. The book of Deuteronomy further takes into account different kinds of sacrifices (compare Deuteronomy 12:5 f,Deuteronomy 11:1-32, 13, 17, 26; Deuteronomy 15:19-23; 17:1; 1, 3, such as are described in Leviticus 1:1-17 ff). The law in Deuteronomy 14:1-29 (ordinances with reference to what is clean) agrees almost word for word with Leviticus 11:1-47, and is in such perfect harmony with the linguistic peculiarities of Priestly Code, that Leviticus 11:1-47 must be regarded as the original, and not vice versa. Deuteronomy 24:8 f refers directly to the injunctions concerning leprosy, as we find these in Leviticus 13:1-59 f, and the Deuteronomic passage is doubtless modeled after that of Lev. Deuteronomy 12:15, 22; 15:22 cannot be understood at all, except in the light of Leviticus 17:13. Deuteronomy 26:14 ff again expressly takes into account ideas that have been taken from Leviticus 22:3 ff. As far as the laws dealing with the great feasts in Deuteronomy 16:1-22 are concerned, it is impossible to understand Deuteronomy 16:9 without Leviticus 23:15 ff,Leviticus 10:1-20 f; and the designation "feast of tabernacles" in Deuteronomy 16:13 ff cannot even be understood without a reference to such a law as we find in Leviticus 23:39 ff. The other passages to be discussed on this subject lead us to the following results.
2. Connection with Mosaic Period: Even if the Book of Deuteronomy were the product of the 7th century BC, the facts that have been stated above would nevertheless disprove the claim of the Wellhausen hypothesis as to an exilic or post-exilic date for the Priestly Code. But if Deuteronomy, even in its essential and fundamental parts, merely, is Mosaic (compare Are the Critics Right? 1-55), then the Priestly Code which is still older than Dt must also belong to the Mosaic period.
(1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions. This conclusion is in this point confirmed still further by a series of facts. As Deuteronomy permits the firstborn to be ransomed (Deuteronomy 14:22 ff), but the Priestly Code demands their consecration in natura (Leviticus 27:26 f; compare Numbers 18:15 ff), the latter ordinances could be preferred and enforced only during the wandering in the desert, where the whole nation was in the neighborhood of the sanctuary. The fact that the ordinances dealing with the domestic celebration of the Passover in the private houses on the 14th of Nisan and the holy convocation on the 15th of Nisan at the sanctuary could be carried out only during the wanderings in the desert (compare Exodus 12:3 ff,Exodus 6:1-30; Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16; Leviticus 27:6 ff; Numbers 28:17 ff), and that this was changed in Deuteronomy 16:5 f to correspond to changed conditions, can be seen by reference to EXODUS, III, Deuteronomy 3:1-29. Still more important is a third command in Leviticus 17:1-16 in comparison with Deuteronomy 12:1-32. The commandment that every animal that is to be slain is to be brought to the central sanctuary can have a purpose only for the Mosaic period, and could not even have been invented at a later period. Because of the entrance of Israel into Canaan, the Book of Deuteronomy changes this ordinance in such a way that from this time on the killing of the animals is permitted at any place (Deuteronomy 12:13 ff,Deuteronomy 20:1-20 ff). The different commands in reference to the carcasses of animals that have died and of those torn to pieces are all dependent on Leviticus 17:1-16. In Deuteronomy 14:21, it was possible to forbid the use of such animals absolutely for Israel, because from now on, and in contrast to Leviticus 17:1-16, the killing of sacrificial animals was permitted at any place (Leviticus 17:13 ff). In Exodus 22:30 all use of such meat could be forbidden, because Leviticus 17:1-16, with its command to bring all blood to the sanctuary, had not yet been given. Leviticus, now, on the other hand, forbids this use only to the priests (Leviticus 22:8), and sees in this use in the case of the other Israelites only a transitory defilement (compare Leviticus 17:15; 11:40); and in Leviticus 7:24 forbids only the use of the fat, but not of the meat of these animals; for now, according to Leviticus 17:1 ff, all the killing is a sacrifice which only those who are clean were permitted to eat and which could not be secured at all times (compare Hoffmann, op. cit., 23 f).
Our exposition of Leviticus 17:1 ff is, however, in another respect also of the greatest significance, for in Leviticus 17:4-6, 8 f the tent of meeting is presupposed as existing; in Leviticus 17:5, 8 also different kinds of sacrifices, and in verse 6 the priesthood; so that at once further ordinances concerning the tent of meeting, the sacrificial code, the priesthood, such as we find in Exodus 25:1-40 ff; Exodus 35:1-35 ff; Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38; Exodus 29:1-46; Leviticus 8:1-36 through 10:21 ff, were possible and necessary, and these very laws must probably originate in and date from the Mosaic period. This same conclusion is sustained by the following considerations. For what other source or time could be in harmony with such statements found very often in other parts of Leviticus also, as "into the camp" in 4:11 ff; 6:11; 13:46; 14:3,8 (unconscious contrast to later times); 14:33 ff,40,41,45,53; 16:26-28; 24:10-23; or "into the desert," in 16:10,21 f. In 6:15,18; 6:6 (compare also 27:2 ff), the words "according to thy estimation" are addressed personally to Moses. In 6:20 a calculation is based on the day on which Aaron was consecrated to the priesthood, while 6:22 is the first that has general coloring. Such hints, which, as it were, have only been accidentally scattered in the body of the laws, and which point to the situation of the lawgiver and of his times, are of especial value for the argument in favor of the Mosaic origin of these laws. Further, we everywhere find that Aaron and his sons are as yet the only incumbents of the priestly office (compare 1:5,7,8,11; 2:3; 3:13; 6:9,14,16, etc.). All the laws claim to have been given through Moses or Aaron or through both at Mt. Sinai (see I above). And who, in later times, if it was the purpose to magnify the priesthood of Aaron, would have thought of inventing the fact that on the Day of Atonement and on other occasions it was necessary for Aaron to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering for himself (Leviticus 16:1-34;, 8 through Leviticus 10:1-20; 6:19 ff), or that Moses in his view of a certain cultural act had been mistaken (compare Leviticus 10:16 ff)? The law concerning the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25:1-55) presupposes that each tribe is confined in its own district and is not intermingled with the other tribes, a presupposition which was no longer possible after the occupation of Canaan, and is accordingly thinkable only in the Mosaic times. And now let us remember that this fact, when we recall (see II , above) that the unity of the book was proved, is a ground for claiming that the entire book dates from the Mosaic period. As far as Leviticus at least is concerned, there is nothing found in the book that calls for a later date. Leviticus 18:24 ff can be regarded as post-Mosaic only if we translate these verses thoughtlessly, as though the inhabitants of the country were here described as being expelled earlier. On the other hand, in Leviticus 18:24, just as is the case with the parallel passage, Leviticus 20:22 ff, the idea is, without any doubt, that Israel is not yet in the Holy Land. Accordingly the waw consecutives at this place are to be regarded not as indicating temporal but logical sequences. In the passage Leviticus 18:27, we further find the archaic form ha'-el for ha'-elleh; compare in the Pentateuch Genesis 19:8, 25; Genesis 26:3-4; Deuteronomy 4:42; 7:22; 19:11. Just as little does Leviticus 26:1-46 take us into the exilic period. Only dogmatical prejudices can take offense at prediction of the exile. Leviticus 26:1-46 cannot be regarded as a "prophecy after the event," for the reason, too, that the restoration of the people by God's pardon is here promised (compare Leviticus 26:40 ff). And, too, the exile is not the only punishment with which Israel is threatened; and finally as far as Israel is concerned, by the side of the statements concerning their dwelling in one single country (Leviticus 26:34, 38, 41, 44), it is also said that they are to be scattered among many nations and countries (compare Leviticus 26:23, 16, 39).
(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin.
If to this we yet add the unity of the thought and of the external construction, looking at the whole matter, we do not see anything that would lead us to accept a post-Mosaic period for this book. Then, too, it is from the outset in itself only probable that Moses gave his people a body of cult-laws and did not leave this matter to chance. We need only think of the great role which among the oriental peoples was assigned to their religious cults. It is indeed nowhere said, in so many words, that Moses wrote even the laws of the Priestly Code. But the references made by Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code; the fact that Numbers 33:1-56, which also is credited to Moses, is characterized by the style of Priestly Code; further, that the author of Deuteronomy could write in the style of P (compare Deuteronomy 14:1-29 with Leviticus 11:1-47); and, per contra, that the author of Leviticus 26:1-46 had the mastery of the style peculiar to Deuteronomy (compare Deuteronomy 28:1-68)--all this makes it probable that Moses even wrote these things himself; at any rate, no reasons can be cited against this view. Very interesting in connection with the question of the unity of the Pentateuch are the close connecting links between Leviticus 18:24 ff; Leviticus 20:22 ff, and JE. The question whether Moses in the composition of the book made use of his own notes or of those of others, cannot be decided; but this is an irrelevant matter. What the facts may be in reference to the development of other ordinances, which have taken different forms in the Books of the Covenant and in Priestly Code, or in Deuteronomy and in Priestly Code, and whether the existence of these differences in the cases of particular laws compels us to accept later additions, cannot be discussed at this place. Yet from the outset it is to be emphasized that already in the Mosaic period there could possibly have been reasons for changing some of these laws; especially was this so in the Book of Deuteronomy, just before the people entered the promised land (compare e.g. the laws concerning tithes, Deuteronomy 12:6 f,Deuteronomy 17:1-20 ff; Deuteronomy 14:22 ff; Deuteronomy 26:12 ff; Leviticus 27:30 ff; Numbers 18:20 ff, or the laws concerning contributions for sacrifices, Deuteronomy 18:3; Leviticus 7:29 ff).
Then, too, the decision whether this development took place as early as the time of Moses or not is not to be made dependent on the possibility of our being able to explain the reasons for such changes. We lack both the daily practice in these cultural ordinances, as also the oral instruction which makes these ordinances intelligible. The manner in which in Leviticus 1:1-17 ff the different kinds of sacrifices are introduced sounds as though these were already known to the people and were practiced by them, except in the case of sin and guilt offerings. This is further in harmony with earlier narratives, which already report concerning sacrifices. It is possible that in this way we can also explain a certain relationship between the Jewish sacrificial ritual and that of Babylon (compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion). The ordinances in reference to the clean and the unclean may also have emanated from religious and ethical ideas which are older than Moses' times. In this matter the thought was decisive, that everything that was impure, everything that suggested death or decay or sin or displeasure to God, should be kept separated and apart from the religion of Yahweh. In all such cases it is not the newness of the laws but their adaptability to the character and spirit of the Yahweh-religion that is to be regarded as the decisive factor.
IV. The Significance. 1. Positive: (1) The Law Contains God's Will. The law contains God's will, although in transitory form. In the article EZEKIEL under II, 2, (3) we have referred to the fact that Leviticism is an important and necessary stage in the development of true religion, and that the entire Old Testament did not advance beyond this stage and was not intended to go beyond it. The leading prophets (Isaiah 40:1-31 ff, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), even in their visions of the future, cling to the temple, sacrifices, holy oblations, sacred seasons and persons. Christianity was the first to discard this external shell, after it had ripened the kernel that was concealed in this shell (compare worship in the spirit and in the truth, John 4:20-24). Down to this time, kernel and shell were inseparably united. This must not be forgotten, if we would appreciate the Book of Leviticus properly. It is true that this book to a large extent deals with laws and ordinances, to which we Christians should not and need not return (compare the voice from heaven to Peter, Acts 10:15, "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common," and Paul's opposition to all work-righteousness that was based on compliance with these external institutions, e.g. in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, as also his independent attitude over against the Jewish law in those cases where it could not be taken into consideration as the way to salvation; compare Acts 21:17 ff; Romans 14:1 ff; 1 Corinthians 9:19 ff). But these laws and ordinances were something more than merely external matters, since they contained the highest religious thoughts. We surely should not forget from the outset that Leviticus 19:1-37 contains also the word, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18), a command which in Leviticus 19:33 f is even made to cover the strangers too, and which by Jesus, next to the absolute love demanded for God, is designated as the chief commandment of the law (Matthew 22:39); and when in Matthew 19:17 f the hatred of the brother and desire for revenge on him are forbidden, we already seem to breathe atmosphere of Christianity. The entire Leviticus 19:1-37 is, in addition, as it were, a sermon on almost all of the commandments of the Decalogue, the abiding authority of which the Christian, after the example and interpretation of Jesus, will at once recognize. But as the Decalogue itself is found enclosed in the specifically Jewish national shell (compare Exodus 20:2, exodus out of Egypt; Exodus 20:8, Sabbath commandment; Exodus 20:12, promise of the holy land; Exodus 20:17, slaves), so, too, this is the case in Leviticus 19:1-37 (compare Leviticus 19:3, 6 ff,Leviticus 20:1-27-Leviticus 22:1-33, 23-Leviticus 25:1-55, 29, 30, 33 f). But how little the specifically Levitical ordinances, in the narrower sense of the term, exclude the spiritual factor, and how closely they are interwoven with the deepest of thoughts, can be seen from Leviticus 26:1-46, according to which all merely external sacrifices, into which formalism naturally the Levitical legal code could degenerate, do not protect from punishment, if the heart remains uncircumcised (Leviticus 26:30 f,41).
Above all, there are four leading thoughts which are emphasized forcibly, particularly by the legal system of Priestly Code. In reality all times, all places, all property, all persons are sacred to God. But as it is impossible that this ideal should be realized in view of the imperfections and guilt of man, it was decided that certain particular seasons and places, gifts and persons should be separated from others, and that in these this sacredness should be realized as far as possible, and that these representatives should by their mere existence continually remind the people of God's more comprehensive claims, and at the same time arouse and maintain the consciousness that their entire life was to be saturated by the thoughts of a holy God and His demands. From this point of view, none of the particular laws are worthless; and when they are once appreciated in this their central significance, we can understand that each law has its share in the eternal authority of the law (compare Matthew 5:17 f). Paul, too, who absolutely rejects the law as a way to salvation expresses no doubt that the law really contains the will of God (Romans 8:3 f); and he declares that it was the purpose of the sending of Jesus, that the demands made upon us by the law should be fulfilled; and in Romans 13:10 he tells us that love is the fulfillment of the law (compare Romans 13:8); and according to Romans 7:12, it is certain that the law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity.
But the ceremonial law, too, contains not only the demands of God's will. It prepares also for the understanding of the work, the person and the mission of Jesus. In Exodus 25:8; 29:45 f; Exodus 40:34 ff the indwelling of God in the tent of meeting is declared, which prophesied the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus (John 1:14); and then the indwelling of God through the Holy Spirit in the Christian congregation (1 Peter 2:5; Ephesians 4:12) and in the individual (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; John 14:23). Through the sacrificial system in Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38, and the ordinances of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1-34), we are enabled to understand the character of sin, of grace and of the forgiveness of sin (compare ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. II). Let us remember to what extent Jesus and Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the other New Testament writings operate with Old Testament thoughts, particularly with those of Lev (priest-hood, sacrifices, atonement, Passover, signification of blood, etc.), and Paul correctly says that the righteousness of God was prophesied, not only by the prophets, but also by the law (Romans 3:21).
(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ. Finally, the ceremonial law too has the purpose to protect Israel from the errors of the heathen, a thought that is especially emphasized in the Law of Holiness (compare Leviticus 18:3, 14 ff; Leviticus 19:26 ff; Leviticus 20:2 ff,Leviticus 22:1-33 ff; Leviticus 26:1) and which is in harmony with the elementary stage of Israel's education in the Old Testament, when the people still stood in need of the "tutor .... unto Christ" (Galatians 3:23 f; Galatians 4:1). This already leads us over to the negative side, which Paul particularly emphasizes.
2. Negative: The law is in itself holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Romans 7:12), but it has lost its power because the flesh of man is sinful (compare Romans 8:3); and thus it happens that the law is the occasion for sin and leads to a knowledge of sin and to an increase of sin (compare Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:20; 7:13); and this shall be brought about according to the purposes of God in order that in upright hearts the desire for forgiveness should arise. It is true that nothing was so well adapted as were the details of the law, to bring to consciousness in the untutored mind that in which man yet came short of the Divine commands. And as far as the removal of the guilt was concerned, nothing was needed except the reference to this in order to make men feel their imperfections (compare Hebrews 7:1-28 through Hebrews 10:1-39). God merely out of grace was for the time being contented with the blood of goats and of calves as a means for atonement; He was already counting on the forgiveness in Christ (Romans 3:25). All the sacrifices in Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 7:1-38, e.g., did not make the ritual of the Day of Atonement superfluous (Leviticus 16:1-34); and in this case the very man who brought the sacrifice was also a sinful creature who must first secure the forgiveness of God for himself. Only Jesus, at once the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice, has achieved the perfect redemption. It accordingly remains a fact that the righteousness which avails before God can be secured only through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the deeds of the law (Romans and Galatians).
The law with its incomplete atonement and with its arousing of the consciousness of sin drives man to Jesus; and this is its negative significance. Jesus, however, who Himself has fulfilled the demands of the law, gives us through His spirit the power, that the law with its demands (1, (1) above) may no longer stand threateningly over against us, but is now written in our hearts. In this way the Old Testament law is fulfilled in its transitory form, and at the same time becomes superfluous, after its eternal contents have been recognized, maintained and surpassed.
LITERATURE.
Commentaries by Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack, Baentsch, Bertholet; especially for the Law of Holiness see Horst, Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46 and Ezk; Wurster, Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1884, 112 ff; Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz; Klostermann, Der Pentateuch, 368 ff; Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fur kirch. Wissenschaft und Leben, 1880, 617 ff; Intros to the Old Testament by Baudissin, Strack, Kuenen, Konig, Cornill, Driver, Sellin; Archaeology, by Benzinger, Nowack; History of Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen; for kindred laws in Babylonia, compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babyl. Religion; against the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? (ibid., "Literature"), and article EZEKIEL in this Encyclopedia; Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Kegel, Wilh. Vatke und die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese.
Wilhelm Moller
Levy
Levy - lev'-i.
See WAR.
Lewd; Lewdness
Lewd; Lewdness - lud, lud'-nes (zimmah, mezimmah, nabhluth; poneros, rhadiourgema):
1. In the Old Testament: There are three Hebrew words translated "lewd," "lewdness": (1) Zimmah, meaning a "plan," a "purpose," so translated several times and then shading off into "evil plan"; translated also "heinous crime," "wicked purpose or device." It is the most frequent word for "lewdness": Ezekiel 16:27, "lewd way"; found in Judges 20:6; Ezekiel 16:27, 43, 58; 9, 11; 21, 27, 29, 35, 49, 49; 24:13; Hosea 6:9. (2) Mezimmah means a "plan," generally "(evil) machination"; used only in Jeremiah 11:15, "lewdness." (3) Nabhluth, meaning "disgrace" in reference to females. Found only in Hosea 2:10; the American Revised Version margin "shame."
2. In the New Testament: The word translated "lewd," "lewdness" in the King James Version occurs only twice in the New Testament, and in each instance is more correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) by another word: (1) Poneros, found in Acts 17:5, translated in the American Standard Revised Version "vile." The Greek word elsewhere is translated "bad," "evil," "grievous," "harmful," "malicious," "wicked." the King James Version "lewd" gives the wrong impression. The idea of unchastity is not present in the text or context. (2) Rhadiourgema likewise occurs only once, namely, Acts 18:14, and is correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version "wicked villany." The thought of impurity or lewdness is foreign to the meaning in this connection.
William Edward Raffety
Libanus
Libanus - lib'-a-nus.
See LEBANON.
Libation
Libation - li-ba'-shun.
See SACRIFICE.
Liberal; Liberality; Liberally
Liberal; Liberality; Liberally - lib'-er-al, lib-er-al'-i-ti, lib'-er-al-i: The different forms of the word all refer to one who is generous, bountiful, willing and ready to give and to help. Both the Hebrew words of the Old Testament and the Greek words of the New Testament translated into the English word "liberal" have a deeper and nobler meaning than is generally conveyed by the English word. In Proverbs 11:25, the liberal soul (nephesh berakhah) means a soul that carries a blessing. In Isaiah 32:5, the American Standard Revised Version has "bountiful" where the King James Version has "liberal," and in Isaiah 32:8 "noble" takes the place of "liberal" (nadhibh). The principal Greek words are haplotes literally, "simplicity," "sincerity," and charis, "grace," "favor." In 1 Corinthians 16:3, "bounty" substitutes "liberality." It is well to bear in mind that a Biblical liberality can spring only out of a noble soul, and is Godlike in its genesis and spirit.
G. H. Gerberding
Libertines
Libertines - lib'-er-tinz, li-bur'-tinz (Libertinoi): These were among Stephen's opponents: "There arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen" (Acts 6:9).have a deeper and nobler meaning than is generally conveyed by the English word. In Proverbs 11:25, the liberal soul (nephesh berakhah) means a soul that carries a blessing. In Isaiah 32:5, the American Standard Revised Version has "bountiful" where the King James Version has "liberal," and in Isaiah 32:8 "noble" takes the place of "liberal" (nadhibh). The principal Greek words are haplotes literally, "simplicity," "sincerity," and charis, "grace," "favor." In 1 Corinthians 16:3, "bounty" substitutes "liberality." It is well to bear in mind that a Biblical liberality can spring only out of a noble soul, and is Godlike in its genesis and spirit.
1. "Synagogue of the Libertines": How many synagogues are denoted? The answer may aid in the interpretation of "Libertines": (1) The words may be read as denoting one synagogue (Calvin). However (a) the number of worshippers would be extremely large, (b) the bond of union is not obvious, (c) rabbinic tradition speaks of 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. (2) The double ton ("of them") seems to denote two parties, the one consisting "of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of Libertines and Cyrenians and Alexandrians," the other "of them of Cilicia and Asia", (Winer, Wendt, Holtzmann). But the second ton is dependent on synagogue. "As Cyrenians and Alexandrians both belong to towns .... a change of designation would be necessary when the Jews of whole provinces came to be mentioned: this being the case, the article could not but be repeated, without any reference to the ton before" (Alford). (3) There were three synagogues: (a) that of the Libertines, (b) that of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians and (c) that "of them of Cilicia and Asia" (Alford). There is no grammatical reason for this division, but it is based on an interpretation of "Libertines." There were "Libertines," Africans and Asiatics. (4) Each party had a separate synagogue (Schurer, Hausrath). The number of worshippers, their different origin and connections, and the number of synagogues in Jerusalem give weight to this view.
2. Interpretation of "Libertines": (1) They are "freedmen," liberated slaves or their descendants. Against this it is held that the Greek equivalent (apeleutheroi) would have been used in this case. However, the Roman designation would be common all over the empire. In what sense were they "freedmen"? Various answers are given: (a) they were freedmen from Jewish servitude (Lightfoot); (b) they were Italian freedmen who had become proselytes; (c) they were "the freedmen of the Romans" (Chrysostom), the descendants of Jewish freedmen at Rome who had been expelled by Tiberius. In 63 BC Pompey had taken prisoners of war to Rome. These, being liberated by those who had acquired them as slaves, formed a colony on the banks of the Tiber (Philo, Legat. ad Caium). Tacitus relates that the senate decreed (19 AD) that a number of Jewish Libertines should be transported to Sardinia, and that the rest should leave Italy, unless they renounced, before a certain day, their profane customs (Ann. ii, 85; see also Josephus, Ant,XVIII , iii, 5). Many would naturally seek refuge in Jerusalem and build there a synagogue.
(2) They are an African community. There were two synagogues, one of which was Asiatic. In the other were men from two African towns (Cyrene and Alexandria), therefore the Libertines must have been African also, all forming an African synagogue. Various explanations are given: (a) They were inhabitants of Libertum, a town in Africa proper: an "Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Libertinensis" sat in the Synod of Carthage (411 AD). (b) Some emend the text; Wetstein and Blass, following the Armenian VS, conjecture Libustinon, "of the Libystines." Schulthess reads for "Libertines and Cyrenians" (Libertinon kai Kurenaion) "Libyans, those about Cyrene" (Libuon ton kata Kurenen) (compare Acts 2:10).
These emendations are conjectural; the manuscripts read "Libertines." It seems, therefore, that 2, (1) (c) above is the correct interpretation.
S. F. Hunter
Liberty
Liberty - lib'-er-ti (deror, rachabh; eleutheria): The opposite of servitude or bondage, hence, applicable to captives or slaves set free from oppression (thus deror, Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1, etc.). Morally, the power which enslaves is sin (John 8:34), and liberty consists, not simply in external freedom, or in possession of the formal power of choice, but in deliverance from the darkening of the mind, the tyranny of sinful lusts and the enthrallment of the will, induced by a morally corrupt state. In a positive respect, it consists in the possession of holiness, with the will and ability to do what is right and good. Such liberty is possible only in a renewed condition of soul, and cannot exist apart from godliness. Even under the Old Testament godly men could boast of a measure of such liberty (Psalms 119:45, rachabh, "room," "breadth"), but it is the gospel of Christ which bestows it in its fullness, in giving a full and clear knowledge of God, discovering the way of forgiveness, supplying the highest motives to holiness and giving the Holy Spirit to destroy the power of sin and to quicken to righteousness. In implanting a new life in the soul, the gospel lifts the believer out of the sphere of external law, and gives him a sense of freedom in his new filial relation to God. Hence, the New Testament expressions about "the glorious liberty" of God's children (Romans 8:21 the King James Version; compare Galatians 2:4; 5:13, etc.), about liberty as resulting from the possession of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), about "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25). The instrument through which this liberty is imparted is "the truth" (John 8:32). Christians are earnestly warned not to presume upon, or abuse their liberty in Christ (Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 2:16).
James Orr
Libnah
Libnah - lib'-na (libhnah "whiteness," "transparency," "pavement" (compare Exodus 24:10 where libhnath, is translated "paved work" or a "compact foundation"); Lebna):
(1) A desert camp of the Israelites between Rimmon-perez and Rissah (Numbers 33:20-21). Probably the same as Laban (Deuteronomy 1:1).
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
(2) A town in the Shephelah of Judah (Joshua 15:42). "Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: and Yahweh delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel. .... And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it" (Joshua 10:29-31; 12:15). It was one of the cities given to the "children of Aaron" (Joshua 21:13; 1 Chronicles 6:57). In the reign of Joram, Libnah joined the Edomites in a revolt against the king of Judah (2 Kings 8:22; 2 Chronicles 21:10). In the reign of Hezekiah, Libnah was besieged by Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:8; Isaiah 37:8). The wife of King Josiah was "Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah," she was the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah (2 Kings 23:31; 24:18; Jeremiah 52:1).
The site of this important stronghold remains unknown. In the Eusebius, Onomasticon it is described, under the name Lobana or Lobna, as near Eleutheropolis (Beit Jebrin). All the indications point to a site in the Southwest of the Shephelah, not very far from Lachish. The Palestine Exploration Fund surveyors suggested (PEF, III, 259) the commanding site `Arak el Menshiyeh, or rather the white chalky mound 250 ft. high to the North of this village, and Stanley proposed Tell es Cafi. (Both these identifications are due to the interpretation of Libnah as meaning "whiteness.") In the PEFS (1897, Sh XX) Conder suggests a ruin called el Benawy, 10 miles Southeast of Lachish.
E. W. G. Masterman
Libni
Libni - lib'-ni (libhni):
(1) Son of Gershon (Exodus 6:17; Numbers 3:18; 1 Chronicles 6:17, 20). Families who traced their descent from Libni are called Libnites (Numbers 3:21; 26:58).
(2) A son of Merari (1 Chronicles 6:29).
See LADAN.
Libnites
Libnites - lib'-nits (ha-libhni).
See LIBNI.
Libraries
Libraries - li'-bra-riz, li'-brer-iz:
1. The Bible a Library
2. Mythological and Apocryphal Libraries
3. Libraries for the Dead
4. Memory Libraries
5. Prehistoric and Primitive Libraries
6. Mesopotamian Period
7. Patriarchal Period
8. Egyptian Period
9. The Exodus
10. Palestine at the Conquest
11. Period of the Judges
12. Saul to the Maccabees
13. New Testament Times
14. Bookcases and Buildings
LITERATURE
A library is a book or books kept for use, not for sale. A one-book library is just as much a library as a one-cell animal is animal. The earliest libraries, like the earliest plants and animals, were very simple, consisting of a few books or perhaps only a single tablet or manuscript. An archive is a library of official documents not in active use; a registry, a library of going documents.
1. The Bible a Library: The Bible is itself a library. During the Middle Ages it was commonly called, first, "The Divine Library," and then, "The Library" (Bibliotheca), in the same exclusive sense as it is now known as "The Book" (Biblia as Latin singular). Even the word "Bible" itself is historically "Library" rather than "Book" (for it was originally the neuter plural Biblia, "The Books"; compare Daniel 9:2). The Bible is also a library in that it is an organized collection of books rather than a single work.
This fact that the Bible is itself a library is increasingly mentioned of late, especially in Old Testament studies (Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew History, 1, "The Old Testament as a Library"; Delitzsch, Babel and Bible, 4, "the Old Testament, that small library of books of the most multifarious kind"). Its profound bearing on the theory of the composition and inspiration of the Bible (compare BOOK) has given the fact new significance and makes an understanding of the nature of a library one of the best tools for the interpretation of the Bible in the face of modern problems. While it is not possible to elaborate this within these limits, it may be said briefly that the logical end of the application of the doctrine of evolution to books and libraries is that the Bible is, like man, the result of natural selection, and is as unique among books as man among the animals. And, whatever may be true of men, in the case of books the formation of a book-library by natural selection tends toward the elimination of error. The more numerous the individuals and the longer the period, the greater the reduction of error, so that the logical inference as to the Bible is that on purely natural grounds it may be, or is, the nearest approximation to inerrancy among books, because of its history as a library. This does not quite lead to the position that the Bible is as unique among books as Jesus Christ among men, but under the doctrine of a creative Providence, it does imply what may be called real superhuman authorship and authority.
2. Mythological and Apocryphal Libraries: Somewhat apart from historical libraries, but closely connected with Bible study, are the alleged superhuman libraries, libraries of, or written by, the gods, libraries for the dead and apocryphal libraries. The Vedas are said to have existed as a collection even before the Creator created Himself (Manu 1 21). All religions have their book-gods--Thoth and Seshait, Apollo, Hermes, Minerva, Ida, Bridget, Soma, Brahma, Odin, Kvasir, Ygdrasil and many others. To the ancient Babylonians the whole firmament was a library of "celestial tablets." The mythological ideas often have important bearing on Biblical doctrines, e.g. the Creation, the Word, the Tree of Life, the Book of Life, the Holy Spirit. Apocryphal libraries include the library which Yahweh is alleged to have formed on the 7th day of creation on a mount East of the Garden of Eden, and other libraries ascribed to Enoch, Noah and Seth. See for this the Old Testament pseudepigrapha.
3. Libraries for the Dead: Another class of collections of real books, written or gathered for mythological purposes, is what may be called libraries for the dead. It is well known that in most countries of antiquity, at one time or another, and among primitive people like the American Indians, in modern times, it has been the custom to bury with the dead the things which friends thought would be useful in the Elysian fields or happy hunting grounds, or on the way thither--the bow and horse of the warrior, the ushabti servants, children's playthings, the models of food objects, and so on. This same motive led also to the burying of books with the dead. For long periods in the history of Egypt every Egyptian of any position was buried with one or more books. These books were not his chance possessions, buried with him as, in some burials, all a man's personal belongings are, but books selected for their usefulness to him after death. For the most part these were of the nature of guidebooks to the way to the heavenly world, magic formulas for the opening of doors, instruction as to the right method of progress toward, or introduction into, paradise, etc. These books were afterward gathered together and form what is now known as "the Book of the Dead" and other such books.
4. Memory Libraries: In modern times the actor or professional story-teller often has in memory a collection of remembered books which is in effect a library. Among primitive peoples the medicine-man was literally a library of tribal traditions. The priests of India and the minstrels of Greece or of the Middle Ages often had a large repertory. By the prevailing theory of the origin of the books of the Old Testament such memory traditions, transmitted orally, were the chief source of the Hexateuch, but in view of what is now known of the library situation of the time, this must be doubted.
5. Prehistoric and Primitive Libraries: In general terms it may be said that when man began not only to make but to keep records, libraries began. Even a memorial stone contains the germ of a mnemonic library. The primitive medicine-man's collection of notched message sticks, tallies, quipus or wampum belts is a great advance in complexity on these, and the simplest collection of picture narratives of Hottentot or American Indian, an advance on this. A combination of pictures with signs is still another forward step, and this step is already to be found in the Pyrenean caves of the Stone Age (see WRITING). Most of these earliest libraries were kept at the sanctuary. The gathering together of books in libraries had its origin in the ideas of (1) preservation, (2) gathering together like books in order to join together their contents, and (3) circulation--the great modern expansion of the idea. The owner of flocks and herds gathers together his lists of cattle or other possessions, his receipts for purchases and record of sales, whether these are recorded on the walls of his cave or on wooden tallies or on knotted cords or on clay tablets gathered in little jars and buried under the floor of his house. Large owners and sovereigns and the temples of Egypt and Assyria gathered large stores of these archival records and with them records of tribute, oracles, etc. As early as 2700 BC we have the account of King Dedkere Isesi, his archival library and his librarian Senezemib. The annals of Thutmose III were preserved in the palace library as well as cut in selections on the walls of the temple. A few years later, and we know that the archival records were kept in a special room in the palace at Amarna--and many of the records themselves were found there. All this was before the year 1300.
6. Mesopotamian Period: Bible history through Genesis 10:1-32 covers the whole civilized world, but its main line up to about 2000 BC is almost wholly Mesopotamian. Up to the time of Abram's migration from Haran, the history of Biblical libraries and the history of Babylonian and Sumerian libraries are one. Most of the cities mentioned in this period are now known to have had collections of books in those days. At the time when Abram left Haran there were hundreds of collections of written documents in scores of different geographical localities and containing millions of tablets.
7. Patriarchal Period: From Abram's emigration out of Haran to Jacob's emigration to Egypt was, on the face of Biblical data, mainly a time of wandering in Palestine, but this was not wholly nomad nor wholly Palestinian. Whether there were libraries in Palestine at this time or not, the Patriarchs were all in close personal contact with the library lands of Babylonia and Egypt. Abram himself was familiar with both Mesopotamia and Egypt. His son Ishmael married an Egyptian, his son Isaac a Mesopotamian. His grandson Jacob married two wives from between the rivers, and had himself 20 years' residence in the region. While it does not appear that Isaac lived at any time either in Syria or in Egypt, during most of his life all the members of his nearest family, father, mother, wife, sons' wives, had had from one to three score years' life in the mother-country. Whether there were public records in this region at this time is another matter, but it would seem that the whole region during the whole period was under the influence of the Babylonian civilization. It was freely traversed by trading caravans, and the Hittite and Mesopotamian records extend at least a little back into this period.
8. Egyptian Period: The Egyptian period of Bible history begins with the immigration of Jacob and his sons, but fringes back to the visit of Abram (Genesis 12:10-20), if not to Mizraim of Genesis 10:6. On the other hand, it ends properly with the exodus, but fringes forward through frequent points of contact to the flight of the Virgin and Pentecost. Whether the sojourn was 430 or 215 years, or less, it was a long residence at a time when libraries were very flourishing in Egypt. Already at the time of Abram's visit, collections of books, not only of official accounts, but of religious texts, medical texts, annals, and the like, had been common in Egypt for nearly 1,000 years, and had perhaps existed for 1,000 years or more before that.
Under the older of the modern datings of the exodus, the period of the sojourn included the times of Thothmes III (Thutmose), and in this reign there are peculiarly interesting records, not only of the existence of temple and palace libraries, but of the nature of their contents. The official recorder of Thothmes III, accompanying him on his campaign in Syria and Palestine, set down each day the events of the day, while he or others also made lists of tribute, spoils, commissary matters, etc. These daily records were deposited in the palace library, as it appears, but a narrative compiled from these and written on a leather roll was deposited in the temple library, and from this roll in turn an abstract was engraved on the walls of the temple, where it remains to this day. This probably gives the library situation of the time in a nutshell: (1) the simple saving of utilitarian documents, often on papyrus or wood tablets, (2) the gathering of books written for information on more durable material, (3) preserving choice books for posterity by a local series of inscriptions.
The rolls must have been kept in chests or small boxes, like the box containing the medical papyri of King Neferikere some 1,300 years before, or the "many boxes" at Edfu long after. Many pictures of these book-chests or bookcases are found in the monuments (Birt, Buchrolle, 12, 15 ff).
Again, the palace library of King Akhnaton (circa 1360 BC) at Amarna, which contained collections of the royal foreign correspondence on clay tablets, has been excavated. Its bricks bear the inscription, "Place of the records of the palace of the king," and some hundreds of tablets from this spot have been recovered.
At the time of the exodus there were thus probably libraries in all palaces, temples and record offices, although the temple libraries were by no means confined to sacred writings or the palace to secular. There were also at least archives, or registers, in the royal treasury and in all public departments. Schools for scribes were, it would seem, held in the palace, temple and treasury libraries. There were, therefore, apparently, at this time millions of documents or books, in hundreds of organized collections, which could be called archives or libraries.
9. The Exodus: Supposing any exodus at all, Moses and Aaron and all the Hebrew "officers" ("scribes" or writers) under the Egyptian taskmasters (Exodus 5:6, 10, 14-15, 19), brought up as they were in the scribal schools, were of course quite familiar with the Egyptian ways of keeping their books. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the first and chief provision which Moses made for the Tabernacle was a book-chest for the preservation of the sacred directions given by Yahweh. It makes little difference whether the account is taken in its final form, divided horizontally into Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua, or divided perpendicularly into J, E, D, the Priestly Code (P), the fact of the ark and enough of its details are given even in the very oldest sources to show that the authors understood the ark to be a glorified book-chest in or near which were kept written documents: the tables of stone, the inscribed rod, all the testimony given from the mercy-seat which formed its lid, and perhaps the Book of Deuteronomy. The ark is in fact much the size and shape of a portable bookcase, and the Septuagint translation renders the word by the ordinary technical Greek word for the book-chest (kibotos; compare Birt, op. cit., 248-49). It appears also to have been the later Hebrew word for book-chest (compare Jewish Encyclopedia,II , 107 ff). At the exodus, whenever that may have been, Moses is alleged to have made the ark the official library, and in it apparently he is thought to have kept the oracles as uttered from time to time and the record of his travels from day to day (as well as the tables of stone), precisely as the scribe of Thutmose recorded his Syrian campaigns from day to day. This record (if it was a record) was in all likelihood on a leather roll, since this became the traditional form of books among the Hebrews, and this too was like the annals of Thutmose. When the tribes separated to North and South, the books may have been either separated or copied, and doubtless they suffered much wear and tear from the harsh times until we find Dt turning up again in a temple library (2 Kings 22:8 ff; 2 Chronicles 34:14 ff).
The evidence from Egyptian Babylonian, Mitannian, Amorite and Hittite documents shows the existence of official chanceries and by implication of archives throughout the whole region of Syria and Palestine at the time when the "Hebrew" invasion began (Winckler, Tell el-Amarna Tablets).
10. Palestine at the Conquest: The Tell el-Amarna Letters and the tablets from the Hittite archives at Boghaz-keui (Winckler, Deutsche Orientalische Gesellschaft Mitt., 1907, number 35) include actual letters from the princes, elders and governors of dozens of places, scattered all over this region from Egypt to the land of the Hittites and the Mitannians. These places include among others Jerusalem, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Acco, Ashkelon, Gaza, Lachish, Keilah and Aijalon.
Remains of two of such archival libraries have been dug up--one at Lachish and one at Taanach near Megiddo, both dating back to the 14th century BC.
Whether there were temple libraries as well does not appear so clearly from external evidence but may probably be inferred from the names, Debir and (perhaps) Nebo, as well as from the well-known fact that each of the many city-lands must have had its center of worship. When it was thought that writing did not exist to any extent in Palestine before the time of David, it was the fashion to account for the name of the city of "Kirjath Sepher," the "City of Books," by curious tours de force of conjectural emendation (Sephur for Sepher, Tabor for Debir), but with the recent progress of excavation the possibility of the name has been fully established and the insight of Sayce probably justified.
11. Period of the Judges: That the situation at the Conquest continued also during the period of the Judges appears from sundry considerations: (1) The fact that all the surrounding nations, Moabites, Edomites, Amorites, Hittites, Mitannians, etc., were literate nations with public archives. (2) The high state of organization under David requires an evolutionary background. (3) Even the extreme (and quite untenable) theory that the Hebrews were illiterate wild Arab nomads and remained so for a long time would actually demonstrate the matter, for, as has been pertinently observed (Sellin, Einl, 7), many at least of the Canaanite cities were not destroyed or even occupied for a long time, but were surrounded by the Hebrews, and finally occupied and assimilated. It follows, therefore, that the archival system continued, and, under this theory, for a long time, until the Hebrews absorbed the culture of their neighbors--and, by inference, libraries with the rest. (4) Taking the evidence of the documents as they stand, the matter is simple enough; various works were kept in or near the ark. Joshua added to these at least the report of a boundary commission (Joshua 18:9-10) which was brought to the sanctuary, and Samuel "laid up" the book that he wrote "before Yahweh," i.e. at the ark. Moreover, the Books of Jasher, the Wars of Yahweh, etc., imply a literature which in turn implies libraries. Whenever or however composed, there is no good reason to distrust their historical existence. (5) Even on the extreme critical hypothesis, "Most of the stories found in the first 8 books of the Old Testament originated before or during the age of song and story (circa 1250-1050)" (Kent, Beginnings, 17). (6) To this may also be added, with all reservations, the mysterious metal ephod which appears only in this period. The ephod seems to have been either (a) a case (BDB, 66) or (b) an instrument for consulting an oracle (BDB, 65). The linen ephod had a pouch for the Urim and Thummim. The metal ephod seems to be distinguished from the image and may have contained the written oracular instructions (torah?) as well as the oracular instruments. (7) The Kenite scribes of Jabez (1 Chronicles 2:55); the simple fact that a chance captive from Succoth could write out a list of names and some one at least of the rudest 300 survivals of Gideon's 32,000 primitive warriors in those bloody frontier times could read it, the reference to the staff of the muster-master, marshal or scribe, and the "governors" (inscribers), in Deborah's Song, point in the same direction.
While, therefore, the times were doubtless wild, the political unity very slight, and the unity of worship even less, there is evidence that there were both political and religious libraries throughout the period.
12. Saul to the Maccabees: Beginning with the monarchy, the library situation among the Israelites appears more and more clearly to correspond with that of the surrounding nations. The first act the recorded after the choice and proclamation of Saul as king was the writing of a constitution by Samuel and the depositing of this in the sacred archives (1 Samuel 10:25). This document Septuagint biblion) was perhaps one of the documents ("words") of Samuel whose words (1 Chronicles 29:29, history, chronicles, acts, book, etc.) seem to have been possibly a register kept by him, perhaps from the time that he succeeded Eli, as later the high-priestly register (day-book) of Johannes Maccabeus was certainly kept from the beginning of his high-priesthood (1 Maccabees 16:24).
Whether these "words" of Samuel were equivalent to the technical register or "book of the words of days" or not, such registers were undoubtedly kept from the time of David on, and there is nothing so illuminating as to the actual library conditions of the times as the so-called chronicles, histories or acts--the registers, journals or archives of the time. The roll-register seems to be called in full "the book of the words of days," or with explanatory fullness "book of the records of the words of days," but this appears to be an evolution from "words of days" or even "words," and these forms as well as the abbreviations "book of days" and "book" are used of the same technical work, which is the engrossing in chronological book-form of any series of individual documents--all the documents of a record-office, general or local. The name is used also of histories written up on the basis of these register-books (the Books of Chronicles are in Hebrew, "words of days") but not themselves records. These charter-books, of course, so far as they go, mirror the contents of the archives which they transcribe, and the key to the public-library history of the period, both sacred and royal, as regards contents, at least, is to be found in them, while in turn the key to the understanding of this technical book-form itself lies in the understanding of the "word" as a technical book-form.
The "word" in Hebrew is used of books, speeches, sayings, oracles, edicts, reports, formal opinions, agreements, indictments, judicial decisions, stories, records, regulations, sections of a discourse, lines of poetry, whole poems, etc., as well as acts, deeds, "matters," "affairs," events and words in the narrowest sense. It is thus very exactly, as well as literally, translated in the Septuagint by logos, which as a technical book-term (Birt, Antikes Buchwesen, 28, 29) means any distinct composition, long or short, whether a law, an epigram, or a whole complex work. The best English equivalent for this "work-complete-in-itself," in the case of public records, is "document," and in the case of literary matters, it is "work or writing." The "words" of Samuel or David thus are his "acts" or "deeds" in the sense, not of doings, but of the individual documentary records of those doings quite in the modern sense of the "acts and proceedings" of a convention, or the "deeds" to property.
In the plural, dibhre and logoi or logia alike mean a collection of documents, works or writings, i.e. "a library." Sometimes this is used in the sense of archives or library, at other times as a book containing these collected works.
These collected documents in register-form constituted apparently a continuous series until the time when the Book of Chronicles was written and were extant at that time: the "words" of Samuel, "chronicles" and "last words" of David (1 Chronicles 23:27; 27:24), the "book of the words (acts) of Solomon" (1 Kings 11:41), the book of the words of days of the kings of Judah, and the book of the words of days of the kings of Israel--the kingdoms after division each having naturally its own records.
The general situation during the period as to archival matters is pretty well summarized by Moore in the EB. From the time of Solomon, and more doubtfully from the time of David, he recognizes that "records were doubtless kept in the palace," and that "the temples also doubtless had their records," while there may have been also local records of cities and towns. These records contained probably chief events, treaties, edicts, etc.--probably brief annals "never wrought into narrative memoirs." The temple records contained annals of succession, repairs, changes, etc. (EB, II, 2021-28). The records were, however, probably not brief, but contained treaties, etc., verbatim in full. To this should moreover be added the significant fact that these archives contained not only business records but also various works of a more or less literary character. Those mentioned include letters, prophecies, prayers, and even poems and Wisdom literature. The "words" of the kings of Israel contained prayers, visions and other matter not usually counted archival. The "acts" (words) of Solomon also contained literary or quasi-literary material. According to Josephus the archives of Tyre contained similar material and this was also true of the Amarna archives (circa 1380 BC) and those at Boghazkeui, as well as of the palace archives of Nineveh and the great temple archives of Nippur and Abu Habeh (Sippara). So, too, in Egypt the palace archives of King Neferikere contained medical works and those of Rameses III, at least, magical works, while the temple archives in the time of Thutmose III (Breasted, Ancient Records) contained military annals, and those of Denderah certainly many works of a non-registerial character. The temples of early Greece also contained literary works and secular laws as well as temple archives proper.
In short, the palace collections of Israel were no exception to the general rule of antiquity in containing, besides palace archives proper, more or less of religious archives and literary works, while the temple collections contained more or less political records and literary works.
This record system in Israel and Judah, as appears from the Old Testament itself, was the system of Persia in Old Testament times. It was the system of the Jews in Maccabean times, of Egypt during this whole period and for centuries before and after, and of Northern Syria likewise at about this time (Zakar-Baal, of Gebal, circa 1113 BC). The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, whenever written, reveal the same system, Exodus to Numbers being in the form of a register, and Dt represented as an abstract prepared for engraving on stone, a use which Joshua is said to have made of it. We have, therefore, the same system existing before and after and on all sides geographically.
All this neighboring practice points to a system of (1) archival collections, (2) contemporary book registers, (3) contemporary publication by inscription, and, in the light of these, the Old Testament method, from the time of David at least, becomes clear, certainly as to archival collections and registers and hardly less so as to the setting-up of inscriptions in permanent material. Even if D is not earlier than 621 BC, it assumes public inscription long before that time, quite comparable in extent to the inscriptions of Thutmose III or King Mesha of Moab, and, although few long inscriptions have been recovered thus far, there is at least the Siloam inscription (compare also Isaiah 30:8; Job 19:23-24; Isaiah 8:1; Jeremiah 17:1; also the Decalogue). Each one of these three elements (even the collection of inscriptions in the temple) was, it must be remembered, called in antiquity a "library."
The reference to "the books" in Dan (9:2) may possibly point to or foreshadow the synagogue library.
Little weight is generally and properly given to the statement of 2 Maccabees 2:13, that Nehemiah founded a library and gathered into it the writings "about the kings, the prophets and David, and the letters of the kings concerning votive offerings," but it is, as a matter of fact, evident that he, as well as Judas Maccabeus, who is linked with him in the statement, must have done just this.
From the time of the Septuagint translated, the idea of the library (bibliotheke) and even the public library ("books of the people," i.e. public records) was familiar enough, the Septuagint itself also, according to Josephus, linking the temple library of Jerusalem with the Alexandrian library through the furnishing of books by the former to the latter for copying.
13. New Testament Times: With the Roman conquest and the rise of the Idumeans, naturally the methods developed in accordance with Roman practice. It appears from the frequent references of Josephus that the public records were extensive and contained genealogical records as well as official letters, decrees, etc. The triple method of record continues. It appears, further (Blau, 96; Krauss, III, 179), that there were libraries and even lending libraries in the schools and synagogues, not of Palestine only, but wherever Jews were settled. Josephus and Chrysostom with the Mishna confirm the already very clear inference from Luke's account of our Lord's teaching in the synagogue that at this time, and probably from the beginning of the synagogue, the books, the manner of their keeping and the ritual of their using were already essentially as in the modern synagogue. The first preaching-places of the Christians were the synagogues, and when churches succeeded these, the church library naturally followed, but whether in Bible times or not is a matter of conjecture; they appear at least in very early churches.
Whether the rich secular literature to which Josephus had access was in public or private libraries does not appear directly. It is well known that it was as much a part of Roman public policy in Herod's time to found public libraries in the provinces as it was to restore temples. Twenty-four such provincial libraries, chiefly temple libraries, are known.
The Roman practice of the time still mixed literary with the archival material, and it is likely therefore that the public records of the Jewish temple had in them both Greek and Latin secular books in considerable quantity, as well as the Greek Apocrypha and a large amount of Aramaic or late Hebrew literature of Talmudic character.
14. Bookcases and Buildings: As to the receptacles and places in which the books were kept, we have reference even in the Hebrew period to most of the main forms used among the nations: the wooden box, the clay box or pot, the pouch, and on the other hand, once, the "house of books" so familiar in Egyptian use and apparently referring to an individual chamber or semi-detached building of temple or palace. Most significant, however, is the statement that the books were kept in the palace and temple treasuries or storehouses.
The sacred ark ('aron), whatever it may have originally contained, was looked on when D was written as a sacred wooden book-chest, and the ark in which the teaching priests carried the law about for public reading was in fact likewise a chest.
Such chests were common among the Jews later, some with lids and some with side-opening (Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 107-108; Blau, 178). It is tempting to find in D, where the book is to be put "by (the King James Version "in") the side of the ark" (Deuteronomy 31:26), a chest having both lid and openings in the side, but more likely perhaps D means a separate chest, like the coffer or pouch with the golden mice, which was also put "by the side" (matstsadh) of the ark (1 Samuel 6:8).
In the New Testament the "cloak" which Paul left behind at Troas (2 Timothy 4:13) was probably (Wattenb., 614; see also Birt and Gardthausen), if not a wooden "capsa," at least some sort of bookcase or cover.
The earthen vessel in which Jeremiah (32:14) puts the two "books" (translated "deeds"), one sealed and one unsealed, was one of the commonest bookcases of the ancient world. This information has lately been widely reinforced and associated with Biblical history by the discovery of the Elephantine papyri, which were, for the most part, kept in such clay jars (Meyer, Papyrusfund, 15). The word Pentateuch perhaps harks back to a five-roll jar, but more likely to a basket or wooden box with five compartments (Blau, 65; Birt, Buchrolle, 21, 22). It was the collective label of a five-roll case, whether of earthenware, wood or basket work.
The pouch or bag bookcase has perhaps its representative in the phylactery (Matthew 23:5), which was a sort of miniature armarium in that each of the four little rolls of its four compartments was technically a "book" (cepher). This name is commonly explained as an amulet guarding against evil spirits, but the term actually occurs in the papyri (Bibliophylax) of the preservation of books.
The "house of books" (Ezra 6:1 margin) or "place of books" is a very close parallel to bibliotheke, by which (in the plural) it is translated in the Septuagint. The phrase was a common term in Egypt for library, perhaps also sometimes for scriptorium or even registry, and it points to a chamber or semi-detached room or building where the book-chests, jars, etc., were kept. That at Edfu is a semi-detached room and contained many such cases.
While there is little record of libraries in Biblical times, the very formation of the Canon itself, whether by the higher critical process, or by natural processes of gathering whole literary works, implies the gathering together of books, and the temple libraries common to both Egypt and Assyria-Babylonia are almost inevitably implied wherever there was a temple or sanctuary, whatever may be the facts as to the temple libraries. According to Hilprecht there were certainly such libraries and from very ancient times. The palace library of Assurbani-pal, though itself a discovery of the last times, brings the story down to the times of the written history. For the rest of the story see literature below, especially Dziatzko, Bibliotheken, and the article on "Libraries" in the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition).
See also NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF.
In the earlier period at least and including for the Jews the New Testament times, the particular locality in palace or temple seems to have been the treasury. In the Book of Ezra, search for the decree of Cyrus was to be made in the king's treasure-house (Ezra 5:17), and was made in the "house of books where the treasures were laid up" (Ezra 6:1 m). The document was finally found in the palace at Ecbatana--so too in 1 Maccabees 14:49 the archives are placed in the treasury.
In New Testament times there had already been a good deal of development in the matter of library buildings. A general type had been evolved which consisted of (1) a colonnade, (2) a lecture-room, a reading-room or assembly room, (3) small rooms for book storage. Such accounts as we have of the Alexandrian libraries, with the excavations at Pergamus, Athens and Rome, reveal the same type--the book-rooms, the colonnade where masters walked or sat and talked with their pupils, the rooms for assembly where the senate or other bodies sometimes sat. In short, as long before in Egypt, whether in palace or temple, the place of teaching was the place of books.
It is significant thus that our Lord taught in the Treasury, which in Herod's Temple was in the court of the temple proper--probably the porticos under the women's gallery, some of the adjoining rooms being used for books. As this was within the barrier which no Gentile could pass, Herod must have had also a library of public records in the outer colonnade.
See further, NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF.
LITERATURE.
Ludwig Blau, Studien zum althebraischen Buchwesen, Strassburg i, E, 1902, 178-80: Sam. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie, Leipzig, 1912, III, 193-98; J.W. Clark, Care of Books, Cambridge, 1901; E. C. Richardson, Biblical Libraries: A Sketch of Library History from 3400 BC to 150 AD. London. Oxford University Press, 1914.
See the literature under WRITING.
E. C. Richardson
Library of Nineveh
Library of Nineveh - See NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF.
Libya; Libyans
Libya; Libyans - lib'-i-a, lib'-i-anz: In the Old Testament the word occurs in the King James Version in 2 Chronicles 12:3; 16:8; Nahum 3:9 for "Lubim" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)). the Revised Version (British and American), however, retains "Libyans" in Daniel 11:43. In Jeremiah 46:9; Ezekiel 30:5; 38:5, the words are replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by PUT (which see). In the New Testament the word "Libya" (Libue) occurs, in close connection with CYRENE (which see) (Acts 2:10). Greek and Roman writers apply the term to the African continent, generally excluding Egypt.
See LUBIM.
Lice
Lice - lis (kinnim (Exodus 8:17-18; Psalms 105:31), kinnim (Exodus 8:16), kinnam (Exodus 8:17-18); Septuagint skniphes (Exodus 8:16, 18), ton sknipha, once in Exodus 8:18; sknipes (Psalms 105:31); Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) scniphes; according to Liddell and Scott, under the word sknips, Slav. sknipa = culex): The references, both in Exodus and in Psalms, are all to the plague of "lice." the Revised Version margin suggests "fleas" or "sandflies." The Septuagint rendering would favor "sandflies" or "mosquitoes," between which two insects the Old Testament writers would hardly be expected to discriminate. Mosquitoes belong to the order of Diptera, family Culicidae; the sandfly (Plebotomus papataci) to the family of Simuliidae of the same order. The sandflies are much smaller than mosquitoes, and are nearly noiseless, but give a sharp sting which may leave an unpleasant irritation. They are abundant in the Levant. In Southern Europe they cause the "three-day fever" or "papataci." As stated under GNAT (which see), there is little ground other than the authority of the Septuagint for deciding between "lice," "fleas," "sand-flies," or "mosquitoes" as translations of kinnim. See also underGNAT the note on ken, the Revised Version margin "gnat" (Isaiah 51:6).
Alfred Ely Day
Licence
Licence - li'-sens: This word is not found at all in the Revised Version (British and American) (except in Judith 11:14; Ecclesiasticus 15:20; 1 Maccabees 1:13), and twice only in the King James Version (except in 2 Maccabees 4:9), both times in Acts. In Acts 21:40 (as translation of epitrepo) the American Standard Revised Version has "leave" where the King James Version has "licence." In Acts 25:16, "opportunity to make his defense" (as translation of topon apologias) takes the place of "have licence to answer for himself."
Lidebir
Lidebir - lid'-e-ber (lidhebhir): For "of Debir" in EV; the Revised Version margin suggests the name "Lidebir" (Joshua 13:26), a city in the territory of Gad. It is probably identical with LO-DEBAR (which see).
Lie; Lying
Lie; Lying - li, (sheqer (usually, e.g. Isaiah 9:15; Zechariah 13:3), or kazabh verb (Job 34:6; Micah 2:11); pseudos (John 8:44; Revelation 21:27), "to speak falsely," "to fabricate," "to make a false statement"; pseudomai, in Acts 5:3, 1):
1. Lying Defined: In its very essence, a lie is something said with intent to deceive. It is not always a spoken word that is a lie, for a life lived under false pretenses, a hypocritical life, may be a lie equally with a false word (Jeremiah 23:14). A vain thing, like an idol, may be a lie (Isaiah 59:4), as also a false system (Romans 3:7). Error, as opposed to truth, is a lie (1 John 2:21). The denial of the deity of Jesus Christ is regarded as "the" lie (1 John 2:22).
The origin of lies and lying is traced to Satan who is called "a liar, and the father thereof" (John 8:44; Acts 5:3). Satan's dealing with Eve (Genesis 3:1-24) furnishes us with a splendid illustration of the first lie, so far as we have any record of it.
2. A Racial Sin: The whole race is guilty of this sin: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Psalms 58:3). It is a part of the old Adamic nature, "the old man" (Colossians 3:9), which the believer in Jesus Christ is called upon to put off. So prominent a factor is it in the experience of the race that among the condensed catalogue of sins, for the commission of which men are finally condemned, the sin of lying finds its place: "All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Revelation 21:8 the King James Version).
3. God's Attitude to It: God's attitude toward this sin is strongly marked throughout both the Old Testament and New Testament. The righteous are called upon to hate lying (Proverbs 13:5), to avoid it (Zephaniah 3:13), to respect not those who lie, and utterly reject their company (Psalms 40:4; 101:7), to pray to be delivered from it (Psalms 119:29). The wicked are said to love lying (Psalms 52:3), to delight in it (Psalms 62:4), to seek after it (Psalms 4:2), and to give heed to it (Proverbs 17:4). Lying leads to worse crimes (Hosea 4:1-2).
4. The Penalty: The punishment to be meted out to liars is of the severest kind. They are positively and absolutely excluded from heaven (Revelation 21:27; 22:15), and those who are guilty of this sin are cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). We are reminded of the awful fate meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to God and man (Acts 5:1-11). God will "destroy them that speak lies" (Psalms 5:6), and "he that uttereth lies shall not escape" (Proverbs 19:5), yea "a sword is upon the liars" (Jeremiah 50:36 the King James Version). The liar is thereby debarred from rendering any true and acceptable worship unto the Lord (Psalms 24:4).
The Scriptures abound with illustrations of lying and the results and penalties therefor. A careful study of these illustrations will reveal the subtlety of falsehood. Sometimes a lie is a half-truth, as set forth in the story of Satan's temptation of Eve (Genesis 3:1-24). Cain's lie (Genesis 4:9) was of the nature of an evasive answer to a direct question. Jacob's deception of his father, in order that he might inherit the blessing of the firstborn, was a barefaced and deliberate lie (Genesis 27:19). The answer which Joseph's brethren gave to their father when he asked them concerning the welfare of their brother Joseph is an illustration, as well as a revelation, of the depth of the wickedness of hearts that deliberately set themselves to falsify and deceive (Genesis 37:31-32). Even good men are sometimes overtaken in a lie, which, of course, is no more excusable in them than in the wicked; indeed, it is more shameful because the righteous are professed followers of the truth (David in 1 Samuel 21:2). What more striking example of the heinousness of lying in the sight of God can we have than the fate which befell Gehazi who, in order to satisfy a covetous desire for possessions, misrepresented his master Elisha to Naaman the Syrian whom the prophet had healed of his leprosy: "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow" (2 Kings 5:22-27)? The story of Peter's denial of his Lord, and his persistent asseverations that he did not know Him and was not one of His followers, makes us shudder to think that it is possible for a follower of Christ so far to forget himself as not only to lie, but buttress lying with swearing (Matthew 26:72).
5. Pseudos United with Other Words: Throughout the Scriptures we find pseudos joined to other words, e.g. "false apostles" (pseudapostolos, 2 Corinthians 11:13), so called probably because a true apostle delivers the message of another, namely, God, while these "false apostles" cared only for self. Such are from Satan, and, like him, they transform themselves into angels of light, and sail under false colors. We read also of "false prophets" (pseudoprophetes, Matthew 7:15; compare Jeremiah 23:16 f),thereby meaning those who falsely claim to bring messages from God and to speak in behalf of God. Mention is made also of "false brethren" (pseudadelphos, 2 Corinthians 11:26), meaning Judaizing teachers, as in Galatians 2:4; "false teachers" (pseudodidaskalos, 2 Peter 2:1), men whose teaching was false and who falsely claimed the teacher's office. We read further of "false witnesses" (pseudomartus, Mark 26:60); by such are meant those who swear falsely, and testify to what they know is not true. So, too, we find mention of the "false Christs" (pseudochristoi, Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22). This personage does not so much deny the existence of a Christ, but rather, on the contrary, builds upon the world's expectations of such a person, and falsely, arrogantly, blasphemously asserts they he is the Christ promised and foretold. It is the Antichrist who denies that there is a Christ; the false Christ affirms himself to be the Christ. Of course there is a sense in which the man of sin will be both Antichrist and a false Christ.
See CHRISTS, FALSE; FALSE PROPHETS; FALSE SWEARING,FALSE WITNESS .
William Evans
Liers-in-wait
Liers-in-wait - li-erz-in-wat' (Judges 9:25; 16:12; 20:36 ff).
See AMBUSH.
Lieutenant
Lieutenant - lu-ten'-ant, lef-ten'-ant.
See SATRAPS.
Life
Life - lif (chayyim, nephesh, ruach, chayah; zoe, psuche, bios, pneuma):
I. THE TERMS
II. THE OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING
1. Popular Use of the Term
2. Complexity of the Idea
III. IN THE APOCRYPHA
IV. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. In the Synoptic Gospels
2. In the Fourth Gospel
3. In the Acts of the Apostles
4. In the Writings of Paul
5. In the Writings of John
6. In the Other Books of the New Testament
LITERATURE
I. The Terms. Of the Hebrew terms, chayah is the verb which means "to live," "to have life," or the vital principle, "to continue to live," or "to live prosperously." In the Piel it signifies "to give life, or preserve, or quicken and restore life." The Hiphil is much like the Piel. The noun hayyim generally used in the plural is an abstract noun meaning "life," i.e. the possession of the vital principle with its energies and activities. Nephesh often means "living being" or "creature." Sometimes it has the force of the reflexive "self." At other times it refers to the seat of the soul, the personality, the emotions, the appetites--passions and even mental acts. Frequently it means "life," the "seat of life," and in this way it is used about 171 times in the Old Testament, referring to the principle of vitality in both men and animals. Ruach signifies "wind," "breath," principle or source of vitality, but is never used to signify life proper.
II. The Old Testament Teaching. 1. Popular Use of the Term: The term "life" is used in the Old Testament in the popular sense. It meant life in the body, the existence and activity of the man in all his parts and energies. It is the person complete, conscious and active. There is no idea of the body being a fetter or prison to the soul; the body was essential to life and the writers had no desire to be separated from it. To them the physical sphere was a necessity, and a man was living when all his activities were performed in the light of God's face and favor. The secret and source of life to them was relationship with God. There was nothing good or desirable apart from this relation of fellowship. To overcome or be rid of sin was necessary to life. The real center of gravity in life was in the moral and religious part of man's nature. This must be in fellowship with God, the source of all life and activity.
2. Complexity of the Idea: The conception of life is very complex. Several meanings are clearly indicated: (1) Very frequently it refers to the vital principle itself, apart from its manifestations (Genesis 2:7). Here it is the breath of life, or the breath from God which contained and communicated the vital principle to man and made him a nephesh or living being (see also Genesis 1:30; 6:17; 7:22; 45:5, etc.). (2) It is used to denote the period of one's actual existence, i.e. "lifetime" (Genesis 23:1; 25:7; 47:9; Exodus 6:16, 18, 20, etc.). (3) The life is represented as a direct gift from God, and dependent absolutely upon Him for its continuance (Genesis 1:11-27; 2:7; Numbers 16:22). (4) In a few cases it refers to the conception of children, denoting the time when conception was possible (Genesis 18:10, 14 margin; 2 Kings 4:16-17 margin). (5) In many cases it refers to the totality of man's relationships and activities, all of which make up life (Deuteronomy 32:47; 1 Samuel 25:29; Job 10:1, etc.). (6) In a few instances it is used synonymously with the means of sustaining life (Deuteronomy 24:6; Proverbs 27:27). (7) Many times it is used synonymously with happiness or well-being (Deuteronomy 30:15, 19; Ezra 6:10; Psalms 16:11; 30:5; Proverbs 2:19, and frequently). (8) It is always represented as a very precious gift, and offenses against life were to be severely punished (Genesis 9:4-5; Leviticus 17:14; 24:17).
Capital punishment is here specifically enjoined because of the value of the life that has been taken. The lexicon talionis required life for life (Exodus 21:23; Deuteronomy 19:21); and this even applies to the beast (Leviticus 24:18). The life was represented as abiding in the blood and therefore the blood must not be eaten, or lightly shed upon the ground (Leviticus 17:15; Deuteronomy 12:23). The Decalogue forbids murder or the taking of human life wrongfully (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). Garments taken in pledge must not be kept over night, for thereby the owner's life might be endangered (Deuteronomy 24:6). That life was considered precious appears in 2 Kings 10:24; Esther 7:7; Job 2:4; Proverbs 4:23; 6:26. The essence of sacrifice consisted in the fact that the life (the nephesh) resided in the blood; thus when blood was shed, life was lost (Deuteronomy 12:23; Leviticus 17:11). Oppression on the part of judges and rulers was severely condemned because oppression was detrimental to life.
(9) Long life was much desired and sought by the Israelites, and under certain conditions this was possible (Psalms 91:16). The longevity of the ante-diluvian patriarchs is a problem by itself (see ANTEDILUVIANS). It was one of the greatest of calamities to be cut off in the midst of life (Isaiah 38:10-12; 53:8); that a good old age was longed for is shown by Exodus 20:12; Psalms 21:4; 34:12; 61:6, etc. This long life was possible to the obedient to parents (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16), and to those obedient to God (Deuteronomy 4:4; Proverbs 3:1-2; 10:27); to the wise (Proverbs 3:16; 9:11); to the pure in heart (Psalms 34:12-14; Psalms 91:1-10; Ecclesiastes 3:12-13); to those who feared God (Proverbs 10:27; Isaiah 65:18-21; Isaiah 38:2-5, etc.). (10) The possibility of an immortal life is dimly hinted at in the earliest writing, and much more clearly taught in the later. The Tree of Life in the midst of the garden indicated a possible immortality for man upon earth (Genesis 2:9; 22, 24) (see TREE OF LIFE).
Failing to partake of this and falling into sin by partaking of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," they were driven forth from the garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and become immortal beings in their sinful condition. To deprive man of the possibility of making himself immortal while sinful was a blessing to the race; immortality without holiness is a curse rather than a blessing. The way to the tree of life was henceforth guarded by the cherubim and the flame of a sword, so that men could not partake of it in their condition of sin. This, however, did not exclude the possibility of a spiritual immortality in another sphere. Enoch's fellowship with God led to a bodily translation; so also Elijah, and several hundred years after their deaths, God called Himself the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, implying that they were really alive then. In Isaiah 26:19 there is a clear prophecy of a resurrection, and an end of death. Daniel 12:2 asserts a resurrection of many of the dead, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Some of the psalmists firmly believed in the continuity of the life in fellowship with God (Psalms 16:10-11; 17:15; 23:6; 49:15; Psalms 73:24-25). The exact meaning of some of these statements is difficult to understand, yet this much is clear: there was a revolt against death in many pious minds, and a belief that the life of fellowship with God could not end or be broken even by death itself.
See IMMORTALITY .
(11) The fundamental fact in the possession of life was vital relationship with God. Men first lived because God breathed into them the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). Man's vital energies are the outflowing of the spirit or vital energies of God, and all activities are dependent upon the vitalizing power from God. When God sends forth His spirit, things are created, and live; when He withdraws that spirit they die (Psalms 104:30). "In his favor is life" (Psalms 30:5 the King James Version). He is the fountain of life (Psalms 36:9; 63:3). "All my fountains are in thee" (Psalms 87:7). The secret of Job's success and happiness was that the Almighty was with him (Job 29:2). This fellowship brought him health, friends, prosperity and all other blessings. The consciousness of the fellowship with God led men to revolt against the idea of going to Sheol where this fellowship must cease. They felt that such a relationship could not cease, and God would take them out of Sheol.
III. In the Apocrypha. A similar conception of life appears here as in the Old Testament. Zoe and peuche are used and occur most frequently in the books of The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclus. In 1 and 2esdras the word is little used; 2 Esdras 3:5; 16:61 are but a quotation from Genesis 2:7, and refer to the vital principle; 2 Esdras 14:30, Tobit, Judith, Ad Esther use it in the same sense also. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus use it in several senses closely resembling the use in Proverbs (compare Ecclesiastes 4:12; Proverbs 3:18; 10:16). In general there is no additional meaning attached to the word. The Psalms of Solomon refer to everlasting life in Proverbs 3:16; 13:10; 2, 6.
IV. In the New Testament. Of the Greek terms bios is used at times as the equivalent of the Hebrew chayyim. It refers to life extensively, i.e. the period of one's existence, a lifetime; also to the means of sustaining life, such as wealth, etc. Psuche is also equivalent to chayyim at times, but very frequently to nephesh and sometimes to ruach. Thus, it means the vital principle, a living being, the immaterial part of man, the seat of the affections, desires and appetites, etc. The term zoe corresponds very closely to chayyim, and means the vital principle, the state of one who is animate, the fullness of activities and relationship both in the physical and spiritual realms.
The content of the word zoe is the chief theme of the New Testament. The life is mediated by Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament this life was through fellowship with God, in the New Testament it is through Jesus Christ the Mediator. The Old Testament idea is carried to its completion, its highest development of meaning, being enriched by the supreme teaching and revelation of Jesus Christ. In the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament, the center of gravity in human life is in the moral and religious nature of man.
1. In the Synoptic Gospels: The teaching here regarding life naturally links itself with Old Testament ideas and the prevailing conceptions of Judaism. The word is used in the sense of (1) the vital principle, that which gives actual physical existence (Matthew 2:20; Mark 10:45; Luke 12:22 f; Luke 14:26). (2) It is also the period of one's existence, i.e. lifetime (Luke 1:75; 16:25). (3) Once it may mean the totality of man's relationships and activities (Luke 12:15) which do not consist in abundance of material possessions. (4) Generally it means the real life, the vital connection with the world and God, the sum total of man's highest interests. It is called "eternal life" (Matthew 19:29; 25:46). It is called "life" (Matthew 18:8-9; 19:17; Mark 9:43, 45-46). In these passages Jesus seems to imply that it is almost equivalent to "laying up treasures in heaven," or to "entering the kingdom of God." The entering into life and entering the kingdom are practically the same, for the kingdom is that spiritual realm where God controls, where the principles, activities and relationships of heaven prevail, and hence, to enter into these is to enter into "life." (5) The lower life of earthly relationship and activities must be subordinated to the higher and spiritual (Matthew 10:39; 16:25; Luke 9:24). These merely earthly interests may be very desirable and enjoyable, but whoever would cling to these and make them supreme is in danger of losing the higher. The spiritual being infinitely more valuable should be sought even if the other relationship should be lost entirely. (6) Jesus also speaks of this life as something future, and to be realized at the consummation of the age (Matthew 19:29; Luke 18:30), or the world to come.
This in no wise contradicts the statement that eternal life can be entered upon in this life. As Jesus Himself was in vital relationship with the spiritual world and lived the eternal life, He sought to bring others into the same blessed state. This life was far from being perfect. The perfection could come only at the consummation when all was perfection and then they would enter into the perfect fellowship with God and connection with the spirit-world and its blessed experiences. There is no conflict in His teaching here, no real difficulty, only an illustration of Browning's statement, "Man never is but wholly hopes to be." Thus in the synoptists Jesus teaches the reality of the eternal life as a present possession as well as future fruition. The future is but the flowering out and perfection of the present. Without the present bud, there can be no future flower.
(7) The conditions which Jesus lays down for entering into this life are faith in Himself as the one Mediator of the life, and the following of Him in a life of obedience. He alone knows the Father and can reveal Him to others (Matthew 11:27). He alone can give true rest and can teach men how to live (Matthew 11:28 f). The sure way to this life is: "Follow me." His whole ministry was virtually a prolonged effort to win confidence in Himself as Son and Mediator, to win obedience, and hence, bring men unto these spiritual relationships and activities which constitute the true life.
2. In the Fourth Gospel: The fullest and richest teachings regarding life are found here. The greatest word of this Gospel is "life." The author says he wrote the Gospel in order that "ye may have life" (John 20:31). Most of the teachings recorded, circle around this great word "life." This teaching is in no way distinctive and different from that of the synoptists, but is supplementary, and completes the teaching of Jesus on the subject. The use of the word is not as varied, being concentrated on the one supreme subject. (1) In a few cases it refers only to the vital principle which gives life or produces a lifetime (John 10:11, 15-18; 13:37; 15:13). (2) It represents Jesus the Loges as the origin and means of all life to the world. As the preincarnate Loges He was the source of life to the universe (John 1:4). As the incarnate Loges He said His life had been derived originally from the Father (John 5:26; 6:57; 10:18). He then was the means of life to men (John 3:15-16; 4:14; John 5:21, 39-40); and this was the purpose for which He came into the world (John 6:33-34, 51; 10:10). (3) The prevailing reference, however, is to those activities which are the expression of fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. These relationships are called "eternal life" (John 3:15-16, 36; 4:14, etc.). The nearest approach to a definition of eternal life is found in John 17:3. Though not a scientific or metaphysical definition, it is nevertheless Jesus' own description of eternal life, and reveals His conception of it. It is thus more valuable than a formal definition. It is "to know God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent."
This knowledge is vastly more than mere intellectual perception or understanding. It is moral knowledge, it is personal acquaintance, it is fellowship, a contact, if we may so speak, of personality with personality, an inner affinity and sympathy, an experience of similar thoughts, emotions, purposes, motives, desires, an interchange of the heart's deepest feelings and experiences. It is a bringing of the whole personality of man into right relationship with the personality of God. This relation is ethical, personal, binding the two together with ties which nothing can separate. It is into this experience that Jesus came to bring men. Such a life Jesus says is satisfying to all who hunger and thirst for it (John 4:14; 6:35); it is the source of light to all (John 1:4; 8:12); it is indestructible (John 6:58; 11:26); it is like a well of water in the soul (John 4:14); it is procured by personally partaking of those qualities which belong to Jesus (John 6:53).
(4) This life is a present possession and has also a glorious future fruition. (a) To those who exercise faith in Jesus it is a present experience and possession (John 4:10; 24, 40). Faith in Him as the Son of God is the psychological means by which persons are brought into this vital relationship with God. Those who exercised the faith immediately experienced this new power and fellowship and exercised the new activities. (b) It has a glorious fruition in the future also (John 4:36; 5:29; 39, 44, 54). John does not give so much prominence to the eschatological phase of Jesus' teachings as to the present reality and actual possession of this blessed life.
(5) It has been objected that in speaking of the Loges as the source of life John is pursuing a metaphysical line, whereas the life which he so much emphasizes has an ethical basis, and he makes no attempt to reconcile the two. The objection may have force to one who has imbibed the Ritschlian idea of performing the impossible task of eliminating all metaphysics from theology. It will not appeal very strongly to the average Christian. It is a purely academic objection. The ordinary mind will think that if Jesus Christ is the source of ethical and eternal life it is because He possesses something of the essence and being of God, which makes His work for men possible. The metaphysical and the ethical may exist together, may run concurrently, the one being the source and seat of the other. There is no contradiction. Both metaphysics and ethics are a legitimate and necessary exercise of the human mind.
3. In the Acts of the Apostles: In His intercessory prayer, John 17:1-26, Jesus said His mission was to give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him (John 17:2). The record in Acts is the carrying out of that purpose. The word "life" is used in several senses: (1) the vital principle or physical life (17:25; 20:10,24; 27:10,22); (2) also the sum total of man's relationships and activities upon earth (5:20; 26:4); (3) Jesus Christ is regarded as the source and principle of life, being called by Peter, "the Prince of life" (3:15). Also the life eternal or everlasting is spoken of with the same significance as in the Gospels (11:18; 13:46,48).
4. In the Writings of Paul: Here also the words for "life" are used in various senses: (1) the vital principle which gives physical vitality and existence (Romans 8:11, 38; 11:15; 1 Corinthians 3:22; Philippians 1:20; 2:30); (2) the sum total of man's relationships and activities (1 Corinthians 6:3-4; 1 Timothy 2:2; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:1; 3:10 the King James Version); (3) those relationships with God and with Christ in the spiritual realm, and the activities arising therefrom which constitute the real and eternal life. This is mediated by Christ (Romans 5:10). It is in Christ (Romans 6:11). It is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23). It is also mediated or imparted to us through the Spirit (Romans 8:2, 6, 9-10; 2 Corinthians 2:16; 3:6; Galatians 6:8). It comes through obedience to the word (Romans 7:10; Philippians 2:16); and through faith (1 Timothy 1:16). It may be apprehended in this life (1 Timothy 6:12, 19). It is brought to light through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10). It is a reward to those who by patience in well-doing seek it (Romans 2:7). It gives conquering power over sin and death (Romans 5:17-18, 21). It is the end or reward of a sanctified life (Romans 6:22). It is a present possession and a hope (Titus 1:2; 3:7). It will be received in all its fullness hereafter (Romans 2:7; 2 Corinthians 5:4). Thus Paul's use of the word substantially agrees with the teaching in the Gospels, and no doubt was largely based upon it.
5. In the Writings of John: In the Johannine Epistles and Revelation, the contents of the term "life" are the same as those in the Fourth Gospel. Life in certain passages (1 John 3:16; Revelation 8:9; 11:11; 12:11) is mere physical vitality and existence upon earth. The source of life is Christ Himself (1 John 1:1 f; 1 John 5:11 f,16). The blessed eternal life in Christ is a present possession to all those who are in fellowship with the Father and the Son (1 John 5:11-12). Here is an echo of the words of Jesus (John 17:3) where John describes the life, the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. It is virtually fellowship with the Father and with the Son (1 John 1:2, 4). Life is promised to those who are faithful (Revelation 2:7); and the crown of life is promised to those who are faithful unto death (Revelation 2:10). The crown of life doubtless refers to the realization of all the glorious possibilities that come through fellowship with God and the Son. The thirsty are invited to come and drink of the water of life freely (Revelation 21:6; 22:17). The river of life flows through the streets of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:1), and the tree of life blooms on its banks, bearing twelve manner of fruit (Revelation 22:2, 14).
See TREE OF LIFE.
6. In the Other Books of the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of our lifetime or periods of existence upon earth (2:15; 7:3), likewise of the power of an indissoluble life (7:16); James promises the crown of life to the faithful (1:12). This reward is the fullness of life's possibilities hereafter. Our lifetime is mentioned in 4:14 and represented as brief as a vapor. Peter in 1 Peter 3:7 speaks of man and wife as joint-heirs of the grace of life, and of loving life (1 Peter 3:10), referring to the totality of relationships and activities. The "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3) constitute the whole Christian life involving the life eternal.
LITERATURE.
Articles on "Life" in HDB, DCG, Jewish Encyclopedia;on "Soul," "Spirit," etc., ibid, and in Encyclopedia Brit, EB, Kitto, Smith, Standard, etc.; Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of Man; Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology; cornms. on the various passages; Davidson, Old Testament Theology; Oehler and Schultz, Old Testament Theology; Stevens, Johannine Theology and Pauline Theology; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 293 ff; G. Dalman, Words of Jesus; Phillips Brooks, More Abundant Life; B.F. Westcott, Historic Faith; F.J.A. Hort, The Way, the Truth, the Life; J.G. Hoare, Life in John's Gospels; E. White, Life and Christ; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality; R.J. Knowling, Witness of the Epistles and The Testimony of Paul to Christ; commentaries on the various passages; McPherson, "The New Testament View of Life," The Expositor, I, set. v, 72 ff; Massie, "Two New Testament Words Denoting Life," The Expositor, II, series iv, 380 ff; Schrenk, Die Johannistische Anschauung yom Leben.
J. J. Reeve
Life, Tree of
Life, Tree of - See TREE OF LIFE.
Lift
Lift - To make lofty, to raise up. A very common word in English Versions of the Bible representing a great variety of Hebrew and Greek words, although in the Old Testament used chiefly as the translation of nasa'. Of none of these words, however, is "lift" used as a technical translation, and "lift" is interchanged freely with its synonyms, especially "exalt" (compare Psalms 75:5; 89:24) and "raise" (compare Ecclesiastes 4:10; 2 Samuel 12:17). "Lift" is still perfectly good English, but not in all the senses in which it is used in English Versions of the Bible; e.g. such phrases as "men that lifted up axes upon a thicket" (Psalms 74:5), "lift up thy feet unto the perpetual ruins" (Psalms 74:3, etc.), and even the common "lift up the eyes" or "hands" are distinctly archaic. However, almost all the uses are perfectly clear, and only the following need be noted. "To lift up the head" (Genesis 40:13, 19-20; 2 Kings 25:27; Psalms 3:3; Sirach 11:13; Luke 21:28) means to raise from a low condition (but on Psalms 24:7, 9 see GATE). To "lift up the horn" (Psalms 75:5) is to assume a confident position, the figure being taken from fighting oxen (see HORN). "Lift up the face" may be meant literally (2 Kings 9:32), or it may denote the bestowal of favor (Psalms 4:6); it may mean the attitude of a righteous man toward God (Job 22:26), or simply the attitude of a suppliant (Ezra 9:6).
Burton Scott Easton
Light
Light - lit ('or, ma'or; phos; many other words):
1. Origin of Light
2. A Comprehensive Term
(1) Natural Light
(2) Artificial Light
(3) Miraculous Light
(4) Mental, Moral, Spiritual Light
3. An Attribute of Holiness
(1) God
(2) Christ
(3) Christians
(4) The Church
4. Symbolism
5. Expressive Terms
1. Origin of Light: The creation of light was the initial step in the creation of life. "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) was the first word of God spoken after His creative Spirit "moved" upon the primary material out of which He created the heavens and the earth, and which lay, until the utterance of that word, in the chaos of darkness and desolation. Something akin, possibly, to the all-pervasive electro-magnetic activity of the aurora borealis penetrated the chaotic night of the world. The ultimate focusing of light (on the 4th day of creation, Genesis 1:14) in suns, stars, and solar systems brought the initial creative process to completion, as the essential condition of all organic life. The origin of light thus finds its explanation in the purpose and very nature of God whom John defines as not only the Author of light but, in an all-inclusive sense, as light itself: "God is light" (1 John 1:5).
2. A Comprehensive Term: The word "light" is Divinely rich in its comprehensiveness and meaning. Its material splendor is used throughout the Scriptures as the symbol and synonym of all that is luminous and radiant in the mental, moral and spiritual life of men and angels; while the eternal God, because of His holiness and moral perfection, is pictured as "dwelling in light unapproachable" (1 Timothy 6:16). Every phase of the word, from the original light in the natural world to the spiritual glory of the celestial, is found in Holy Writ.
(1) Natural Light. The light of day (Genesis 1:5); of sun, moon and stars; "lights in the firmament" (Genesis 1:14-18; Psalms 74:16; 136:7; 148:3; Ecclesiastes 12:2; Revelation 22:5). Its characteristics are beauty, radiance, utility. It "rejoiceth the heart" (Proverbs 15:30); "Truly the light is sweet" (Ecclesiastes 11:7); without it men stumble and are helpless (John 11:9-10); it is something for which they wait with inexpressible longing (Job 30:26; compare Psalms 130:6). Life, joy, activity and all blessings are dependent upon light.
Light and life are almost synonymous to the inhabitants of Palestine, and in the same way darkness and death. Theirs is the land of sunshine. When they go to other lands of clouded skies their only thought is to return to the brightness and sunshine of their native land. In Palestine there is hardly a day in the whole year when the sun does not shine for some part of it, while for five months of the year there is scarcely an interruption of the sunshine. Time is reckoned from sunset to sunset. The day's labor closes with the coming of darkness. "Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labor until the evening" (Psalms 104:23).
The suddenness of the change from darkness to light with the rising sun and the disappearance of the sun in the evening is more striking than in more northern countries, and it is not strange that in the ancient days there should have arisen a worship of the sun as the giver of light and happiness, and that Job should mention the enticement of sun-worship when he "beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness" (Job 31:26). The severest plague in Egypt next to the slaying of the firstborn was the plague of darkness which fell upon the Egyptians (Exodus 10:23). This love of light finds expression in both Old Testament and New Testament in a very extensive use of the word to express those things which are most to be desired and most helpful to man, and in this connection we find some of the most beautiful figures in the Bible.
(2) Artificial Light. When natural light fails, man by discovery or invention provides himself with some temporary substitute, however dim and inadequate. The ancient Hebrews had "oil for the light" (Exodus 25:6; 35:8; Leviticus 24:2) and lamps (Exodus 35:14; Matthew 5:15). "There were many lights. (lampas) in the upper chamber" at Troas, where Paul preached until midnight (Acts 20:8); so Jeremiah 25:10 the Revised Version (British and American), "light of the lamp;" the King James Version, "candle."
(3) Miraculous Light. When the appalling plague of "thick darkness," for three days, enveloped the Egyptians, terrified and rendered them helpless, "all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings" (Exodus 10:23). Whether the darkness was due to a Divinely-ordered natural cause or the light was the natural light of day, the process that preserved the interspersed Israelites from the encompassing darkness was supernatural. Miraculous, also, even though through natural agency, was the "pillar of fire" that gave light to the Israelites escaping from Pharaoh (Exodus 13:21; 14:20; Psalms 78:14), "He led them .... all the night with a light of fire." Supernatural was the effulgence at Christ's transfiguration that made "his garments .... white as the light" (Matthew 17:2). Under the same category Paul classifies `the great light' that `suddenly shone round about him from heaven' on the way to Damascus (Acts 22:6; compare Acts 9:3). In these rare instances the supernatural light was not only symbolic of an inner spiritual light, but instrumental, in part at least, in revealing or preparing the way for it.
(4) Mental, Moral, Spiritual Light. The phenomena of natural light have their counterpart in the inner life of man. Few words lend themselves with such beauty and appropriateness to the experiences, conditions, and radiance of the spiritual life. For this reason the Scriptures use "light" largely in the figurative sense. Borrowed from the natural world, it is, nevertheless, inherently suited to portray spiritual realities. In secular life a distinct line of demarcation is drawn between intellectual and spiritual knowledge and illumination. Education that enlightens the mind may leave the moral man untouched. This distinction rarely obtains in the Bible, which deals with man as a spiritual being and looks upon his faculties as interdependent in their action.
(a) A few passages, however, refer to the light that comes chiefly to the intellect or mind through Divine instruction, e.g. Psalms 119:130, "The opening of thy words giveth light"; so Proverbs 6:23, "The law is light." Even here the instruction includes moral as well as mental enlightenment.
(b) Moral: Job 24:13, 16 has to do exclusively with man's moral attitude to truth: "rebel against the light"; "know not the light." Isaiah 5:20 describes a moral confusion and blindness, which cannot distinguish light from darkness.
(c) For the most part, however, light and life go together. It is the product of salvation: "Yahweh is my light and my salvation" (Psalms 27:1). "Light," figuratively used, has to do preeminently with spiritual life, including also the illumination that floods all the faculties of the soul: intellect, conscience, reason, will. In the moral realm the enlightenment of these faculties is dependent wholly on the renewal of the spirit. "In thy light .... we see light" (Psalms 36:9); "The life was the light of men" (John 1:4).
Light is an attribute of holiness, and thus a personal quality. It is the outshining of Deity.
3. An Attribute of Holiness: (1) God. "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). Darkness is the universal symbol and condition of sin and death; light the symbol and expression of holiness. "The light of Israel will be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame" (Isaiah 10:17). God, by His presence and grace, is to us a "marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9). The glory of His holiness and presence is the "everlasting light" of the redeemed in heaven (Isaiah 60:19-20; Revelation 21:23, 14; 22:5).
(2) Christ. Christ, the eternal Word (logos, John 1:1), who said "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3), is Himself the "effulgence of (God's) glory" (Hebrews 1:3), "the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world" (John 1:9) (compare the statements concerning Wisdom in Wisdom of Solomon 7:25 f and concerning Christ in Hebrews 1:3; and see CREEDS ; LOGOS; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY; WISDOM). As the predicted Messiah, He was to be "for alight of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). His birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy (Luke 2:32). Jesus called Himself "the light of the world" (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46); As light He was "God .... manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 the King James Version). "The Word was God" (John 1:1). Jesus as logos is the eternal expression of God as a word is the expression of a thought. In the threefold essence of His being God is Life (zoe) (John 5:26; 6:57); God is Love (agape) (1 John 4:8); God is Light (phos) (1 John 1:5). Thus Christ, the logos, manifesting the three aspects of the Divine Nature, is Life, Love and Light, and these three are inseparable and constitute the glory. which the disciples beheld in Him, "glory as of the only begotten from the Father" (John 1:14). In revealing and giving life, Christ becomes "the light of men" (John 1:4). God gives "the light of the knowledge of (his) glory in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6), and this salvation is called "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Christ is thus the Teacher, Enlightener ("Christ shall give thee light," Ephesians 5:14 the King James Version), Guide, Saviour of men.
(3) Christians. All who catch and reflect the light of God and of Christ are called "light," "lights." (a) John the Baptist: "a burning and a shining light" (John 5:35 the King James Version). It is significant that this pre-Christian prophet was termed luchnos, while the disciples of the new dispensation are called phos (Matthew 5:14): "Ye are the light of the world." (b) Henceforth Christians and saints were called "children of light" (Luke 16:8; John 12:36; Ephesians 5:8), and were expected to be "seen as lights in the world" (Philippians 2:15). (c) The Jew who possessed the law mistakenly supposed he was "a light of them that are in darkness" (Romans 2:19).
(4) The Church. Zion was to "shine" because her `light had come' (Isaiah 60:1). The Gentiles were to come to her light (Isaiah 60:3). Her mission as the enlightener of the world was symbolized in the ornamentations of her priesthood. The Urim of the high priest's breastplate signified light, and the name itself is but the plural form of the Hebrew 'or. It stood for revelation, and thummim for truth. The church of the Christian dispensation was to be even more radiant with the light of God and of Christ. The seven churches of Asia were revealed to John, by the Spirit, as seven golden candlesticks, and her ministers as seven stars, both luminous with the light of the Gospel revelation. In Ephesians, Christ, who is the Light of the world, is the Head of the church, the latter being His body through which His glory is to be manifested to the world, "to make all men see," etc. (Ephesians 3:9-10). "Unto him be the glory in the church" (Ephesians 3:21), the church bringing glory to God, by revealing His glory to men through its reproduction of the life and light of Christ.
4. Symbolism: Light symbolizes: (1) the eye, "The light of the body is the eye" (Matthew 6:22, the King James Version; Luke 11:34); (2) watchfulhess, "Let your lights (the Revised Version (British and American) "lamps") be burning," the figure being taken from the parable of the Virgins; (3) protection, "armor (Romans 13:12), the garment of a holy and Christ-like life; (4) the sphere of the Christian's daily walk, "inheritance of the saints in light" (Colossians 1:12); (5) heaven, for the inheritance just referred to includes the world above in which "the Lamb is the light thereof"; (6) prosperity, relief (Esther 8:16; Job 30:26), in contrast with the calamities of the wicked whose "light .... shall be put out" (Job 18:5); (7) joy and gladness (Job 3:20; Psalms 97:11; 112:4); (8) God's favor, the light of thy countenance" (Psalms 4:6; 44:3; 89:15), and a king's favor (Proverbs 16:15); (9) life (Psalms 13:3; 49:19; John 1:4).
5. Expressive Terms: Expressive terms are: (1) "fruit of the light" (Ephesians 5:9), i.e. goodness, righteousness, truth; (2) "light in the Lord" (Ephesians 5:8), indicating the source of light (compare Isaiah 2:5); (3) "inheritance of the saints in light" (Colossians 1:12), a present experience issuing in heaven; (4) "Father of lights" (James 1:17), signifying the Creator of the heavenly bodies; (5) "marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9), the light of God's presence and fellowship; (6) "Walk in the light" (1 John 1:7), in the light of God's teaching and companionship; (7) "abideth in the light" (1 John 2:10), in love, Divine and fraternal; (8) "Light of the glorious gospel of Christ "; "light of the knowledge of the glory of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4, 6 the King James Version).
Dwight M. Pratt
Light; Lightness
Light; Lightness - lit'-nes: "Light" is used in Scripture, as in ordinary speech, in the sense of what is small, slight, trivial, easy; "lightness" with the connotation of vacillation or lasciviousness. Thus in the Old Testament, "a light thing," a small, easy, slight thing (qalal, 2 Kings 3:18; Isaiah 49:6; Ezekiel 8:17; 22:7, in the last case "to treat slightingly"). "Lightness" (qol) occurs in Jeremiah 3:9 ("the lightness of her whoredom"); in Jeremiah 23:32, the Revised Version (British and American) changes "lightness" (a different word) to "vain boasting." In the New Testament the phrase occurs in Matthew 22:5, "made light of it" (ameleo), i.e. "treated it with neglect"; and Paul asks (2 Corinthians 1:17), "Did I show lightness?" (the Revised Version (British and American) "fickleness"). These examples sufficiently illustrate the meaning.
James Orr
Lightning
Lightning - lit'-ning (baraq, chaziz; astrape): Lightning is caused by the discharge of electricity between clouds or between clouds and the earth. In a thunder-storm there is a rapid gathering of particles of moisture into clouds and forming of large drops of rain. This gathers with it electric potential until the surface of the cloud (or the enlarged water particles) is insufficient to carry the charge, and a discharge takes place, producing a brilliant flash of light and the resulting thunder-clap. Thunder-storms are common in Syria and Palestine during the periods of heavy rain in the spring and fall and are often severe. Lightning is usually accompanied by heavy rainfall or by hail, as at the time of the plague of hail (Exodus 9:24).
See HAIL.
In the Scriptures it is used: (a) indicating the power of God: The power of God is shown in His command of the forces of Nature, and He is the only one who knows the secrets of Nature: "He made .... a way for the lightning" (Job 28:26); "He directeth .... his lightning" (Job 37:3 the King James Version); "Canst thou send forth lightnings, that they may go?" (Job 38:35); "Ask ye of Yahweh .... that maketh lightnings" (Zechariah 10:1). See also Psalms 18:14; 97:4; 135:7; Job 36:32; Jeremiah 10:13; (b) figuratively and poetically: David sings of Yahweh, "He sent .... lightnings manifold, and discomfited them" (Psalms 18:14); used for speed: "The chariots .... run like the lightnings" (Nahum 2:4): "His arrow shall go forth as the lightning" (Zechariah 9:14); "The living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (Ezekiel 1:14). The coming of the kingdom is described by Jesus as the shining of the lightning from one part of heaven to another, even "from the east unto the west" (Matthew 24:27; Luke 17:24); (c) meaning bright or shining: Daniel in his vision saw a man and "his face (was) as the appearance of lightning" (Daniel 10:6). See also Revelation 4:5; 8:5; 16:18.
Alfred H. Joy
Lign-aloes
Lign-aloes - lin-al'-oz, lig-nal'-oz.
See ALOES.
Ligure
Ligure - lig'-ur (Exodus 28:19; 39:12 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "jacinth").
Like; Liken; Likeness; Liking
Like; Liken; Likeness; Liking - lik, lik'-n, lik'-nes, lik'-ing: (1) As a noun, "like" in modern English is virtually obsolete, except in the phrase "and the like," which is not found in English Versions of the Bible. "The like," however, occurs in 1 Kings 10:20 parallel 2 Chronicles 9:19; 1:12; Ezekiel 5:9; 18:10 (the Revised Version (British and American) "any one of these things"--the text is uncertain); Ezekiel 45:25; Joel 2:2; Wisdom of Solomon 16:1 (the Revised Version (British and American) "creatures like those"); Sirach 7:12. "His like" is found in Job 41:33; Sirach 13:15; "their like" in Sirach 27:9. "And such like" (Galatians 5:21) is only slightly archaic, but "doeth not such like" (Ezekiel 18:14) is quite obsolete.
(2) As an adjective "like" is common in the King James Version in such combinations as "like manner" (frequently), "like weight" (Exodus 30:34), "like occupation" (Acts 19:25), etc. Modern English would in most cases replace "like" by "the same," as has been done in 1 Thessalonians 2:14 the Revised Version (British and American) (compare Romans 15:5; Philippians 2:2). So the Revised Version (British and American) has modernized the archaic "like precious faith" of 2 Peter 1:1 by inserting "a" before "like." The King James Version's rendering of 1 Peter 3:21, "the like figure whereunto," could not have been very clear at any time, and the Revised Version (British and American) has revised completely into "after a true likeness" (margin, "in the antitype").
(3) As an adverb "like" is used in Jeremiah 38:9, "He is like to die"; Jonah 1:4, "like to be broken." the Revised Version (British and American) could have used "likely" in these verses. Most common of all the uses of "like" is the quasi-prepositional construction in "He is like a man," etc. This is of course good modern English, but not so when "like" is enlarged (as it usually is in the English Versions of the Bible) into the forms "like to" (Daniel 7:5), "like unto" (very common), "like as" (Isaiah 26:17, etc.). These forms and the simple "like" are interchanged without much distinction, and the Revised Version (British and American) has attempted little systematizing beyond reducing the occurrences of "like as" (compare Matthew 12:13, and the American Standard Revised Version Isaiah 13:4; Jeremiah 23:29).
(4) The verb "like" has two distinct meanings, "be pleased with" and "give pleasure to." The latter sense occurs in Deuteronomy 23:16 (The King James Version, the English Revised Version), "in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best," and in Esther 8:8; Amos 4:5 the King James Version; Sirach 33:13 (the American Standard Revised Version has "pleaseth" in the three Old Testament passages). The other use of "like" belongs also to modern English, although in a much weakened sense. On account of this weakening, 1 Chronicles 28:4 the King James Version, "liked me to make me king" and Romans 1:28 the King James Version "did not like to retain God," have become in the Revised Version (British and American) "took pleasure in" and "refused to" (margin "did not approve"). It would have been better if Deuteronomy 25:7-8, "like not to take," had been modified also into "hath no wish to take." From this use of "like" is derived liking in the modern sense in Wisdom of Solomon 16:21, tempered itself to every man's liking" (the Revised Version (British and American) "choice"). In 1 Esdras 4:39, "All men do well like of her works" is a further obsolete use.
(5) Liken and "make like" are common. To be noted only is that, in Hebrews 7:3, "made like unto the Son of God," the sense really is "likened to," "presented by the writer with the qualities of." Likeness normally means "a copy of," but in Psalms 17:15 it means the actual form itself ("form" in the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin); compare Romans 6:5; 8:3; Philippians 2:7, and perhaps Acts 14:11. Closely allied with likeness" is an obsolete use of "liking" (quite distinct from that above) in Job 39:4 the King James Version the English Revised Version, "Their young ones are in good liking" Daniel 1:10, "see your faces worse liking." The meaning is "appearance," "appearing," and the American Standard Revised Version renders "their young ones become strong," "see your faces worse looking." Likewise varies in meaning from the simple conjunction "and" to a strong adverb, "in exactly the same way." the Revised Version (British and American) has made some attempt to distinguish the various forces (e.g. compare the King James Version with the Revised Version (British and American) in Luke 22:36; 15:7; 22:20). But complete consistency was not attainable, and in certain instances was neglected deliberately, in order to preserve the familiar wording, as in Luke 10:37, "Go, and do thou likewise."
Burton Scott Easton
Likhi
Likhi - lik'-hi (liqchi): A descendant of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 7:19).
Lilith
Lilith - lil'-ith, li'-lith.
See NIGHT-MONSTER.
Lily
Lily - lil'-i (shushan (1 Kings 7:19), shoshannah (2 Chronicles 4:5; Song of Solomon 2:1 f; Hosea 14:5); plural (Song of Solomon 2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2 f; Song of Solomon 7:2; Ecclesiasticus 39:14; 50:8); krinon (Matthew 6:28; Luke 12:27)): The Hebrew is probably a loan word from the Egyptian the original s-sh-n denoting the lotus-flower, Nymphaea lotus. This was probably the model of the architectural ornament, translated "lily-work," which appeared upon the capitals of the columns in the temple porch (1 Kings 7:19), upon the top of the pillars (1 Kings 7:22) and upon the turned-back rim of the "molten sea" (1 Kings 7:26).
Botanically the word shoshannah, like the similar modern Arabic Susan, included in all probability a great many flowers, and was used in a way at least as wide as the popular use of the English word "lily." The expression "lily of the valleys" (Song of Solomon 2:1) has nothing to do with the plant of that name; the flowers referred to appear to have been associated with the rank herbage of the valley bottoms (Song of Solomon 4:5); the expression "His lips are as lilies" (Song of Solomon 5:13) might imply a scarlet flower, but more probably in oriental imagery signifies a sweet-scented flower; the sweet scent of the lily is referred to in Ecclesiasticus 39:14, and in 50:8 we read of "lilies by the rivers of water." The beauty of the blossom is implied in Hosea 14:5, where Yahweh promises that repentant Israel shall "blossom as the lily." A "heap of wheat set about with lilies" (Song of Solomon 7:2) probably refers to the smoothed-out piles of newly threshed wheat on the threshing-floors decorated by a circlet of flowers.
The reference of our Lord to the "lilies of the field" is probably, like the Old Testament references, quite a general one.
The Hebrew and the Greek very likely include not only any members of the great order Liliaceae, growing in Palestine, e.g. asphodel, squill, hyacinth, ornithogalum ("Star of Bethlehem"), fritillaria, tulip and colocynth, but also the more showy irises ("Tabor lilies" "purple irises," etc.) and the beautiful gladioli of the Natural Order. Irideae and the familiar narcissi of the Natural Order Amaryllideae.
In later Jewish literature the lily is very frequently referred to symbolically, and a lotus or lily was commonly pictured on several Jewish coins.
E. W. G. Masterman
Lily-work
Lily-work - The ornament of the capitals on the bronze pillars, Jachin and Boaz, in front of Solomon's temple (1 Kings 7:19, 22).
See LILY; TEMPLE; JACHIN AND BOAZ.
Lime
Lime - lim ((1) sidh; compare Arabic shad, "to plaster"; (2) gir; compare Arabic jir, "gypsum" or "quick-lime"; (3) 'abene-ghir): Sidh is translated "lime" in Isaiah 33:12, "And the peoples shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire," and in Amos 2:1, "He burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime." It is translated "plaster" in Deuteronomy 27:2, "Thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster," also in Deuteronomy 27:4. Gir is translated "plaster" in Daniel 5:5, "wrote .... upon the plaster of the wall." In Isaiah 27:9 we have, "He maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones" ('abhene-ghir).
Everywhere in Palestine limestone is at hand which can be converted into lime. The lime-kiln is a thick-walled, cylindrical or conical, roofless structure built of rough stones without mortar, the spaces between the stones being plastered with clay. It is usually built on the side of a hill which is slightly excavated for it, so that the sloping, external wall of the kiln rises much higher from the ground on the lower side than on the upper. The builders leave a passage or tunnel through the base of the thick wall on the lower side. The whole interior is filled with carefully packed fragments of limestone, and large piles of thorny-burner and other shrubs to serve as fuel are gathered about the kiln. The fuel is introduced through the tunnel to the base of the limestone in the kiln, and as the fire rises through the mass of broken limestone a strong draft is created. Relays of men are kept busy supplying fuel day and night. By day a column of black smoke rises from the kiln, and at night the flames may be seen bursting from the top. Several days are required to reduce the stone to lime, the amount of time depending upon the size of the kiln and upon the nature of the fuel. At the present day, mineral coal imported from Europe is sometimes employed, and requires much less time than the shrubs which are ordinarily used.
See CHALKSTONE; CLAY.
Alfred Ely Day
Limit
Limit - lim'-it (gebhul, "bound"): Occurs once in Ezekiel 43:12 ("limit" of holy mountain). "Limited" (Psalms 78:41) and "limiteth" (horizo, Hebrews 4:7) are changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "provoked" (the margin retains "limited") and "defineth" respectively.
Line
Line - lin (qaw, chebhel): Usually of a measuring line, as Jeremiah 31:39; Ezekiel 47:3; Zechariah 1:16 (qaw); Psalms 78:55; Amos 7:17; Zechariah 2:1 (chebhel). Other Hebrew words mean simply a cord or thread (Joshua 2:18, 21; 1 Kings 7:15; Ezekiel 40:3). In Psalms 19:4 (qaw, "Their line is gone out through all the earth"), the reference is probably still to measurement (the heaven as spanning and bounding the earth), though the Septuagint, followed by Romans 10:18, takes it as meaning a musical cord phthoggos). The "line," as measure, suggests rule of conduct (Isaiah 28:10). For "line" in Isaiah 44:13, the Revised Version (British and American) reads "pencil," margin "red ochre" (seredh), and in 2 Corinthians 10:16, "province," margin "limit" (kanon).
See also MEASURING LINE; WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
James Orr
Lineage
Lineage - lin'-e-aj (patria): Found only once in Luke 2:4 (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "family"), and signifying the line of paternal family descent. A word pregnant in meaning among the Jews, who kept all family records with religious care, as may be seen from the long genealogical records found everywhere in the Old Testament.
Linen
Linen - lin'-en (badh, "white linen," used chiefly for priestly robes, buts, "byssus," a fine white Egyptian linen, called in the earlier writings shesh; pesheth, "flax," cadhin; bussos, othonion, linon, sindon): Thread or cloth made of flax.
1. History: Ancient Egypt was noted for its fine linen (Genesis 41:42; Isaiah 19:9). From it a large export trade was carried on with surrounding nations, including the Hebrews, who early learned the art of spinning from the Egyptians (Exodus 35:25) and continued to rely on them for the finest linen (Proverbs 7:16; Ezekiel 27:7). The culture of flax in Palestine probably antedated the conquest, for in Joshua 2:6 we read of the stalks of flax which Rahab had laid in order upon the roof. Among the Hebrews, as apparently among the Canaanites, the spinning and weaving of linen were carried on by the women (Proverbs 31:13, 19), among whom skill in this work was considered highly praiseworthy (Exodus 35:25). One family, the house of Ashbea, attained eminence as workers in linen (1 Chronicles 4:21; 2 Chronicles 2:14).
2. General Uses: Linen was used, not only in the making of garments of the finer kinds and for priests, but also for shrouds, hangings, and possibly for other purposes in which the most highly prized cloth of antiquity would naturally be desired.
3. Priestly Garments: The robes of the Hebrew priests consisted of 4 linen garments, in addition to which the high priest wore garments of other stuffs (Exodus 28:1-43; Exodus 39:1-43; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; 1 Samuel 22:18; Ezekiel 44:17-18). Egyptian priests are said to have worn linen robes (Herod. ii.37). In religious services by others than priests, white linen was also preferred, as in the case of the infant Samuel (1 Samuel 2:18), the Levite singers in the temple (2 Chronicles 5:12), and even royal personages (2 Samuel 6:14; 1 Chronicles 15:27). Accordingly, it was ascribed to angels (Ezekiel 9:2-3, 11; Ezekiel 10:2, 6-7; Daniel 10:5; Daniel 12:6-7). Fine linen, white and pure, is the raiment assigned to the armies which are in heaven following Him who is called Faithful and True (Revelation 19:14). It is deemed a fitting symbol of the righteousness and purity of the saints (Revelation 19:8).
4. Other Garments: Garments of distinction were generally made of the same material: e.g. those which Pharaoh gave Joseph (Genesis 41:42), and those which Mordecai wore (Esther 8:15; compare also Luke 16:19). Even a girdle of fine linen could be used by a prophet as a means of attracting attention to his message (Jeremiah 13:1). It is probable that linen wrappers of a coarser quality were used by men (Judges 14:12-13) and women (Proverbs 31:22). The use of linen, however, for ordinary purposes probably suggested unbecoming luxury (Isaiah 3:23; Ezekiel 16:10, 13; compare also Revelation 18:12, 16). The poorer classes probably wore wrappers made either of unbleached flax or hemp (Ecclesiasticus 40:4; Mark 14:51). The use of a mixture called sha'aTnez, which is defined (Deuteronomy 22:11) as linen and wool together, was forbidden in garments.
5. Shrouds: The Egyptians used linen exclusively in wrapping their mummies (Herod. ii.86). As many as one hundred yards were used in one bandage. Likewise, the Hebrews seem to have preferred this material for winding-sheets for the dead, at least in the days of the New Testament (Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40; 20:5 ff) and the Talmud (Jerusalem Killayim 9:32b).
6. Hangings: The use of twisted linen (shesh moshzar) for fine hangings dates back to an early period. It was used in the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1; 27:9; Exodus 35:1-35; Exodus 36:1-38; Exodus 38:1-31; Josephus, Ant, III, vi, Exodus 2:1-25), in the temple (2 Chronicles 3:14), and no doubt in other places (Mishna, Yoma', iii.4). Linen cords for hangings are mentioned in the description of the palace of Ahasuerus at Shushan (Esther 1:6).
7. Other Uses: Other uses are suggested, such as for sails, in the imaginary ship to which Tyre is compared (Ezekiel 27:7), but judging from the extravagance of the other materials in the ship, it is doubtful whether we may infer that such valuable material as linen was ever actually used for this purpose. It is more likely, however, that it was used for coverings or tapestry (Proverbs 7:16), and possibly in other instances where an even, durable material was needed, as in making measuring lines (Ezekiel 40:3).
Ella Davis Isaacs
Lintel
Lintel - lin'-tel.
See HOUSE,II , 1, (4).
Linus
Linus - li'-nus (Linos (2 Timothy 4:21)): One of Paul's friends in Rome during his second and last imprisonment in that city. He was one of the few who remained faithful to the apostle, even when most of the Christians had forsaken him. And writing to Timothy when he realized that his execution could not be very far distant--for he was now ready to be offered, and the time of his departure was at hand (2 Timothy 4:6)--he sends greeting to Timothy from four friends whom he names, and Linus is one of them. There is a tradition that Linus was bishop of the church at Rome. "It is perhaps fair to assume, though of course there is no certainty of this, that the consecration of Linus to the government of the Roman church as its first bishop was one of the dying acts of the apostle Paul" (H.D.M. Spence, in Ellicott's New Testament Commentary on 2 Tim).
Irenaeus--bishop of Lyons about 178 AD--in his defense of orthodox doctrine against the Gnostics "appeals especially to the bishops of Rome, as depositories of the apostolic tradition." The list of Irenaeus commences with Linus, whom he identifies with the person of this name mentioned by Paul, and whom he states to have been "entrusted with the office of the bishopric by the apostles ..... With the many possibilities of error, no more can safely be assumed of Linus .... than that he held some prominent position in the Roman church" (Lightfoot's "Dissertation on the Christian Ministry," in Commentary on Phil, 220 f).
"Considering the great rarity of this Greek mythological name as a proper name for persons, we can hardly doubt that here, as Irenaeus has directly asserted, the same Roman Christian is meant who, according to ancient tradition, became after Peter and Paul the first bishop of Rome. Among the mythical characters in Apostolical Constitutions, vii, 46 occurs Linos ho Klaudias, who is declared to have been ordained by Paul as the first bishop of Rome. He is thus represented as the son or husband of the Claudia whose name comes after his in 2 Timothy 4:21.
"These meager statements have been enlarged upon by English investigators. The Claudia mentioned here is, they hold, identical with the one who, according to Martial, married a certain Pudens (85-90 AD), and she, in turn, with the Claudia Rufina from Britain, who is then made out to be a daughter of the British king, Cogidumnus, or Titus Claudius Cogidubnus. For a refutation of these assumptions, which, even chronologically considered, are impossible, see Lightfoot, Clement, I, 76-79" (Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 20).
John Rutherfurd
Lion
Lion - li'-un: (1) Occurring most often in the Old Testament is 'aryeh, plural 'ardyoth. Another form, 'ari, plural 'arayim, is found less often.
1. Names: Compare 'ari'el, "Ariel" (Ezra 8:16; Isaiah 29:1-2, 7); char'el, "upper altar," and 'ari'el, "altar hearth" (Ezekiel 43:15); 'aryeh, "Arieh" (2 Kings 15:25); 'ar'eli, "Areli" and "Arelites" (Genesis 46:16; Numbers 26:17). (2) kephir, "young lion," often translated "lion" (Psalms 35:17; Proverbs 19:12; 23:1, etc.). (3) shachal, translated "fierce lion" or "lion" (Job 4:10; 10:16; 28:8; Hosea 5:14). (4) layish, translated "old lion" or "lion" (Job 4:11; Proverbs 30:30; Isaiah 30:6).
Compare Arabic laith, "lion": layish, "Laish," or "Leshem" (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:7, 14, 27, 29); layish, "Laish" (1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:15). (5) lebhi, plural lebha'im, "lioness"; also labhi', and 'lebhiya' (Genesis 49:9; Numbers 23:24; 24:9); compare town in South of Judah, Lebaoth (Joshua 15:32) or Beth-lebaoth (Joshua 19:6); also Arabic labwat, "lioness "; Lebweh, a town in Coele-Syria. (6) aur, gor, "whelp," with 'aryeh or a pronoun, e.g. "Judah is a lion's whelp," gur 'aryeh (Genesis 49:9); "young ones" of the jackal (Lamentations 4:3). Also bene labhi', "whelps (sons) of the lioness" (Job 4:11); and kephir 'arayoth, "young lion," literally, "the young of lions" (Judges 14:5). In Job 28:8, the King James Version has "lion's whelps" for bene shachats, the Revised Version (British and American) "proud beasts." the Revised Version margin "sons of pride"; compare Job 41:34 (Hebrews 26). (7) leon, "lion" (2 Timothy 4:17; Hebrews 11:33; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 4:7; 5:5; Wisdom of Solomon 11:17; Ecclesiastes 4:16; 13:19; Bel and the Dragon 1:31; 1:32; 1:34). (8) skumnos, "whelp" (1 Maccabees 3:4).
2. Natural History: The lion is not found in Palestine at the present day, though in ancient times it is known to have inhabited not only Syria and Palestine but also Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula, and its fossil remains show that it was contemporary with prehistoric man in Northwestern Europe and Great Britain. Its present range extends throughout Africa, and it is also found in Mesopotamia, Southern Persia, and the border of India. There is some reason to think that it may be found in Arabia, but its occurrence there remains to be proved. The Asiatic male lion does not usually have as large a mane as the African, but both belong to one species, Fells leo.
3. Figurative: Lions are mentioned in the Bible for their strength (Judges 14:18), boldness (2 Samuel 17:10), ferocity (Psalms 7:2), and stealth (Psalms 10:9; Lamentations 3:10). Therefore in prophetical references to the millennium, the lion, with the bear, wolf, and leopard, is mentioned as living in peace with the ox, calf, kid, lamb and the child (Psalms 91:13; Isaiah 11:6-8; 65:25). The roaring of the lion is often mentioned (Job 4:10; Psalms 104:21; Isaiah 31:4 (the Revised Version (British and American) "growling"); Jeremiah 51:38; Ezekiel 22:25; Hosea 11:10). Judah is a "lion's whelp" (Genesis 49:9), likewise Dan (Deuteronomy 33:22). It is said of certain of David's warriors (1 Chronicles 12:8) that their "faces were like the faces of lions." David's enemy (Psalms 17:12) "is like a lion that is greedy of his prey." "The king's wrath is as the roaring of a lion" (Proverbs 19:12). God in His wrath is "unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah" (Hosea 5:14). "The devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8). "Lion" occurs in the figurative language of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. The figures of lions were used in the decorations of Solomon's temple and throne (1 Kings 7:29, 36; 10:19 f).
4. Narrative: Nearly all references to the lion are figurative. The only notices of the lion in narrative are of the lion slain by Samson (Judges 14:5); by David (1 Samuel 17:34 f); by Benaiah (2 Samuel 23:20; 1 Chronicles 11:22); the prophet slain by a lion (1 Kings 13:24; also 1 Kings 20:36); the lions sent by the Lord among the settlers in Samaria (2 Kings 17:25); Daniel in the lions' den (Daniel 6:16). In all these cases the word used is 'aryeh or 'ari.
5. Vocabulary: The Arabic language boasts hundreds of names for the lion. Many of these are, however, merely adjectives used substantively. The commonest Arabic names are sab`, 'asad, laith, and labwat, the last two of which are identified above with the Hebrew layish and labhi'. As in Arabic, so in Hebrew, the richness of the language in this particular gives opportunity for variety of expression, as in Job 4:10-11:
"The roaring of the lion ('aryeh), and the voice of the fierce lion (shachal),
And the teeth of the young lions (kephirim), are broken.
The old lion (layish) perisheth for lack of prey,
And the whelps of the lioness (bene labhi') are scattered abroad."
In Judges 14:5-18, no less than three different terms, kephir 'arayoth, aryeh, and 'ari, are used of Samson's lion.
Alfred Ely Day
Lip
Lip - (saphah, sepheth, "lip," "language," "speech," "talk" (also "rim," "border," "shore," "bank," etc.), sapham, "(upper) lip," "moustache," "beard"; cheilos, "lip" (also once, "shore" in the quotation Hebrews 11:12 = Genesis 22:17)): (1) Lips stand in oriental idiom for speech or language, like "mouth," "tongue"; therefore they stand in parallelism. "The lip of truth shall be established for ever; but a lying tongue is but for a moment" (Proverbs 12:19). "To shoot out the lip" (Psalms 22:7) means to make a mocking, contemptuous, scornful face. As the lips are the chief instrument of speech, we find numerous idiomatic phrases for "speaking," such as: "the utterance of the lips" (Numbers 30:6, 8), "to proceed out of the lips" (Numbers 30:12), "to open the lips" (Job 32:20), "to go out of the lips" (Psalms 17:1). These expressions do not convey, as a rule, the idea that the utterance proceeds merely out of the lips, and that it lacks sincerity and the consent of the heart, but occasionally this is intended, e.g. "This people draw nigh unto me, and with their mouth and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me" (Isaiah 29:13; compare Matthew 15:8). The "fruit of the lips" (Isaiah 57:19 = Hebrews 13:15) and "calves of the lips" (Hosea 14:2 the King James Version) designate the praise and thanksgiving due to God. "Fervent (the King James Version "burning") lips" (Proverbs 26:23) are synonymous with eloquence. "To refrain the lips" (Psalms 40:9; Proverbs 10:19) means to keep silence, where the godless or unwise would wish to assert his rights.
Numerous other expressions need no further explanation, such as "perverse lips" (Proverbs 4:24), "uncircumcised lips" (Exodus 6:12, 30), "feigned lips" (Psalms 17:1), "lying lips" (Psalms 31:18; Proverbs 10:18; 12:22), "wicked (or false) lips" (Proverbs 17:4), "unclean lips" (Isaiah 6:5), "strange (the King James Version "stammering") lips" (Isaiah 28:11), "flattering lips" (Psalms 12:2-3; Proverbs 7:21), "righteous lips" (Proverbs 16:13).
(2) The Hebrew word sapham is found only in the phrase "to cover the lip or lips," which is an expression of mourning, submission and shame. The Oriental covers his lips with his hand or a portion of his garment, when he has been sunk into deep grief and sorrow. He expresses, thereby, that he cannot open his mouth at the visitation of God. Differently, however, from common mourners, Ezekiel was forbidden of God "to cover his lips" (Ezekiel 24:17; see also Ezekiel 24:22), i.e. to mourn in the usual way over Israel's downfall, as Israel had brought these judgments upon himself. The leper, victim of an incurable disease, walks about with rent clothes and hair disheveled, covering his lips, crying: "Unclean, unclean!" (Leviticus 13:45). The thought here is that even the breath of such a one may defile. The prophet calls upon all seers and diviners, to whom God has refused the knowledge of the future, to cover their lips in shame and confusion (Micah 3:7).
H. L. E. Luering
Liquor
Liquor - lik'-er: Every sort of intoxicating liquor except the beverage prepared from the juice of the grape (yayin), according to the usage of the Old Testament, is comprehended under the generic term shekhar (compare shakhar, to "be drunk"), rendered "strong drink" (compare Greek sikera in Luke 1:15). The two terms, yayin and shekhar, "wine" and "strong drink," are often found together and are used by Old Testament writers as an exhaustive classification of the beverages in use among the ancient Hebrews (Leviticus 10:9; 1 Samuel 1:15; Proverbs 20:1, etc.).
See WINE; DRINK, STRONG.
List
List - A variant of "lust" (see LUST), meaning "to wish," found in the King James Version of Matthew 17:12 parallel Mark 9:13; John 3:8, as translation of thelo, and in James 3:4 as translation of boulomai. The last case the English Revised Version has rendered "will," and the American Standard Revised Version has made the same change throughout. The word is obsolete in modern English, but John 3:8 is still used proverbially, "The wind bloweth where it listeth."
Literature, Sub-apostolic, 1
Literature, Sub-apostolic, 1 - lit'-er-a-tur, sub-ap-os-tol'-ik (Christian):
I. EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
1. Authorship and Date
2. Occasion and Contents
3. Apologetic Testimony
4. Doctrinal Testimony
5. Office-Bearers and Organization
6. Ritual
II. THE DIDACHE
1. Disappearance and Recovery
2. Date
3. Standpoint, Authorship and Object
4. Testimony to New Testament Writings
5. Contents and Notabilia
III. EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS
1. Author and Date
2. Genuineness
3. Leading Ideas
4. Other Notabilia
IV. EPISTLES OF POLYCARP
1. Date and Genuineness
2. Occasion and Contents
3. Notabilia
V. PAPIAS FRAGMENTS
1. Author and Date
2. Testimony to Matthew and Mark
3. Other Notabilia
VI. EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
1. Authorship
2. Date
3. Object and Contents
4. Notabilia
VII. PASTOR (SHEPHERD) OF HERMAS
1. Authorship and Date
2. Object and Contents
3. Notabilia
VIII. SECOND EPISTLE OF CLEMENT
1. Nature and Document
2. Date and Authorship
3. Contents
4. Notabilia
IX. APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES
1. Recovery and Date
2. Contents
3. Notabilia
X. JUSTIN MARTYR
1. Incidents of Life
2. First Apology
3. Second Apology
4. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
5. Notabilia
XI. EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS
1. Date and Authorship
2. Contents
LITERATURE
The Sub-apostolic Age is usually held to extend from the death of John, the last surviving apostle, about 100 AD, to the death of Polycarp, John's aged disciple (155-56 AD). The Christian literature of this period, although as a whole of only moderate intrinsic value, is of historical interest and importance. This is owing to the light which it throws back on apostolic times, and the testimony borne to Christian life, thought, worship, work and organization during an age when the church was under the guidance, mainly, of men who had been associated with the apostles and who might be supposed, therefore, to know their mind. Some writings are omitted from this review, having been dealt with in previous articles. For the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS; APOCRYPHAL ACTS. For an account of extant fragments of Basilides and Valentinus, see GNOSTICISM. For pseudo-Clementine writings see PETER,EPISTLES OF ; SIMON MAGUS.
I. Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. 1. Authorship and Date: Only the larger part had previously been extant, when the complete epistle was recovered in 1875 by Bryennios, bishop of Nicomedia. The high honor in which it was held by early Christendom is attested (1) by its position in Codex Alexandrinus, at the end of the New Testament, and in an ancient Syriac MS, between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles; (2) by its being publicly read in many churches down to the 4th century. (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 16). The work is anonymous, but sent in the name of the Roman church. Dionysius of Corinth (170 AD) refers to it as written by the agency of (dia) Clement (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 23); Clement of Alexandria states distinctly the Clementine authorship (Strom., iv.17). The writer is evidently leading office-bearer of his church, and is identified with the Clement whom Eusebius designates as third "bishop" (or chief presbyter) of Rome after Peter, and as holding office between 92 and 101 AD (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 34). Clement is further identified by Origen (Commentary on John) and in HE, III, 15 with the Clement of Philippians 4:3; but the name is too common and the interval too long to render this identity more than possible. Some conjecture the writer to be the consul, Flavius Clemens, whom Domitian (his cousin) put to death in 95 AD for alleged "atheism," i.e. probably, profession of Christianity (see Harnack, Gesch. Lit., I, 253, note 1). But Clement the "bishop" is never otherwise referred to as a martyr, and a member of the imperial family would hardly have been head of the Roman church without so signal a fact being noted by some contemporary or later writer. Lightfoot, with some probability, supposes (Apostolic Fathers, I, 61) that Clement was a "freedman or the son of freedman, belonging to the household of Flavius Clemens." From Paul's time (Philippians 4:22) the imperial household included Christians; and many slaves were men of culture. To such a Christian freedman's influence the consul's conversion may have been due. Internal evidence points to Clement having been a Hellenist Jew or proselyte of Judaism; for he writes with some classical culture and with knowledge of Old Testament history and of the Septuagint; his style, moreover, has a "strong Hebraistic tinge" (Lightfoot, p. 59). The date of the epistle is fixed approximately by a reference to a persecution at Rome in progress or very recent; this persecution (during Clement's "episcopate") was doubtless that by Domitian in 95 AD. Clement's Epistle is thus not strictly within the Sub-apostolic Age, but it is uniformly included in sub-apostolic literature.
2. Occasion and Contents: The occasion was a church feud at Corinth, and the expulsion of some faithful presbyters. The writer seeks to procure their restoration and to heal the dissension. He quotes Old Testament examples of the evil issue of envy and strife, and of the blessedness of humility, submission and concord. He adduces as a pattern the peace and harmony of Nature. In this connection occurs an anticipation of geographical discovery, when the author writes (chapter xx) of "the impassable ocean and the worlds beyond it" (compare Seneca, Medea ii.375; Strabo i.4; Plut. Mor. ix.41). Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians about party spirit are recalled; a not unworthy echo of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is embodied; and the erring community is solemnly monished.
In the course of the letter, with obvious reference to 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, Clement introduces the resurrection, for which he argues from the Old Testament and from natural analogies. He refers to the phoenix which lives 500 years, and, when dissolution approaches, builds a nest of spices into which it enters to die. As the flesh decays, however, a "worm is generated, which is nurtured from the dead bird's moisture and putteth forth wings." The fable is mentioned by Herodotus and Pliny.
A lengthy prayer of intercession for "all sorts and conditions of men" is abruptly introduced near the end, in order, presumably, to imbue Corinthian Christians with that charity which they needed and which is the chief incentive to intercession. The epistle closes with a hopeful anticipation of restored concord and peace.
3. Apologetic Testimony: Apologetic testimony is found to (1) books of the New Testament, namely, to the Pauline authorship of I Corinthians; to Mark's Gospel, through which (chapter xv) he quotes Isaiah 29:13, reproducing Mark's variations from the Septuagint; to Acts, through which he similarly quotes (chapter xviii) 1 Samuel 13:14; to Romans, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter (chapters xxxv, xlvi, xxi, ii, xlvi, xlix, respectively). The parallels between Clement and He are so numerous that the latter work has from early times been ascribed to him by some (Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25). But the general type both of thought and of diction is dissimilar; (2) against the Tubingen theory of essential divergence between the doctrine of Peter and of Paul. The chief presbyter of Rome could not have been ignorant of such divergence; yet he refers the partisanship of which the two apostles were victims entirely to the Corinthians, not at all to the apostles (chapter xlix).
4. Doctrinal Testimony: Doctrinal testimony is found: (1) to the Trinity, "As God liveth and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit" (chapter lviii); (2) to the personality of Christ, "The Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the majesty forever." In union and communion with Christ we have life, are sanctified, possess love, manifest godliness (chapter i, xxxvi); (3) to the atonement: Clement ascribes to Christ's death not merely subjective moral influence, but objective vicarious efficacy in securing our salvation, without any attempt, however, to explain the mystery. Christ hath "given his flesh for our flesh, his life for our lives" (chapter xlix); (4) to justification which is distinctly enunciated as before God through faith (chapter xxxii). But this faith (as in Paul's writings) is a "faith which worketh" (chapter xxxv), and such justification is consistent with our being justified by works before men; (5) to the inspiration of Scripture, which is real ("the Holy Spirit saith"), but not verbal; for quotations are often inexact. Apocryphal books are quoted, but not with a formula indicating Divine authority.
5. Office-Bearers and Organization: (1) The basis of authority is not sacerdotal, but a combination of official succession and popular call; office-bearers are appointed "by the apostles or afterward by men of repute with consent of the whole ecclesia." (2) Clement indicates no distinction between presbyter and bishop. Office-bearers designated as presbyters (chapters xlvii, liv) are referred to (chapters xlii, xliv) as filling the office of bishop. Addressing a church on congregational strife and insubordination, he refers to no single bishop in authority over the church. Had the episcopate, in the post-New Testament sense of mono-episcopate, been apostolically enjoined, surely the injunction would have been obeyed or enforced in Corinth. (3) None the less we discern in Clement's own position and action the anticipation of the later episcopate. Clement is an example of how, through the personal qualities and ecclesiastical services of the man, the status of presiding presbyter developed out of seniority into superiority, out of representativeness into official authority. (4) The early germ of the papacy is disclosed in the passage: "If certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and peril" (chapter lix). Such assumption by a revered man like Clement might give no offense, and the Corinthians plainly needed correction. Still we have here the first stage in the process which ultimately issued in the Roman claim to universal spiritual supremacy. The assumption, however, is not grounded on Clement's own official position (he speaks always in the 1st person plural), but on the superior dignity of the Roman church. The later theory of supremacy builds Roman authority on the primacy of Peter and his successors; but here the authority of the leading presbyter, in dealing with a provincial church, rests on the suggested primacy of the ecclesia in which he presides.
6. Ritual: (1) The long prayer (chapters lix-lxi) bears internal evidence of liturgical character, through its balanced and rhythmical style, its somewhat remote relevance to the special object of the ep., and greater suitability for congregational worship, than as part of a counsel to a sister church. This internal testimony is confirmed by the correspondence of the prayer in certain verbal details with the earliest extant liturgies, particularly those of Mark and James, pointing to the early use in the Roman church of forms of prayer afterward incorporated into these liturgies. While there is evidence that down at least to the time (148 AD) of Justin's 1st Apology (chapter lxvii) a minister offered up prayers of his own composition, this prayer of Clement's Epistle indicates that before the close of the Apostolic Age, forms of supplication had begun to be introduced, not to the exclusion of "free prayer," but simply as a mode of congregational devotion countenanced by a venerated leader of the church at Rome. (2) In chapter lvi Clement writes about "compassionate remembrance of them (i.e. the erring brethren) before God and the saints." By the saints, however, are most probably meant, not the beatified dead, but the living Christian brotherhood, as in 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 8:4.
This epistle leaves on readers' minds two different yet mutually compatible impressions--impressions both apparently made on the early church, by which the letter was widely read at public worship and yet excluded from the Canon of Scriptures. We realize, on the one hand, the inferiority of this writing to epistles of apostles. Clement's mind is receptive, not creative; and the freshness of thought characteristic of New Testament writers is absent. What New Testament book, moreover, contains such a foolish legend as that of the phoenix? On the other hand, this epistle breathes much of the spirit, as it adopts in considerable measure the phraseology and style of apostolic writings. It is as if, although the sun of special inspiration had sunk below the horizon, there remained to the church for a while a spiritual afterglow.
II. The "Didache"
1. Disappearance and Recovery: The "Didache" or Teaching (longer title, "The Teaching of the Lord, by (dia) the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles").--This work is quoted as "Scripture," without being named, by Clement of Alexandria (circa 170 AD, in Strom., i.20). It is mentioned in HE, III, 25 as the "Teachings so-called of the Apostles," "recognized by most ecclesiastical writers," although "not a genuine" composition of apostles. Athanasius (Fest. Epistle, 39) denies its canonicity, but acknowledges its utility. The latest ancient reference to the work from personal knowledge is by Nicephoros (9th century) who includes it among apocryphal writings. Thenceforth it disappears until its recent recovery in 1875 by Bryennios.
2. Date: There is no reliable external testimony to date. Resemblances too considerable to be accidental exist between the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas; but opinion is divided as to priority of composition. Lightfoot and others favor a common lost source. As to internal evidence the simplicity of the Eucharist and of baptism as here described, with no formal admission to the catechumenate (chapter vii); the use of "bishop" to denote the same office-bearer as presbyter; and the expectation of an impending Second Advent--point to an early date. On the other hand it is unlikely that a writing which professes to give the Teaching of the Twelve would be issued until all or most apostles had passed away; and the writer seems to be acquainted with writings of John (Didache, ix.2; x.2; x.5; see Schaff, Oldest Church Manual, 90). Probably the document went through a series of recensions (Harnack in Sch-Herz; Bertlet in DB, V), and the date or dates of composition may be put between 80 and 120 AD.
3. Standpoint, Authorship and Object: The work does not profess to be written by apostles; but the author seems to be a Jewish Christian, for he calls Friday "Preparation Day," and the style and diction are Hebraic. The work is neither Judaistic nor Ebionite: circumcision, the Sabbath, and special Mosaic observances, are ignored. From the book in whole or in part being addressed specially, although not exclusively, to Gentiles, we infer that the community among whom it was composed, while mainly Jewish Christian, made special provision for conversion and instruction of Gentiles. The doctrinal standpoint is neither Pauline nor anti-Pauline, but resembles that of Jas. Canon Spence (Teaching) conjectures plausibly that the author may be Simeon, cousin of James the Lord's brother, who became chief presbyter of the Jewish Christian community, first at Jerusalem, afterward at Pella, until his martyrdom in 107 AD.
4. Testimony to New Testament Writings: Mt was certainly in the writer's hands; for the Didache contains 22 quotations from, or reminiscences of, that Gospel, extending over ten chapters of it. Particularly notable is Didache, viii.2, "Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel; after this manner pray ye, Our Father," etc. (see also vii.1; ix.5; xvi.6). There are also references to the Gospel of Luke (Didache, iii.5, 16); John's writings (see above); Acts (Didache, iv.8), Romans (Didache, iv.5), 2 Thess (Didache, xiv.1), 1 Pet (Didache, i.4). No extra-canonical saying of our Lord is recorded.
5. Contents and Notabilia: The contents and notabilia may be examined as follows:
(1) Didactic (Chapters i through vi): Intended for catechumens in preparation for baptism. This catechetical manual (the earliest of its kind) opens with the words: "There are two ways: one of life and one of death" (suggested probably by Jeremiah 21:8). From this text the writer gives a summary of Christian duty especially toward our neighbor, based on the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount, which is frequently quoted.
Among notable precepts is a command to fast as well as pray for enemies; a warning against infanticide which, in the case of sickly infants, heathenism approved, and against augury and astrology as generating idolatry; an admonition not to" stretch out one's hands for receiving and to draw them in for giving"; an injunction to " share all things with thy brethren, and not to say that they are thine own"; a command to "love some above thine own life"; and a quaint corrective against indiscriminate and ill-informed beneficence: "Let thine alms sweat into thy hands until thou know to whom thou shouldest give." A precept to "give with thy hands a ransom for sin" may not mean more than that sinful habits are subdued by good works, but it suggests and paves the way for the error of the atoning efficacy of almsgiving. The summary of duty relates chiefly to the second Table of the Law; duty toward God is afterward (so far) dealt with under "worship." This may account for obedience to parents being strangely omitted; for among the Jews the Fifth Commandment was included in the First Table.
(2) Devotional: Worship and Rites (Chapters vii through x, xiv).
The Lord's Prayer is to be used thrice a day. "Heaven" and "debt" are found instead of "heavens" and "debts." The Doxology is added (with "kingdom" omitted)--its earliest recorded use in this connection. Christians are to fast on Wednesday and Friday, the days of the betrayal and crucifixion. Fasting is enjoined for a day or two before baptism, both on baptizer and on baptized; it is recommended to "others who can." There is no mention of oil, salt, or exorcism. The baptismal formula, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," is commanded, confirming the historical trustworthiness of Matthew 28:19. Triple immersion in "living water" is assumed to be normal; but where this is impracticable, other water and affusion are permitted (see TRINE IMMERSION). The Lord's Supper is dealt with only on its eucharistic side, the writer's object being not to expound the nature of the rite, but to give models of thanksgiving.
The phrase, "after being filled give thanks," suggests that the Agape was still associated with the sacrament: the dissociation had begun when Pliny wrote to Trajan in 112 AD. A liturgical element in sacramental worship is indicated by the prescription of forms of thanksgiving for the cup, the broken bread, and spiritual mercies. "Give thanks thus." The thanksgiving for the cup is as follows: "We give thanks to thee our Father, for the holy vine of David, thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus Christ." But nothing suggests that the entire service is liturgical, and the forms supplied are not rigidly imposed; for prophets are to offer thanks in such terms as they choose. On the Lord's Day congregational worship and eucharistic bread-breaking, after confession to God and reconciliation with men, are distinctly enjoined.
(3) Ecclesiastical (Chapters xi through xiii, xv).
Of church office-bearers, two classes are mentioned, ordinary and extraordinary. Of the former (essential to congregational organization) only bishops and deacons are mentioned, i.e. those entrusted with rule and oversight, with their assistants. Presbyter and bishop appear to be still identical, as the former is not specified (compare Philippians 1:1). Popular election of these functionaries is indicated: "Elect for yourselves"; without denial, however, of those already in office having a share in the settlement. In the second class, apostles, prophets and teachers are included. "Apostle" is used, not in the narrower sense of men called to the office personally by Christ, but in the wider sense which embraces all whose call to be His ambassadors has been signalized by Divine gifts-specially accredited evangelists unconnected with any particular community. (Among Jewish Christians the designation survived to the 4th century, for the Theodosian Code of that period refers to Jewish presbyters and to those "quos ipsi apostolos vocant.") These apostles were to be received as the Lord," and hospitably entertained; but, unlike apostles in the special sense, they were not to remain anywhere longer than "one or two days." Their function was to scatter the seed widely, and any expression of desire to remain longer was to be discouraged, while a demand for salary from a particular community would be evidence of false apostleship. The special function of prophets and teachers, on the other hand, was the instruction and comfort of church members. They accordingly might be encouraged to settle in a community and receive "first-fruits" for their support. These prophets and teachers, however, were not to supersede the "bishops" or presbyters in ruling, but were to undertake only those functions for which they were specially qualified. On the other hand, bishops and deacons were not to be excluded from preaching and teaching by the settlement of prophets and official teachers in particular communities; and in the Didache may be traced the transition, then being gradually accomplished, of the preaching and teaching functions from extraordinary to ordinary office-bearers. "They also (the bishops and deacons) minister to you the ministry of prophets and teachers: therefore despise them not." Even before the close of Paul's ministry, the episkopos, whose essential function was rule and oversight, was expected, if not required, also to be didatikos, "qualified to teach," i.e. along with teachers specially set apart for the purpose (1 Timothy 3:2; 5:17). By the middle of the 2nd century, the prophets had disappeared, and their preaching function had been vested in the office of bishop or presbyter, assisted by the diaconate.
(4) Eschatological (Chapter xvi). This concluding section consists chiefly of exhortations to watchfulness in view of the Second Advent. The premonitory signs of that Coming are given, with reminiscences from Christ's eschatological discourses, namely, rise of false prophets, decline of love, persecution, lawlessness, and the appearance of Antichrist, who is designated the World-deceiver. Without definitely stating chiliastic doctrine, the writer suggests it; for in referring to the immediate signals of Christ's advent (opening in heaven, voice of trumpet, resurrection of dead) he is careful to add "Not of all the dead; but the Lord shall come, and all the saints with Him"--implying that the general resurrection would take place at an after-stage, presumably, as Millennialists held, after the 1,000 years had expired. Without dogmatic authority, and with only moderate spiritual value, the Didache is important historically as a witness to the church's beliefs, usages and condition during the transition between the Apostolic and the Post-apostolic Age. During that transition period, we see much of the freedom of primitive Christianity mingled with rudiments of ecclesiastical regulations and formularies; and while we cannot assume that every belief and usage recorded in the Didache were sanctioned by apostles, we may reasonably ascribe them to apostolic times, and regard them as not opposed by those apostles within whose view they must have come.
III. Epistles of Ignatius. 1. Author and Date: Ignatius was bishop of Antioch early in the 2nd century Origen (Hom. vi on Luke) refers to him as "second after Peter"; Euodius came between (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 22). As he calls himself ektroma, "untimely born" (compare 1 Corinthians 15:8), he was probably converted in mature life: the legend of his being the "child" of Matthew 18:3 rests on misinterpretation of his designation "Theophotos." Traditions current in the 4th century represent him as a disciple of John (Eusebius, Chron.) and ordained by Paul (Apostolical Constitutions, vii.46).
The Martyrium of Ignatius (6th century) dates his trial at Antioch in the 9th year of Trajan's reign (107-8 AD) and represents it as conducted before the emperor. Only one visit, however, of Trajan to Antioch is known, in 114-15; neither any Ignatian letter nor Eusebius, nor any other early writer refers to so memorable a circumstance as the presidency of an emperor over a Christian's trial, and Ignatius speaks of a proposed attempt by Roman friends to secure a reversal of the sentence, which would have been impossible had Trajan personally pronounced it. His alleged presence, therefore, must be rejected as a later embellishment.
The epistles, so far as genuine, were written after Ignatius' condemnation, on his way to martyrdom at Rome.
2. Genuineness: The epistles are extant in 3 editions: (1) the longer Greek, of 15 letters now admitted to be largely spurious; (2) a Syriac recension of three letters, now generally held to be a mere epitome; (3) the shorter Greek edition, containing 7 letters of intermediate length, to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, Romans, and Polycarp. Lightfoot, Zahn, and most recent critics accept the substantial genuineness of these seven. The chief external evidence is that of Polycarp (Phil., xiii), who, soon after Ignatius' death, writes of a letter addressed to himself, of another to the Smyrneans, and of "all the rest which we have by us." Now 2 Ignatian epistles are addressed to Polycarp and the Christians of Smyrna, while 4 profess to be written by Ignatius at Smyrna, harmonizing well with copies of these being in Polycarp's possession.
Further external evidence is supplied by Irenaeus (v.29) who quotes a saying from Ignat., Romans, iv, as that of a martyr, and who uses 8 notable phrases borrowed apparently from Ignatius. This external testimony (only got rid of by an arbitrary assumption of Polycarp's Epistle being wholly or partly spurious) is supported by strong internal and cumulative evidence:
(1) Frequent Grammatical Dislocation: Natural in letters written on a journey but unaccountable on the supposition of a later forgery (Rom., i; Mag., ii; Eph., i).
(2) Geographical Particulars: E.g. Ignatius goes by land from Antioch to Smyrna--an unusual route which a forger would hardly invent.
(3) Historical Illustrations: E.g. conveyance of prisoners from distant provinces to Rome harmonizes with the account by Dion Cassius (lxviii.15) of the magnitude of amphitheatrical exhibitions under Trajan causing extensive orders for human victims from all parts.
(4) Theological Evidence: E.g. these epistles refer to Judaistic error combined with a type of doctrine denying any real incarnation--a combination which ceased after Ignatius' time.
(5) Ecclesiastical Usage: Thus, the Agape still includes the Eucharist (Smyr., viii), whereas soon after Ignatius' death these were separated (Pliny, Epistle 96; Just., 1 Ap., 65,67).
(6) Personal References. The writer shows an excess and affectation of self-depreciation--"last of Antiochene Christians" (Trall., xiii) "not worthy to be counted one of the brotherhood" (Rom., ix)--such as a later forger would hardly have introduced.
3. Leading Ideas: (1) Joy and Glory of Martyrdom. Heroic courage and loyalty to Christ are united with fanatical craving after a martyr's death: "I would rather die for Christ than reign over the whole earth" (Rom., vi); "He who is near the sword is near to God" (Smyr., iv). This is noble; but when he writes, "Entice wild beasts to become my sepulchre" (Rom., iv); "May I have joy of the wild beasts and find them prompt"; "Though they be unwilling I will force them" (Rom., iv.5), we realize how Aurelius (recalling perhaps some such case) was moved to write that "death was to be encountered, not as by the Christians like a military display, but solemnly, and not as if one acted in a tragedy" (Med. xi.3).
(2) Evil and Peril of Heresy and Schism. "Abstain from heresy"; "These heretics mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison" (Trall., vi); "Flee those evil outshoots, which produce death-bearing fruit" (Trall., xi); "Avoid all divisions as the beginning of evils"; "Nothing is better than unity" (To Polyc., i; Phil., iii).
(3) Submission to Office-Bearers, Especially to the Bishop.
"Do nothing without your bishop, and be subject to the presbyters" (Mag., vii); "Be on your guard against heresy: and this will be, if ye continue in intimate union with Christ and with the bishop"; "He who does anything without the bishop's knowledge serveth the devil" (Smyr., ix). The bishop here is higher than "primus inter pares"; he is a new and separate office-bearer. Yet, without going beyond these epistles, we discern that such an episcopate was not an express apostolic institution. For had Ignatius been able to magnify the office as apostolically enjoined, so zealous a champion of episcopal authority would have adduced such injunction as the most cogent reason for submission. His zeal for the episcopate apparently sprang only from its high ecclesiastical expediency as the most effective agency for maintaining the church's unity against heresy and schism.
4. Other Notabilia: (1) References to the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John is never quoted, but numerous phrases suggest that it was in the writer's hands. He speaks of Christ "proceeding from the Father," "doing nothing without the Father," "in all things pleasing Him who sent Him." Christ is the "Door of the Father" and "Living water." Satan is the" Prince of this world." "The Holy Spirit knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth."
(2) Doctrine. Ignatius asserts emphatically Christ's true Divinity: "Our God" (Eph., xviii; Trall, vii). The Trinity is frequently suggested, although not expressly affirmed. Christians are "established in the Son, the Father, and the Spirit"; "subject to Christ and the Father, and the Spirit." With strong support of episcopal authority no sacerdotalism is united. "Priest" occurs only once, "The priests are good: but Christ, the High Priest, is better." Here, as the context shows, the imperfect Levitical priesthood is contrasted with perfect high-priesthood of Christ.
(3) Ecclesiastical Usage. Ignatius contains one of the latest references to the Agape as still conjoined with the Eucharist. The letter to Polycarp (chapter iv) contains the earliest allusion to the practice of redeeming Christian slaves at the cost of the congregation. Slaves are not to "long to be set free," thus implying that such emancipation, while not required as a duty, was often conferred as a privilege.
(4) General Characteristics. Ignatius presents striking contrast, as a writer, to Clement. Clement is calm, cultured, chaste in diction, but somewhat commonplace and deficient in originality; his best passages are echoes of Scripture. The diction and style of Ignatius are impassioned, rugged, turgid, but pithy, fresh and individualistic.
IV. Epistles of Polycarp. 1. Date and Genuineness: Polycarp was born not later, perhaps considerably earlier, than 70 AD; for at his martyrdom, of which the now accepted date is 155 or 156 (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II, i, 629), he declared, when invited to abjure his faith, that he had "served Christ for 86 years" (Mart. Pol., ix). He was disciple of John, who ordained him as bishop or leading presbyter of Smyrna before 100 AD (Iren., iii.3, 4). Of several letters by Polycarp, only this epistle remains: it professes (chapter xiii) to have been written soon after the martyrdom of Ignatius. The genuineness of the letter is attested by Irenaeus, Polycarp's own disciple (in the place cited), whose evidence cannot be set aside on the ground of its testimony to the Ignatian letters without an obvious begging of the question. The supposition that the Ignatian letters and Polycarp's Epistle are parts of one great forgery is otherwise negatived by the very marked difference of style and standpoint between those writings (Lightfoot, l.c., 577).
2. Occasion and Contents: The epistle replies to a letter from the Philippian church inviting his counsel, and asking for epistles of the recently martyred Ignatius. He acknowledges their kind ministry to that martyr and to others, "entwined with saintly fetters," who had "set a pattern of all patience." He sends what he has of the letters of Ignatius and asks in return for any information which they might possess. He commends to their careful study Paul's epistle to themselves, acknowledging his inability to attain to the apostle's wisdom. With much Scripture language, interwoven with his own matter, and giving to his letter the semblance of an apostolic echo, he exhorts his readers to righteousness and godliness, charity and mercy, and warns them against covetousness, evil-speaking and revenge. He dwells on the mutual relations and obligations of presbyters and deacons, on the one hand, and of the congregation on the other. He repeats John's admonition against teachers who denied the reality of the incarnation: "Every spirit that confesseth not," etc. (1 John 4:3). He grieves over the lapse of a Philippian presbyter, Valens, who, along with his wife had flagrantly sinned; but he bids his readers not count such as enemies, but seek to recall them from their wanderings.
3. Notabilia: (1) Polycarp mentions only one book of the New Testament, namely, Philippians, but within the brief compass of 200 lines he quotes verses or reproduces phrases from 12 New Testament writings, Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John, and 9 Pauline Epistles, including three whose early date has been disputed in modern times (1 and 2 Timothy and Ephesians). The absence of any quotation from the Gospel of John is notable, considering his relation to the apostle; but the shortness of the letter prevents any conclusion being drawn against the authenticity of that Gospel; and he quotes (as we have seen) from 1 John, which is a kind of appendix to the Gospel (Lightfoot).
(2) At a time when Ignatius had been emphasizing the paramount duty of submission to the bishop, Polycarp, even when enjoining subjection to presbyters, does not mention a bishop. These two inferences are irresistible: (a) there was then no episkopos, in the post-New Testament, sense, at Philippi; (b) Polycarp did not consider the defect (?) sufficiently important to ask the Philippians to supply it. Had John instituted the mono-episcopate as the one proper form of church government, surely his disciple Polycarp would have embraced the opportunity, when the Philippians invited his counsel, to inform them of the apostolic ordinance, and to enjoin its adoption.
Continued in LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC, 2.
Literature, Sub-apostolic, 2
Literature, Sub-apostolic, 2 - Continued from LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC, 1.
V. Papias Fragments. 1. Author and Date: Papias is called by his younger contemporary Irenaeus (v.33) a "disciple of John and friend of Polycarp." Eusebius writes (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 36) that he was episkopos of Hierapolis in Phrygia. The Chronicon Paschale (7th century, but embodying materials from older documents) states that he was martyred about the same time as Polycarp (155-56). His work, Exposition of our Lord's Sayings, was extant in the 13th century, but only fragments quoted by Irenaeus, Eusebius, etc., remain. These bear out the twofold description of Papias by Eusebius, as a "man of little judgment" yet "most learned and well acquainted with the Scriptures" (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39, 36). (But the words of praise in verse 36 may be a gloss.) Papias states that he subjoins to his expositions "whatsoever I learned carefully from the elders and treasured up in my memory .... I was wont to put questions regarding the words of the elders (i.e. presumably men of an earlier generation), what Andrew or Peter said, or what Philip or Thomas, or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples said, as well as regarding what Aristion, and the presbyter John, the disciple of the Lord, have to say."
It is disputed whether Papias here refers to two Johns, the apostle and another disciple of the same name; or to John the apostle in two different relations, i.e. first as one about whose testimony Papias heard from others, and second, as one with whom, also, he held personal communication. In favor of the first view is, (1) Eusebius' own opinion (in the place cited); (2) the alleged unlikelihood of the same John being twice mentioned in one sentence; (3) a statement by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39) that in his day two monuments (mnemata) of "John" existed at Ephesus. For the latter view is, (1) no other writer until Eusebius hints the existence of a presbyter John distinct from the apostle; (2) the change in the quotation from "said" to "say" seems to give a reason for John being twice mentioned; some things stated by John having been heard by Papias through "elders," others having been told him by the apostle himself. The fact that John is called presbyter, instead of apostle, is no insuperable objection, since John so designates himself in 2 John and 3 John; and Jerome denies that the two mnemata were both tombs. See Lightfoot, Essay on Papias, and Nicol, Four Gospels, 187 if, who come to divergent conclusions.
2. Testimony to Matthew and Mark: On the testimony to Matthew and Mark see MATTHEW,THE GOSPEL OF ; MARK,THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO .
3. Other Notabilia: (1) According to Eusebius, Papias relates the story of "a woman accused before our Lord"--the story, presumably, which eventually crept into John 8:1-59; so that to him, in part, is due the preservation of a narrative, which, whether historical or not, finely illustrates the union in our Lord of holy purity and merciful charity.
(2) Papias is quoted by the Chronicler Georgius Hamartolos (in a manuscript of the 9th century) as declaring in his Expositon that John "was put to death by the Jews," and a similar quotation is made by Philip of Side (Epitome manuscript of the 7th-8th centuries). On the bearing of this upon the question of the apostle's residence at Ephesus see JOHN,THE APOSTLE .
(3) Irenaeus (v.32) quotes Papias as writing about a Post-resurrection millennium, and as reporting, on John's authority, how the Lord said, "The days will come when vines shall grow having each 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000 twigs, and on each twig 10,000 shoots," etc. This may be an exaggerated record (misunderstood by Papias) of some parabolic utterance of Christ, indicating prophetically the wonderful extension of the church.
VI. Epistle of Barnabas. 1. Authorship: This book is first expressly quoted by Clement of Alexandria (circa 190 AD) as the composition of Barnabas, companion of Paul (Strom., ii.6). Origen concurs, and calls it a "Catholic ep." (Con. Celsum, i.63), thus suggesting canonical position; Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25) testifies to the widespread ascription of it to this Barnabas, although he himself regards it as "spurious." Codex Sinaiticus places it immediately after the New Testament, as being read in churches, and thus suggests its composition by a companion at least of apostles. Against this external testimony, however, to authorship by the Barnabas of Acts, is strong internal evidence: (1) apostolic sinfulness prior to discipleship is spoken of in exaggerated terms hardly credible in a writer who knew the Twelve--"exceedingly lawless beyond all (ordinary) sin" (chapter v)--an echo apparently of Paul's "sinners of whom I am chief"; (2) ignorance of Jewish rites incomprehensible in a Levite who had lived in Jerusalem, e.g. the priests are said to eat goat's flesh on the great Day of Atonement; (3) extreme anti-Judaism (see below), inconsistent with the representation of Barnabas in Acts and Galatians. The writer may have been some other Barnabas, a converted Alexandrian Jew, or, more probably, a converted Gentileproselyte, trained in Philo's school, but ignorant of Jewish rites as practiced at Jerusalem, and possessing little real sympathy with Judaism.
2. Date: The epistle must be dated after 70 AD, as the destruction of Jerusalem is referred to (chapter xvi); also after the publication of the Gospel of Jn, of which there are several reminiscences. But the absence of any reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Hadrian, in 120 AD, in a passage (chapter xvi) where such allusion might have been expected, suggests a date prior to that year. We may place the writing between 90 and 120 AD.
3. Object and Contents: The object is to deter both Jewish and Gentile Christians from Judaistic lapse by a bold application of the allegorizing method to the Old Testament, far beyond what Philo would have sanctioned. Jewish sacrifices, festivals, Sabbath enactments, temple-worship, distinction of clean and unclean food, are not only not of perpetual obligation, but never were binding at all, even on Jews. Belief in their obligatoriness rests on a slavishly liberal exegesis of the Old Testament, which, properly interpreted, is not a preparation for Christ but Christianity itself in allegorical disguise.
Ceremonies are simply allegorical enforcements of spiritual worship; distinctions of clean and unclean are merely pictorial representations of the necessity of separation from vice and vicious men; interdict of swine's flesh means no more than "associate not with swinish men." The only circumcision really commanded by God is circumcision of the heart. Barnabas ignores what Paul realized, that Jewish laws and rites, even literally interpreted, are a Divine discipline of wholesome self-restraint, neighborly consideration and obedience to God. Barnabas not only explains away Old Testament enactments, but finds in trivial Old Testament statements Christian fact and truth. Thus, in Abraham's circumcision of the 318 men of his house, the 10 and 8 are significantly denoted by the Greek letters "I" and "H", the initial letters of Iesous (Jesus); while the 300 represented by the Greek "T", points to the cross. The writer self-complacently intimates that "no one has been admitted by me to a more genuine piece of knowledge than this!" (chapter ix).
When Barnabas, however, leaves obscure allegory for plain exhortation, he writes effectively of the "two ways" of light and darkness. Among edifying admonitions the following are outstanding: "Thou shalt not go to prayer with an evil conscience"; "Thou shalt not let the word of God issue from lips stained with impurity"; "Be not ready to stretch forth thine hands to take, while thou contractest them to give"; "Thou shalt not issue orders with bitterness to thy servant, lest thou fail in reverence to God who is above you both"; "Thou shalt not make a schism, but shalt bring together them who contend"; "The way of darkness is crooked"; "In this way are (among others mentioned) those who labor not to aid him who is overdone with toil" (chapters xix, xx).
4. Notabilia: (1) The Divinity of Christ is emphasized: "Lord of all the world"; "Joint Creator, with the Father, of mankind" (chapter v). (2) The writer, while following the Alexandrian method of allegorical interpretation, is free from the Alexandrian doctrine of the essential evil of matter; the necessity of a real incarnation is affirmed (chapter v). (3) In chapter xi, he writes, "We go down into the water full of sins and filth, and come up bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit." This has been interpreted as involving the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; but the reference may be rather to the regeneration which baptism symbolizes. (4) In chapter xv, the words, "We keep the 8th day with joy, the day on which Jesus rose again," are the earliest express testimony that the observance of the Lord's Day was a memorial of our Lord's resurrection. This observance is distinguished from Jewish Sabbath-keeping which is called an error; the Sabbath really intended to be kept being a period of 1,000 years after the 6,000 years in which all things will be finished (chapter xv). (5) Testimony to New Testament Books, (a) the existence and canonical authority of the Gospel of Mt are attested (chapter iv) by the quotation of Matthew 22:14, "Many are called, but few chosen," introduced by the formula, "It is written"; (b) various passages taken together testify to the writer having the Gospel of John in his hands: "Whoso eateth of these shall live for ever" (chapter xi and John 6:58); "Abraham looking before in Spirit to Jesus" (chapter ix and John 8:58); "the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ" (chapter ii and John 13:34); a reference to the brazen serpent as a type of Christ's suffering, glory and healing power (chapter xii and John 3:14); (c) "Thou shalt not say that anything is thine own" (chapter xix) appears to be a reminiscence of Acts 4:32; (d) the passage in xv, "The day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years," seems to be an echo of 2 Peter 3:8, and, if so, is the earliest testimony to the existence of that writing, and thus proves its great antiquity, although not its canonicity.
VII. Pastor (Shepherd) of Hermas. 1. Authorship and Date: This work is the earliest example, on a large scale, of Christian allegory, and was hardly less popular in the early church than the Pilgrim's Progress in later times. It was reckoned by many almost, by some altogether, as "Scripture." Irenaeus quotes it as "Scripture" (iv.20); Clement of Alexandria refers to it as "containing revelations Divinely imparted" (Strom., i.29); Origen regards it as "Divinely inspired" (Commentary on Romans 16:14). It is placed with the Epistle of Barnabas in the Codex Sinaiticus at the close of the New Testament, and was read in many churches down to Jerome's time (Works, II, 846). The writer represents himself as a slave sold to a Roman Christian lady. He afterward obtained freedom, lived with his family in Rome, became earnestly religious, and saw visions which he imparted the community in this book with a view to repentance and spiritual well-being.
Origen (followed by Eusebius, Jerome, etc.) ascribes the work to the Hermes of Romans 16:14; but his opinion is pure conjecture (puto). The Canon Muratori (170 AD) of Italian authorship describes the work as "recently composed at Rome by the brother of Plus during the latter's episcopate" (137-54). This distinct local testimony has been widely accepted (Hefele, Lightfoot, Charteris, Cruttwell, etc.). Yet the writer represents himself (Vision, ii.4) as enjoined to send his book to Clement as man in authority in the church, whom it is natural to identify with the chief presbyter of Rome between 92 and 101. This reference, along with the absence of any allusion to Gnosticism or to the mono-episcopate, has led Schaff, Zahn, and others to fix the date of the work at about 100 AD. The external and internal evidence, thus apparently divergent, may be reconciled by supposing (with Kruger and Harnack) that the book was not "written in a single draft"; that portions were issued successively during Clement's episcopate; and that under Plus (circa 140) the separate issues were gathered into a volume under the title of The Pastor. In Rome, where the author was known, the Canon Muratori attested at once its religious usefulness as a "book to be read" and the absence of any claim to canonical authority.
2. Object and Contents: The purpose of the book is not doctrinal but ethical; it is an allegorical manual of Christian duty with earnest calls to individual repentance and church revival in view of the near Advent.
The book consists of (1) Five Visions, (2) Twelve Mandates, (3) Ten Similitudes or Parables. In (1) the church appears' to the writer as a venerable matron, then as a tower near completion, thereafter as a Holy Virgin. In the last vision, the Angel of Repentance, in pastoral garb, delivers to him the Mandates and Similitudes. The Mandates deal with chastity, truth, patience, meekness, reverence, prayer, penitence, and warn against grieving the Spirit. In the similitudes the church is again a tower whose stones are examined for approbation or reprobation. Similitudes are also drawn from trees. The vine clinging to the elm signifies union of rich and poor in the church; a large willow from which a multitude receive branches or twigs, some of these blossoming or fruit-bearing, others dry or rotten, symbolizes the diverse effect of law and gospel on different souls. The author, although a Gentile, writes from the standpoint of James rather than of Paul. The closing words summarize his combined ethical and eschatological purpose: "Ye who have received good from the Lord, do good works, lest while ye delay, the tower be completed, and you be rejected."
3. Notabilia: (1) Montanistic Affinity. Hermas, indeed, differs from Montanists in permitting, though not encouraging, second marriage, and recognizing one possible repentance after post-baptismal flagrant sin; but he is also their fore-runner, through his disallowance of readmission after second lapse, through emphatic expectation of an impending Advent, and through his rigorous view of fasting: "On the fast day taste nothing but bread and water."
(2) Fasting, However, Is Regarded Not as an End but as a Means
A discipline toward humility, purity, charity. Fasting for charity is illustrated by the injunction (Sim., v.3) to "reckon up the price of what you meant to eat, and give that to one in want."
(3) Absence of Names "Jesus" and "Christ."
The names" Jesus and "Christ" never occur. He is "Son of God" and "Lord of His people," whom "God made to dwell in flesh," by whom "the whole world is sustained," who "endured great sufferings that He might do away with the sins of His people" (Sim., .v.6; ix. 14).
(4) Church Organization. Hermas is charged (Via., ii.4) to "read his writings to (or along with) the presbyters who preside over the church" in Rome. It is reasonable to conclude that no one in that community could then be called "bishop" in the later sense of the holder of an office distinct from and superior to the presbyterate. Episkopoi ("bishops") are mentioned (Sim., ix.27) as "given to hospitality," the description of the episkopos in 1 Timothy 3:2, where admittedly bishop = presbyter.
VIII. Second Epistle of Clement. 1. Nature of Document: This writing is doubly miscalled: it is neither an epistle nor a composition of Clement. Style, thought, and standpoint differ from those of the accepted Ep., and HE, III, 38, suggests that the Clementine authorship was not generally recognized. The recent recovery by Bryennios of the previously lost conclusion proves that the writing is a sermon (chapter xix).
Antiquity is indicated by (1) the use, as an authority, of the lost heretical Gospel of the Egyptians, which by the time of the Canon Muratori (175 AD) had ceased to be regarded as Scripture by Catholics; (2) the adoption, without Gnostic intention, of phrases which became notably associated,
after 150 AD with Gnosticism: "God made male and female: the male is Christ, the female, the church" (chapter xiv).
2. Date and Authorship: The date usually assigned is 120-150 AD (Lightfoot, Part I, volume II, 201). The author is a Gentilepresbyter; he had "worshipped stocks and stones." The sermon was probably preached at Corinth, for the preacher describes many arriving by sea for the race-course, without mentioning a port, which would be appropriate in a sermon preached to Corinthians.
3. Contents: No text is given, but the sermon starts from Isaiah 54:1, without express quotation; this chapter had probably been read at the service. The discourse, without great literary merit, is earnest and practical. There are exhortations to repentance and good works, to purity, charity, prayer and fasting, with special reference to coming judgment. The standpoint is that of James. "Be not troubled (so the sermon concludes) because we see the unrighteous with abundance, and God's servants in straits. Let us have faith, brethren and sisters. Had God recompensed the righteous speedily, we should have had training not in piety but in bargaining; and our uprightness would be a mere semblance, since our pursuit would be not of godliness but of gain."
4. Notabilia: (1) The sermon is the oldest extant in post-New Testament times, and appears to have been read (chapter xix) to a congregation. (2) Sayings of Christ not in our Gospels are quoted: (a) "The Lord, being asked when His kingdom would come, answered: When the two shall be one (i.e. when harmony shall prevail?), and when the outside shall be as the inside (i.e. when men shall be as they seem?); and the male with the female, neither male nor female" (interpreted by this preacher ascetically as discountenancing marriage, presumably because "the time is short," but explained mystically by Clement of Alexandria in Strom., iii.13, as indicating the abolition of all distinctions in God's kingdom). Clement assigns the passage to the lost Gospel of the Egyptians. (b) "The Lord saith, ye shall be as lambs among wolves. Peter answered: What if the wolves tear the lambs? Jesus said: Let not the lambs fear the wolves: and ye, also, fear not them which kill you, and can do nothing more to you." (3) No episcopate, apparently, in the post-New Testament sense, existed in the church where this sermon was delivered. Unfaithful men are represented as confessing, "We obeyed not the presbyters when they told us of salvation." Had a bishop in the later sense been head of the community, obedience to his admonitions would surely have been inculcated. (4) The Christology is high; "We ought to think of Christ as of God"; "When we think mean things of Christ, we expect to receive mean things" (chapter i).
IX. Apology of Aristides. 1. Recovery and Date: Aristides was an Athenian philosopher, who (according to HE, IV, 3) presented an Apology to Hadrian, presumably when the emperor was at Athens (125 AD). After disappearance in the 17th century, a fragment in an Armenian version was discovered in 1878, and the entire Apology in Syriac was found in 1889. It was then found that almost the whole treatise was imbedded anonymously in a Greek medieval romance, Barlaam and Josaphat. The Apology in the Syriac is inscribed to Antoninus; it may have been addressed to both emperors successively, or the real date may be 137, when they were colleagues in the empire.
2. Contents: The treatise refers to oppression, imprisonment, and other maltreatment endured by Christians, and pleads for their protection against persecution, because of their true and noble creed, and their pure and benevolent lives. The writer compares the Christian doctrine of Godhead with that of barbarians, Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, and dwells on the elevating influence of Christian belief in Jesus Christ and in a future life. He refers to the abstention of Christians from unchastity, dishonesty and other vices; to their abounding charity and brotherliness which are shown particularly to the widow, the orphan, the poor, the stranger, the oppressed, and even their oppressors. All who become Christians, of however low a station, are brethren. This bright picture has, however, its shadows: "If Christians see that one of their number has died in his sins, over him they weep bitterly as over one about to go into punishment." This frank acknowledgment of some black sheep gives point to his general testimony, "Blessed is the race of Christians above all men."
3 Notabilia:
(1) A distinct reference to a collection of Christian writings, and especially of Gospels, designated the Gospel, and indicating the existence of a kind of rudimentary New Testament Canon. (2) Similar indication of a rudimentary Apostles' Creed. Christians are said to believe in God, "the Maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ who was born of a Hebrew virgin, who was transfixed by the Jews; he died and was buried; and Christians state that after three days he rose again and ascended into heaven." In this early time the virgin birth was apparently a settled matter--part of the Creed. (3) Aristides describes a familiar custom among poor Christians of fasting two or three days, so as to supply with needful food Christians poorer still (Compare Hermas). (4) The Apology is interesting as the earliest known literary tribute of a philosopher to Christianity, and probably the earliest extant defense of the faith, if the Epistle to Diognetus be not ancient. It is notable also as a treatise on Christian evidence drawn not from miraculous credentials, but from the self-evidencing excellence and effect of Christianity. Finally, it is interesting as the earliest detailed record of harvest reaped at Athens from seed sown by Paul 80 or 90 years before. Athens appeared at first a barren soil; but by and by this church in a university city took the lead, as this treatise and another lost apology by Quadratus show, in the literary defense of the Christian faith. Quadratus is stated in HE IV, 3, to have presented his Apology to Hadrian, and is described by Jerome as "a disciple of the apostles." In a fragment preserved in HE, he attests the survival ("to our own day") of some whom Christ had healed.
X. Justin Martyr. 1. Incidents of Life: Born of pagan parents at Flavia Neapolis (Nablous), in Samaria about 100 AD--a seeker for truth, who, after trying Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean and Platonic philosophies, found in Christ and Christianity the satisfaction of philosophic cravings and spiritual needs. He became a Christian apostle and apologist, wearing still the philosopher's mantle in token of continued quest after wisdom, but making it now his life-work, not as presbyter, but as itinerating Christian teacher, to impart to pagan, to Jew and also to heretic the truth which he himself had found and prized. After long Christian service, he suffered martyrdom under Aurelius in 166 AD.
2. First Apology: It is addressed to Antoninus and dated 138-48. He approaches the emperor without flattery, and asks judgment after searching inquiry. He answers three charges against Christians: (1) atheism: Justin replies that Christians were atheists only as Socrates was; they disbelieved in so-called gods who were wicked demons or humanly fashioned images; but they worshipped the Father of Righteousness; (2) immorality: Justin admits the existence of pretended Christians who are evil-doers; but Christianity makes the evil good, the licentious chaste, the covetous generous, the revengeful forgiving; (3) disloyalty: this is calumny based on the preaching of Christ's kingdom which is spiritual, not temporal. Christians are taught and are wont to pay tribute promptly and to pray for rulers regularly. Justin then sets forth the credibility and excellence of Christianity, adducing, (1) its pure morality as contrasted with vices condoned by heathens, (2) its noble doctrines--immortality, resurrection, future judgment, incarnation, (3) Old Testament prophecy regarding the Divinity and sufferings of the Christ. His reference to the prediction of a virgin bringing forth Emmanuel (chapter xxxiii) shows that in his day the virgin birth was accepted, although Jews understood by virgin (in Isaiah) merely a young woman, (4) foreshadowings of Christian truth by philosophy, referring especially to Plato's teaching about the Divine Logos and judgment to come. To refute prevalent calumny Justin describes Sunday service and administration of sacraments in his time. On the Lord's Day Christians assembled for worship; prophetic Scriptures and "memoirs" by apostles and their followers were read; prayers and thanksgivings were offered and an address delivered by the "president"; bread and wine were distributed and sent by deacons to those absent; and an offering for charitable purposes was made. "As many as believe what is taught, and undertake to live accordingly, are, after prayer and fast, baptized" (chapters lxv, lxvii).
3. Second Apology: This is probably a postscript to the first; Eusebius quotes from both as from one work. After a protest against a recent summary execution of three Christians without proper trial, Justin deals with two popular taunts: (1) "If at death they went to heaven, why did they not commit suicide?": "We do not shrink from death but from opposing God's will." (2) "If God is really on the Christians' side, why does He allow them to be persecuted?": "The world by Divine decree is meanwhile under the dominion of angels who have become demons." Justin here contrasts Christ with Socrates, whom yet he describes as a preacher of the "true but then unknown God" (chapter x): "No one put such faith in Socrates as to die for his convictions." Christ hath won the faith, "not only of philosophers, but of simple folk who through faith can despise death." Justin, however, testifies clearly and warmly to the Christian element by anticipation, in the higher teachings and aspirations of heathen philosophy through an implanted seed of the Divine Logos; and he recognizes thus a pre-advent ministry of the Son of God, not only in the sheltered fold of Judaism, but in the broad open of heathendom.
4. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew: This Dialogue indicates the attitude of some cultured Jews of that day to Christianity, and the mode in which their objections to it were met. Trypho argued that Jesus did not fulfill Old Testament prophecy which represented the Messiah as establishing a glorious and everlasting kingdom; whereas Jesus was a humble peasant who died an ignominious death; Justin pleads Isaiah 53:1-12. Trypho charges Christianity with treason to theocracy through exalting Jesus to Godhead, thus trenching on the Divine unity, and also through repudiating the perpetual obligation of the Law. Justin, in reply, quotes Genesis, "Let us make man," and also Psalms 45:1-17, Psalms 72:1-20, Psalms 110:1-7, with Isaiah 7:1-25 about Emmanuel. The Mosaic Law was intended to be temporary, and was now superseded by the Law of Christ; moreover, the destruction of Jerusalem rendered complete fulfillment of the Jewish Law impracticable. The disputants part on friendly terms, "I have been particularly pleased with this conference," says Trypho. "If we could confer oftener we should be much helped in reading the Scriptures." "For my part," replies Justin, "I would have wished to repeat our conference daily; but since I am about to set sail, I bid you give all diligence in this struggle after salvation." Of other works ascribed to Justin, two (On the Resurrection and Appeal to the Greeks) may or may not be genuine; the others are spurious.
5. Notabilia: (1) Justin's Quotations: Bearing of Justin's quotations from "memoirs" on the Age of Our Gospels (see GOSPELS).
(2) Testimony to Harmony of Apostolic Doctrine. Justin is a disciple of Paul, and a strong anti-Judaist; yet he recognizes thoroughly the Twelve as the true source of Christian teaching, "sent by Christ to teach to all the Word of God" (1 Ap., 39,49; Dial., 42, 109).
(3) Diffusion of Christianity: From personal knowledge as a traveler, Justin testifies to the wide diffusion of Christianity: "No race of men exists among whom prayers are not offered up to the Father through the name of the crucified Jesus (Dial., 117).
(4) Authorship of Revelation: "John, one of the apostles, prophesied, by a revelation made to him, that believers would dwell 1,000 years in Jerus" (Dial., 81)--the earliest direct witness to Johannine authorship, by one who had resided at Ephesus.
(5) Belief of the Primitive Church in Our Lord's True Divinity:
Writing in the name of Christians as a body, he declares, "Both Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him we adore" (1 Ap., 5). He speaks also of some "who held that Jesus was a mere man" as a small and heretical minority (Dial., 48). He writes elsewhere (1 Ap., 13) of the Son as the object of worship "in the second place"; but this statement, made long before the Arian Controversy necessitated precision of language, does not invalidate his other testimonies.
(6) The Holy Spirit: As to the Holy Spirit, Justin refers to baptism as administered in "the name of Father, Son, and Spirit" (1 Ap., 61), implying the Divinity of the Third Person; although elsewhere he appears to subordinate Him to the Son, as the Son to the Father. He is to be "worshipped in the third order" (1 Ap., 13).
(7) Millenarianism: "I and others are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead and 1,000 years in Jerusalem which will be built, adorned and enlarged" (Dial., 80). He admits, however, that many pure and pious Christians think otherwise.
(8) Future punishment: On this subject Justin speaks with two voices. In 1 Ap., 8, he writes of "condemned souls suffering eternal punishment, not for a millennial period only." But in Dial., 5, he introduces an old man who was the immediate means of his conversion as saying that "the wicked shall be punished as long as God shall will them to exist."
(9) Angel-worship: In 1 Ap., 6, Justin, when refuting the charge of atheism, writes: "We reverence and worship the Father, and the Son, and the host of other good messengers (or angels), and the Prophetic Spirit." The context, however, shows that this cult does not necessarily amount to what is usually meant by worship, but simply to veneration and homage. The Greek words here, sebomai and proskuneo, are often used in this lower sense; and the train of thought seems to be this: "You call us atheists; the charge is not true, for we not only believe in one God and Father of all, but in one who is preeminently the Son of God, who was sent by God. We believe further in other heavenly messengers from God, a host of angelic spirits; yea we believe in one who is preeminently God's Spirit, by whom prophets were inspired. All these are the object in different degrees of our veneration and homage." Undoubtedly, however, the statement is at best unguarded and misleading.
(10) Doctrine of the Sacraments: Justin uses "regenerate" as the synonym of "baptized" (1 Ap., 61), but he identifies the two, not as essentially inseparable, but as uniformly associated. As regards the Lord's Supper, while emphasizing the ideas of commemoration, communion, and thanksgiving, he in one place speaks of the bread and wine being the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Jesus, "from which, by a transmutation, our flesh and blood are nourished" (1 Ap., 66). These words tend to transubstantiation; but, in the absence of any controversy at the time, may be no more than a strongly figurative representation of a spiritual participation.
XI. Epistle to Diognetus. 1. Date and Authorship: This short apologetic work is mentioned by no ancient writer, and was unknown until its discovery in 1592 by Henry Stephens in a manuscript which perished in the Strassburg fire of 1870. The manuscript appears to ascribe it to the author of another work (To the Greeks); and this, again, is attributed with some probability on the authority of a Syriac document (600-700 AD) to one Ambrosius, "chief among the Greeks" otherwise unknown (see Birks inDCB , "Ep. to D."). If genuinely ancient, the epistle probably belongs to the Sub-apostolic Age, for it refers to Christianity as "having only now entered the world, not long ago"; and in chapter xi (written, however, by a different hand or at a different time) the author calls himself a "disciple of the apostles." Diognetus was a very common Greek name, so that his identification with the tutor of Marcus Aurelius (130-40 AD) is a mere conjecture. Donaldson (Chr. Lit., II, 142) inclines to the belief that the work was composed by one of the many Greeks who came westward in the 14th century and that the author intended merely to write a "good declamation in the old style." The smart but superficial way in which heathenism and Judaism are dealt with is more befitting a medieval rhetorical exercise than the serious treatment, by a cultured writer, of prevalent religions.
2. Contents: The author, after welcoming the inquiry of Diognetus about Christianity, pours contempt on the pagan worship of gods of wood, stone and metal, without any apparent realization that for cultured heathens of that time such images were not objects, but only symbolic media of worship; and he ridicules Mosaic observances without any recognition of their significance as a Divine educative discipline. But when he proceeds (chapters vii through xii) to describe Christianity, the work merits Hefele's designation, praestantissima Epistola. Into a world, yea, into human hearts, which had become degenerate and wicked, "God sent no mere servant or angel, but His own Son," and Him, not as a condemning Judge, or fear-inspiring Tyrant, but as a gracious Saviour. To the inquiry, "If Christianity is so precious, why was Christ sent so late?" the author replies: "In order first to bring home to mankind their unworthiness to attain eternal life through their own works" and their incapacity for salvation apart from Him "who is able to save even what it was impossible (formerly) to save." But faith in the Son of God now revealed, would lead to "knowledge of the Father"; knowledge of God to "love of Him who hath first so loved us"; and love of God to "imitation of Him and of His lovingkindness." And wherein consists such imitation? Not in "seeking lordship over those weaker," or in "showing violence toward those below us"; but in "taking on oneself the burden of one's neighbor," even as "God took on Himself the burden of our iniquities, and gave His own Son as a ransom for us." "He who in whatsoever he may be superior is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, by distributing to the needy what he has received from God, becomes a god to those who receive his benefits: he is an imitator of God."
LITERATURE.
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, larger and smaller editions; in Clark's "Ante-Nicene Libary," Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christian Literature (American edition, The Ants-Nicene Fathers); Eusebius, HE, particularly McGiffert's translation with excellent notes; James Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature; Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity; Kruger, History of Early Christian Literature, translation by Gillett; Harnack, Geschichte der altchr. Litt.; Zahn, Geschichte des New Testament Kanons; Forschungen zur Gesch. des New Testament Kanons und der altchr. Lift.; Robinson, Texts and Studies, Aristides; Schaff, Oldest Christian Manual: H.D.M. Spence, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Bartlet, article on "Didache" in HDB; Cunningham, Epistle of Barnabas; articles in DCB (Smith and Wace).
Henry Cowan
Litter
Litter - lit'-er (tsabh): (1) Used upon backs of camels for easy riding, made of a wooden frame with light mattress and pillows, also a covering above, supported by upright pieces, sometimes having also side awnings for protection from the sun's rays. Mule litters were made with pairs of shafts projecting before and behind, between which the animals were yoked (Isaiah 66:20). Litter-wagons ('eghloth tsabh) are mentioned in Numbers 7:3; the horse litter (phorion) is mentioned in 2 Maccabees 9:8; compare 3:27. (2) miTTah, "palanquin" or "litter of Solomon" (Song of Solomon 3:7; compare Song of Solomon 3:9).
See PALANQUIN.
Little Genesis
Little Genesis - See BOOK OF JUBILEES.
Lively; Living
Lively; Living - liv'-li, liv'-ing (chay; zao): "Living," sometimes "lively," is the translation of chay (often also translated "life"); it denotes all beings possessed of life (Genesis 1:21, 24; 7, 19; Exodus 21:35, "live"); we have frequently the phrase, "the land of the living" (as contrasted with she'ol, the abode of the dead), e.g. Job 28:13; Psalms 27:13; 52:5; Isaiah 38:11; the characteristically Biblical expression, "the living God," also frequently occurs (Joshua 3:10; 1 Samuel 17:26, 36; 2 Kings 19:4; Psalms 84:2); also frequently in the New Testament as the translation of zao (Matthew 16:16; 26:63; John 6:57, "the living Father"; Acts 14:15); "lively" in Exodus 1:19 (chayeh) and Psalms 38:19 denotes fullness of life, vigor; chayyah, "a living being," is mostly confined to Ezekiel, translated "living creatures" (Psalms 1:5-6, 6, etc.), also Genesis 1:28; 8:17, "living thing"; "living" is sometimes applied figuratively to that which is not actually alive; thus we have the phrase "living waters" (Jeremiah 2:13; 17:13; Zechariah 14:8, "Living waters shall go out from Jerusalem") in contrast with stagnant waters--waters that can give life; so John 4:10-11 (bubbling up from the spring at bottom of the well); John 7:38; Revelation 7:17 the King James Version; "living bread" (John 6:51); a new and living way (Hebrews 10:20), perhaps equivalent to "ever-living" in Christ; "living stones" (1 Peter 2:4-5) are those made alive in Christ; a "living hope" (a hope full of life), 1 Peter 1:3; "living" (zao)is sometimes also "manner of life" (Luke 15:13; Colossians 2:20); diago, "to lead or go through," is also so translated (Titus 3:3); bios is "means of life," translated "living" (Mark 12:44; Luke 8:43); "living," in this sense, occurs in Apocrypha as the translation of zoe, "Defraud not the poor of his living" (Ecclesiastes 4:1).
The Revised Version (British and American) has "living" for "alive" (Leviticus 14:4), for "the lively" (Acts 7:38), for "quick" (Hebrews 4:12), for "lively" (1 Peter 1:3; 2:5), for "conversation" (1 Peter 1:15; 2 Peter 3:11); "living creatures" for "beasts" (Revelation 4:6; 5:6, etc.); "every living thing" for "all the substance" (Deuteronomy 11:6); "living things" for "beasts" (Leviticus 11:2, 47 twice); for "living" (Psalms 58:9), "the green" (thorns under the pots), margin "Wrath shall take them away while living as with a whirlwind"; for "the book of the living" (Psalms 69:28), "the book of life"; for "(I am) he that liveth" (Revelation 1:18), "the Living one"; for "living fountains of waters" (Revelation 7:17), "fountains of waters of life"; for "trade" (Revelation 18:17), "gain their living," margin "work the sea"; for "Son of the living God" (John 6:69), "the Holy One of God" (emended text).
W. L. Walker
Liver
Liver - liv'-er (qabhedh, derived from a root meaning "to be heavy," being the heaviest of the viscera; Septuagint hepar): The word is usually joined with the Hebrew yothereth (see CAUL) (Exodus 29:13, 22; Leviticus 9:10, 19) as a special portion set aside for the burnt offering.
This represents the large lobe or flap of the liver, Lobos tou hepatos (thus, Septuagint and Josephus, Ant, III, ix, 2, (228)). Others, however, interpret it as the membrane which covers the upper part of the liver, sometimes called the "lesser omenturn." Thus, the Vulgate: reticulurn iecoris. It extends from the fissures of the liver to the curve of the stomach. Still others consider it to be the "fatty mass at the opening of the liver, which reaches to the kidneys and becomes visible upon the removal of the lesser omentum or membrane" (Driver and White, Leviticus, 65).
As in the scholastic psychology of the Middle Ages, the liver played an important part in the science of Semitic peoples. It was the seat of feeling, and thus became synonymous with temper, disposition, character (compare Assyrian kabittu, "liver", "temper," "character," and Arabic kabid, vulgar kibdi). Thus, Jeremiah expresses his profound grief with the words: "My liver is poured upon the earth, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people" (Lamentations 2:11). The liver is also considered one of the most important and vital parts of the body (compare Virgil, cerebrum, iecur domicilia vitae). A hurt in it is equivalent to death. So we find the fate of a man enticed by the flattering of a loose woman compared to that of the ox that "goeth to the slaughter .... till an arrow strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life" (Proverbs 7:22-23; the rest of the verse is obscure as to its meaning).
In a few passages of the Old Testament, kabhedh ("liver") and kabhodh ("glory") have been confounded, and we are in uncertainty as to the right translation Several authors, to give but one example, would read kabhedh in Psalms 16:9, for reasons of Hebrew poetical parallelism: "Therefore my heart is glad and my liver (English Versions of the Bible, "glory") rejoiceth." While this is quite possible, it is not easy to decide, as according to Jewish interpretation "my glory" is synonymous with "my soul," which would present as proper a parallelism.
The liver has always played an important role in heathen divination, of which we have many examples in old and modern times among the Greeks, Etrurians, Romans and now among African tribes. The prophet Ezekiel gives us a Biblical instance. The king of Babylon, who had been seeking to find out whether he should attack Jerusalem, inquired by shaking "arrows to and fro, he consulted the teraphim, he looked in the liver" (Ezekiel 21:21 (Hebrews 21:26); compare Tobit 6:4 ff; 8:2).
See ASTROLOGY, 3; DIVINATION.
H. L. E. Luering
Living Creature
Living Creature - liv'-ing kre'-tur: (1) (nephesh chayyah, or nephesh hachayyah (nephesh, "breath" or "living things"; chayyah, "living"; compare Arabic nefs, "breath," chaiy, "living")): In the account of the creation this term is used of aquatic animals (Genesis 1:21), of mammals (Genesis 1:24) and of any animals whatsoever (Genesis 2:19).
(2) ([chayyoth], plural of chayyah): The name of the "living creatures" of Ezekiel 1:5-25, which had wings and the faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle; compare Ezekiel 10:1-22. (3) (zoon, "living thing," "animal"): The four "living creatures" (the King James Version "beasts") of Revelation 4:6, etc., the first like a lion, the second like a calf, the third having a face as of a man, and the fourth like an eagle, having each six wings.
See CREATURE, LIVING.
Alfred Ely Day
Lizard
Lizard - liz'-ard: The list of unclean "creeping things" in Leviticus 11:29-30 contains eight names, as follows:
1. Names: (1) choledh, English Versions of the Bible "weasel" (which see); (2) `akhbar, English Versions of the Bible "mouse" (which see); (3) tsabh, the King James Version "tortoise," the Revised Version (British and American) "great lizard" (which see); (4) 'anaqah, the King James Version "ferret," the Revised Version (British and American) "gecko" (which see); (5) koach, the King James Version "chameleon," the Revised Version (British and American) "land-crocodile" (which see); (6) leTa'ah, English Versions of the Bible "lizard"; compare Arabic laTa', "to cling to the ground"; (7) chormeT, the King James Version "snail," the Revised Version (British and American) "sand-lizard" (which see); (8) tinshemeth, the King James Version "mole," the Revised Version (British and American) "chameleon" (which see). In Proverbs 30:28, we find (9) semamith, the King James Version "spider," the Revised Version (British and American) "lizard."
Since (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) occur as names of animals only in this passage, and as the philological evidence available is in most cases not very convincing, their determination is difficult and uncertain. the Revised Version margin to "gecko" (Leviticus 11:30) has "Words of uncertain meaning, but probably denoting four kinds of lizards."
2. Lizards of Palestine: Among the many lizards of Palestine, the monitor and thorny-tailed lizard are remarkable for their size, and the chameleon for its striking appearance and habits. On etymological grounds, koach, the King James Version "chameleon," the Revised Version (British and American) "land-crocodile," Septuagint chamaileon, has been taken to be the monitor; tsabh, the King James Version "tortoise," the Revised Version (British and American) "great lizard," Septuagint krokodeilos chersaios, to be the thorny-tailed lizard; and tinshemeth, the King James Version "mole," the Revised Version (British and American) "chameleon," Septuagint aspalax, to be the chameleon. On the same grounds, choledh, English Versions of the Bible "weasel," Septuagint gale, might be the mole-rat.
See CHAMELEON; TORTOISE; WEASEL.
The commonest lizard of Palestine is the rough-tailed agama, Agama stellio, Arabic chirdaun or chirdaun, which is everywhere in evidence, running about on the ground, rocks or walls, frequently lying still basking in the sun, or bobbing its head up and down in the peculiar manner that it has.
The gecko, Ptyodactylus lobatus, is common in houses. By means of adhesive disks on the under sides of its toes, it clings with ease to smooth walls which other lizards cannot scale. Although perfectly harmless, it is believed to be poisonous, and is much feared. It is called abu-brais, "father of leprosy," either on account of its supposed poisonous qualities or because it has a semi-transparent and sickly appearance, being of a whitish-yellow color with darker spots. It utters a little cry, which may be the reason why the Revised Version (British and American) has "gecko" for 'anaqah; the King James Version has "ferret."
Various species of the genus Lacerta and its allies, the true lizards, may always be found searching for insects on trees and walls. They are scaly, like all lizards, but are relatively smooth and are prettily colored, and are the most attractive members of the group which are found in the country. They are called by the Arabs saqqaiyeh or shammuseh.
The skinks include Scincus officinalis, and allied species. Arabic sa qanqur = Greek skigkos (skinkos). They are smooth, light-colored lizards, and are found in sandy places. They cannot climb, but they run and burrow in the sand with remarkable rapidity. The dried body of Scincus officinalis is an important feature of the primitive oriental materia medica, and may be found in the shops (officinae) of the old-style apothecaries.
3. Identifications: Semamith (Proverbs 30:28, the King James Version "spider," the Revised Version (British and American) "lizard") is one of the "four things which are little .... but .... exceeding wise." the Revised Version (British and American) reads:
"The lizard taketh hold with her hands,
Yet is she in kings' palaces."
The Septuagint (Septuagint) has kalabotes, which according to Liddell and Scott = askalabotes, "a spotted lizard." There is no other lizard which fits this passage as does the gecko. If Gesenius is correct in deriving semamith from the root samam (compare Arabic samma, "to poison"), we have another reason for making this identification, in which case we must rule out the rendering of the Revised Version margin, "Thou canst seize with thy hands."
For none of the names in Leviticus 11:29-30 have we as many data for identification as for semamith. For leTa'ah, English Versions of the Bible "lizard," the Septuagint has chalabotes, which is another variant of askalabotes. If we follow the Septuagint, therefore, we should render leTa'ah "gecko." Tristram quotes Bochart as drawing an argument that leTa'ah is "gecko" from the Arabic laTa', "to cling to the ground." This view is at least in accordance with Septuagint. It is of course untenable if 'anaqah is "gecko," but (see FERRET) the writer thinks it quite possible that 'anaqah may mean the shrew or field-mouse, which is also in agreement with Septuagint. It will not do to follow Septuagint in all cases, but it is certainly safe to do so in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary.
There seems to be little evidence available for deciding the identity of chomeT, the King James Version "snail," the Revised Version (British and American) "sand-lizard." Septuagint has saura, and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) lacerta, both words for lizard. Gesenius refers the word to an obsolete chamaT, "to bow down," "to lie upon the ground." Tristram, NHB, cites Bochart as referring to a word meaning "sand." Hence, perhaps the Revised Version (British and American) "sand-lizard." If by this is meant the skink, there is no inherent improbability in the identification.
We have thus more or less tentatively assigned various words of the list to the monitor, the thorny-tailed lizard, the chameleon, the gecko and the skink, but we have done nothing with the rough-tailed agama and the Lacertae, or true lizards, which are the commonest lizards of Palestine, and this fact must be reckoned against the correctness of the assignment. The translation of the Revised Version (British and American) has this to commend it, that it gives two small mammals followed by six lizards, and is therefore to that extent systematic. It is, however, neither guided in all cases by etymological considerations, nor does it follow Septuagint.
As none of the etymological arguments is very cogent, the writer can see no harm in consistently following Septuagint, understanding for (1) gale, weasel or pole-cat; for (2) mus, mouse; for (3) krokodeilos chersaios, some large lizard, either the monitor or the thorny-tailed lizard; for (4) mugale, shrew or field-mouse; for (5) chamaileon, chameleon; for (6) chalabotes, gecko; for (7) saura, a Lacerta or true lizard; for (8) aspalax, mole-rat. On the other hand, if etymological considerations are to be taken into account and Septuagint abandoned when it conflicts with them we might have (1) holedh, mole-rat; (2) `akhbar, mouse; (3) tsabh, thorny-tailed lizard; (4) 'anaqah, field-mouse; (5) koach, monitor; (6) leTa'ah, gecko; (7) chomeT, skink; (8) tinshemeth, chameleon.
Neither of these lists has the systematic arrangement of that of the Revised Version (British and American), but we must remember that the Biblical writers were not zoologists, as is seen in the inclusion of the bat among birds (Leviticus 11:19; Deuteronomy 14:18), and of the hare and coney among ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6; Deuteronomy 14:7).
Alfred Ely Day
Loaf
Loaf - lof.
See BREAD.
Lo-ammi
Lo-ammi - lo-am'-i (lo'-`ammi, "not my people"): The 2nd son and 3rd child of Gomer bath-Diblaim, wife of the prophet Hosea (Hosea 1:9). An earlier child, a daughter, had been named Lo-ruhamah (lo'-ruchamah, "uncompassionated"). The names, like those given by Isaiah to his children, are symbolic, and set forth Hosea's conviction that Israel has, through sin, forfeited Yahweh's compassion, and can no longer claim His protection. Of the bearers of these names nothing further is known; but their symbolism is alluded to in Hosea 2:1, 23. This latter passage is quoted by Paul (Romans 9:25 f).
John A. Lees
Locks
Locks - loks ((1) tsitsith, (2) pera'; (3) machlaphah, (4) qewutstsah): See in general the article on HAIR. (1) The first word, tsitsith, means really a tassel, such as is worn by the Jews on the four corners of the prayer-shawl or Tallith and on the 'arba` kanephoth (Deuteronomy 22:12), translated in the New Testament by kraspedon (Matthew 9:20; 14:36; 23:5; Mark 6:56; Luke 8:44). Once it is applied to a forelock of hair. The prophet Ezekiel, describing his sensations which accompanied his vision of Jerusalem, says: "He put forth the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of my head; and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerus" (Ezekiel 8:3). (2) The word pera` signifies the uncut and disheveled locks of the Nazirite (Numbers 6:5) or of the priests, the sons of Zadok (Ezekiel 44:20). (3) The Book of Judges employs the word machlaphah when speaking of the "seven locks" of Samson (Judges 16:13, 19), which really represent the plaited (etymologically, "interwoven") strands of hair still worn in our days by youthful Bedouin warriors. (4) Qewutstsah (Song of Solomon 5:2, 11) means the luxuriant hair of the Hebrew youth, who was careful of his exterior. It is called bushy (the Revised Version margin "curling") and black as a raven. the King James Version translations also the word tsammah with "locks" (Song of Solomon 4:1; 6:7; Isaiah 47:2), but the Revised Version (British and American) has corrected this into "veil," leaving the word "locks" in Song of Solomon 4:1 margin.
H. L. E. Luering
Locust
Locust - lo'-kust: The translation of a large number of Hebrew and Greek words:
1. Names: (1) 'arbeh from the root rabhah, "to increase" (compare Arabic raba', "to increase"). (2) sal`am, from obsolete [?] cal`am, "to swallow down," "to consume." (3) chargol (compare Arabic charjal, "to run to the right or left," charjalat, "a company of horses" or "a swarm of locusts," charjawan, a kind of locust). (4) chaghabh (compare Arabic chajab, "to hide," "to cover"). (5) gazam (compare Arabic jazum, " to cut off") (6) yeleq, from the root laqaq "to lick" (compare Arabic laqlaq, "to dart out the tongue" (used of a serpent)). (7) chacil, from the root chacal, "to devour" (compare Arabic chaucal, "crop" (of a bird)). (8) gobh, from the obsolete root gabhah (compare Arabic jabi, "locust," from the root jaba', "to come out of a hole"). (9) gebh, from same root. (10) tselatsal from [?] tsalal (onomatopoetic), "to tinkle," "to ring" (compare Arabic call, "to give a ringing sound" (used of a horse's bit); compare also Arabic Tann, used of the sound of a drum or piece of metal, also of the humming of flies). (11) akris (genitive akridos; diminutive akridion, whence Acridium, a genus of locusts).
2. Identifications: (1), (2), (3) and (4) constitute the list of clean insects in Leviticus 11:21 f, characterized as "winged creeping things that go upon all fours, which have legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth." This manifestly refers to jumping insects of the order Orthoptera, such as locusts, grasshoppers and crickets, and is in contrast to the unclean "winged creeping things that go upon all fours," which may be taken to denote running Orthoptera, such as cockroaches, mole-crickets and ear-wigs, as well as insects of other orders.
'Arbeh (1) is uniformly translated "locust" in the Revised Version (British and American). the King James Version has usually "locust," but "grasshopper" in Judges 6:5; 7:12; Job 39:20; Jeremiah 46:23. Septuagint has usually akris, "locust"; but has brouchos, "wingless locust," in Leviticus 11:22; 1 Kings 8:37 (akris in the parallel passage, 2 Chronicles 6:28); Nahum 3:15; and attelebos, "wingless locust," in Nahum 3:17. 'Arbeh occurs (Exodus 10:4-19) in the account of the plague of locusts; in the phrase "as locusts for multitude" (Judges 6:5; 7:12); "more than the locusts .... innumerable" (Jeremiah 46:23);
"The locusts have no king,
Yet go they forth all of them by bands" (Proverbs 30:27).
'Arbeh is referred to as a plague in Deuteronomy 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chronicles 6:28; Psalms 78:46; in Joel and in Nahum. These references, together with the fact that it is the most used word, occurring 24 times, warrant us in assuming it to be one of the swarming species, i.e. Pachtylus migratorius or Schistocerca peregrina, which from time to time devastate large regions in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean.
Cal`am (2), English Versions of the Bible "bald locust," occurs only in Leviticus 11:22. According to Tristram, NBH, the name "bald locust" was given because it is said in the Talmud to have a smooth head. It has been thought to be one of the genus Tryxalis (T. unguiculata or T. nasuta), in which the head is greatly elongated.
Chargol (3), the King James Version "beetle," the Revised Version (British and American) "cricket," being one of the leaping insects, cannot be a beetle. It might be a cricket, but comparison with the Arabic (see supra) favors a locust of some sort. The word occurs only in Leviticus 11:22.
See BEETLE.
Haghabh (4) is one of the clean leaping insects of Leviticus 11:22 (English Versions of the Bible "grasshopper"). The word occurs in four other places, nowhere coupled with the name of another insect. In the report of the spies (Numbers 13:33), we have the expression, "We were in our own sight as grasshoppers"; in Ecclesiastes 12:5, "The grasshopper shall be a burden"; in Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers." These three passages distinctly favor the rendering "grasshopper" of the English Versions of the Bible. In the remaining passage (2 Chronicles 7:13), ".... if I command the locust (English Versions) to devour the land," the migratory locust seems to be referred to. Doubtless this as well as other words was loosely used. In English there is no sharp distinction between the words "grasshopper" and "locust."
The migratory locusts belong to the family Acridiidae, distinguished by short, thick antennae, and by having the organs of hearing at the base of the abdomen. The insects of the family Locustidae are commonly called "grasshoppers," but the same name is applied to those Acridiidae which are not found in swarms. The Locustidae have long, thin antennae, organs of hearing on the tibiae of the front legs, and the females have long ovipositors. It may be noted that the insect known in America as the seventeen-year locust, which occasionally does extensive damage to trees by laying its eggs in the twigs, is a totally different insect, being a Cicada of the order Rhynchota. Species of Cicada are found in Palestine, but are not considered harmful.
The Book of Joel is largely occupied with the description of a plague of locusts. Commentators differ as to whether it should be interpreted literally or allegorically (see JOEL). Four names 'arbeh (1), gazam (5), yeleq (6) and chacil (7), are found in Joel 1:4 and again in Joel 2:25.
For the etymology of these names, see 1 above. Gazam (Amos 4:9; Joel 1:4; 2:25) is in the Revised Version (British and American) uniformly translated "palmer-worm" Septuagint kampe, "caterpillar"). Chacil in the Revised Version (British and American) (1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chronicles 6:28; Psalms 78:46; Isaiah 23:4; Joel 1:4; 2:25) is uniformly translated "caterpillar." The Septuagint has indifferently brouchos, "wingless locust," and erusibe, "rust" (of wheat). Yeleq (Psalms 105:34; Jeremiah 51:14, 27; Joel 1:1-200:4b; Joel 2:25; Nahum 33:15b,16) is everywhere "canker-worm" in the Revised Version (British and American), except in Psalms 105:34, where the American Standard Revised Version has "grasshopper." the King James Version has "caterpillar" in Psalms and Jeremiah and "canker-worm" in Joel and Nahum. Septuagint has indifferently akris and brouchos. "Palmerworm" and "canker-worm" are both Old English terms for caterpillars, which are strictly the larvae of lepidopterous insects, i.e. butterflies and moths.
While these four words occur in Joel 1:4 and Joel 2:25, a consideration of the book as a whole does not show that the ravages of four different insect pests are referred to, but rather a single one, and that the locust. These words may therefore be regarded as different names of the locust, referring to different stages of development of the insect. It is true that the words do not occur in quite the same order in 14 and in 2:25, but while the former verse indicates a definite succession, the latter does not. If, therefore, all four words refer to the locust, "palmer-worm," "canker-worm," "caterpillar" and the Septuagint erusibe, "rust," are obviously inappropriate.
Gobh (8) is found in the difficult passage (Amos 7:1), ".... He formed locusts (the King James Version "grasshoppers," the King James Version margin "green worms," Septuagint akris) in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth"; and (Nahum 3:17) in ".... thy marshals (are) as the swarms of grasshoppers (Hebrew gobh gobhay; the King James Version "great grasshoppers"), which encamp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are." The related gebh (9) occurs but once, in Isaiah 33:4, also a disputed passage, "And your spoil shall be gathered as the caterpillar (chacil) gathereth: as locusts (gebhim) leap shall men leap upon it." It is impossible to determine what species is meant, but some kind of locust or grasshopper fits any of these passages.
In Deuteronomy 28:42, "All thy trees and the fruit of thy ground shall the locust (English Versions of the Bible) possess," we have (10) tselatsal, Septuagint erusibe). The same word is translated in 2 Samuel 6:5 and Psalms 150:5 bis "cymbals," in Job 41:7 "fish-spears," and in Isaiah 18:1 "rustling." As stated in 1, above, it is an onomatopoetic word, and in Deuteronomy 28:42 may well refer to the noise of the wings of a flight of locusts.
In the New Testament we have (11) akris, "locust," the food of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6); the same word is used figuratively in Revelation 9:3, 1; and also in the Apocrypha (Judith 2:20; Wisdom of Solomon 16:9; and see 2 Esdras 4:24).
3. Habits: The swarms of locusts are composed of countless individuals. The statements sometimes made that they darken the sky must not be taken too literally. They do not produce darkness, but their effect may be like that of a thick cloud. Their movements are largely determined by the wind, and while fields that are in their path may be laid waste, others at one side may not be affected. It is possible by vigorous waving to keep a given tract clear of them, but usually enough men cannot be found to protect the fields from their ravages.
Large birds have been known to pass through a flight of locusts with open mouths, filling their crops with the insects. Tristram, NHB, relates how he saw the fishes in the Jordan enjoying a similar feast, as the locusts fell into the stream. The female locust, by means of the ovipositor at the end of her abdomen, digs a hole in the ground, and deposits in it a mass of eggs, which are cemented together with a glandular secretion. An effective way of dealing with the locusts is to gather and destroy these egg-masses, and it is customary for the local governments to offer a substantial reward for a measure of eggs. The young before they can fly are frequently swept into pits or ditches dug for the purpose and are burned.
The young are of the same general shape as the adult insects, differing in being small, black and wingless. The three distinct stages in the metamorphosis of butterflies and others of the higher insects are not to be distinguished in locusts. They molt about six times, emerging from each molt larger than before. At first there are no wings. After several molts, small and useless wings are found, but it is only after the last molt that the insects are able to fly. In the early molts the tiny black nymphs are found in patches on the ground, hopping out of the way when disturbed. Later they run, until they are able to fly.
In all stages they are destructive to vegetation. Some remarkable pictures of their ravages are found in Joel 1:6-7, "For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without number; his teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the jaw-teeth of a lioness. He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my figtree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white" (see also Joel 2:2-9, 20).
4. Figurative: Locusts are instruments of the wrath of God (Exodus 10:4-19; Deuteronomy 28:38, 42; 2 Chronicles 7:13; Psalms 78:46; 105:34; Nahum 3:15-17; Wisdom of Solomon 16:9; Revelation 9:3); they typify an invading army (Jeremiah 51:14, 27); they are compared with horses (Joel 2:4; Revelation 9:7); in Job 39:20, Yahweh says of the horse: "Hast thou made him to leap as a locust?" the King James Version "Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper?" Locusts are among the "four things which are little upon the earth, but .... are exceeding wise" (Proverbs 30:27). Like the stars and sands of the sea, locusts are a type of that which cannot be numbered (Judges 6:5; 7:12; Jeremiah 46:23; Judith 2:20). Grasshoppers are a symbol of insignificance (Numbers 13:33; Ecclesiastes 12:5; Isaiah 40:22; 2 Esdras 4:24).
5. Locusts as Food: The Arabs prepare for food the thorax of the locust, which contains the great wing muscles. They pull off the head, which as it comes away brings with it a mass of the viscera, and they remove the abdomen (or "tail"), the legs and the wings. The thoraxes, if not at once eaten, are dried and put away as a store of food for a lean season. The idea of feeding upon locusts when prepared in this way should not be so repellent as the thought of eating the whole insect. In the light of this it is not incredible that the food of John the Baptist should have been "locusts and wild honey" (Matthew 3:4).
See INSECTS.
Alfred Ely Day
Lod; Lydda
Lod; Lydda - (lodh; Ludda):
1. Scriptural Notices: Ono and Lod and the towns thereof are said to have been built by Shemed, a Benjamite (1 Chronicles 8:12). The children of Lod, Hadid and One, to the number of 725, returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37 (721)). The town lay in the Shephelah, perhaps in ge ha-charashim, "the valley of craftsmen" (Nehemiah 11:35). In the New Testament it appears as Lydda. Here the apostle Peter visited the saints and healed the palsied Arenas (Acts 9:32). Hence he was summoned by messengers from Joppa on the death of Dorcas.
2. History from Maccabean Times: The three governments of Aphaerema, Lydda and Ramathaim were added to Judea from the country of Samaria by King Demetrius II (1 Maccabees 11:34). Lydda presided over one of the toparchies under Jerusalem, into which Judea was divided (BJ, III, iii, 5). After the death of Julius Caesar the inhabitants of Lydda and certain other towns, having failed to pay the contributions Cassius demanded, were by him sold into slavery. They were freed by Antony (Ant., XIV, xi, 2; xii, 2). Lydda suffered severely under Cestius Gallus (BJ, II, xix, 1). Along with Jamnia it surrendered to Vespasian (BJ, IV, viii, 1). After the fall of Jerusalem it was noted as a seat of rabbinical learning. The classical name of the city was Diospolis. In the 4th century it was connected with the trade in purple. It became the seat of a bishopric, and the bishop of Lydda was present at the Council of Nicea. At Lydda, in 415 AD, took place the trial of Pelagius for heresy.
Under the Moslems it became capital of the province of Filastin but later it was superseded by er-Ramleh, founded by Khalif Suleiman, whither its inhabitants were removed ( Ya'kubi, circa 891 AD). Mukaddasi (circa 985) says that in Lydda "there is a great mosque in which are wont to assemble large numbers of people from the capital (er-Ramleh) and from the villages around. In Lydda, too, is that wonderful church (of George) at the gate of which Christ will slay the antichrist" (quoted by Guy le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 493). It was rebuilt by the Crusaders; but was destroyed by Saladin after the battle of ChaTTin, 1191 AD. It was again restored; but in 1271 it was sacked by the Mengels, and from this blow it has never recovered.
3. Identification and Description: The ancient Lod or Lydda is represented by the modern village of Ludd, on the road to Jerusalem, about 11 miles Southeast of Yafa. It is a station on the Jaffa-Jerusalem Railway. It occupies a picturesque hollow in the plain of Sharon, and is surrounded by gardens and orchards, the beauty of which intensifies by contrast the squalor of the village. It was the reputed birthplace of George, and here he is said to have been buried. The one ruin of importance in the place is that of the church which perpetuates his name.
The town stood on the great caravan road between Babylon and Egypt, near its intersection with that from Joppa to Jerusalem and the East. Its position on these great arteries of commerce meant trade for the inhabitants. "The manufacture and repair of such requisites for the journey as sacks, saddles and strappings would create the skilled labor in cloth, leather, wood and metal that made the neighborhood once the valley of craftsmen" (Mackie, HDB, under the word). Like many other once prosperous cities on these and similar caravan routes, Lydda suffered from diversion of traffic to the sea; and it may be that for none of them is any great revival now possible.
W. Ewing
Loddeus
Loddeus - lod-e'-us (Loddeus; Swete reads Laadaios with Doldaiosas variant in Codex Alexandrinus; the King James Version Daddeus, Saddeus): The captain, who was in the place of the treasury. Ezra sent to him for men who "might execute the priests' office" (1 Esdras 8:46); called "Iddo" in Ezra 8:17.
Lo-debar
Lo-debar - lo'-de-bar, lo-de'-bar (lo dhebhar): A place in Gilead where dwelt Machir, son of Ammiel, who sheltered Mephibosheth, son of Saul, after that monarch's death (2 Samuel 9:4), until he was sent for by David. This same Machir met David with supplies when he fled to Gilead from Absalom (2 Samuel 17:27 f). Possibly it is the same place as Lidebir in Joshua 13:26 (Revised Version margin). No certain identification is possible; but Schumacher (Northern 'Ajlun, 101) found a site with the name Ibdar about 6 1/2 miles East of Umm Qeis, North of the great aqueduct, which may possibly represent the ancient city. Lidebir, at least, seems to be placed on the northern boundary of Gilead. The modern village stands on the southern shoulder of Wady Samar. There is a good spring to the East, a little lower down, while ancient remains are found in the neighborhood.
W. Ewing
Lodge
Lodge - loj (lin; kataskenoo, etc.): To stay or dwell, temporarily, as for the night (Genesis 32:13, 21; Numbers 22:8; Joshua 2:1 the King James Version; Joshua 4:3; Luke 13:19; Matthew 21:17, aulizomai), or permanently (Ruth 1:16). In Isaiah 1:8, "a lodge (melunah) in a garden of cucumbers," the meaning is "hut," "cottage." "Evil thoughts" are said to "lodge" in the wicked (Jeremiah 4:14).
Loft
Loft - In 1 Kings 17:23, changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "chamber."
Loftily; Loftiness; Lofty
Loftily; Loftiness; Lofty - lof'-ti-li, lof'-ti-nes: The first form is only in Psalms 73:8, where it means "haughtily," as if from on high. The second is found only in Jeremiah 48:29, where the loftiness of Moab also means his haughtiness, his groundless self-conceit.
Lofty likewise means '"haughty," "lifted up" (compare Psalms 131:1; Isaiah 2:11; Proverbs 30:13). In Isaiah 26:5 it refers to a self-secure and boastful city. In 57:15 it is used in a good sense of God who really is high and supreme. Isaiah uses the word more than all the other sacred writers put together.
Log
Log - log, logh, "deepened," "hollowed out" (Leviticus 14:10-24)): The smallest liquid or dry measure of the Hebrews, equal to about 1 pint.
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Logia, The
Logia, The - log'-i-a, (Logia):
1. The Word "Logia" and Its History: The word logion, which is a diminutive of logos, was regularly used of Divine utterances. There are examples in the classics, the Septuagint, the writings of Josephus and Philo and in four passages in the New Testament (Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11) where it is uniformly rendered both in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "oracles." It is not, therefore, surprising that early Christian writers, who thought of Christ as Divine, applied this term to His sayings also. We find this use, according to the usual interpretation, in the title of the lost work of Papias as preserved by Eusebius, Logion kuriakon exegesis, "Exposition of the Lord's Logia" (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), in that writer's obscure reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic writing by the apostle Matthew (same place) , and in Polycarp's Epistle (section symbol 7), "the logia of the Lord." The modern use of the word is twofold: (a) as the name of the document referred to by Papins which may or may not be the Q of recent inquirers; (b) as the name of recently discovered sayings ascribed to Jesus. For the former compare GOSPELS. The latter is theme of this article.
2. The Discovery of the Logia: About 9 1/2 miles from the railway station of Beni Mazar, 121 miles from Cairo, a place now called Behnesa marks the site of an ancient city named by the Greeks Oxyrhynchus, from the name of a sacred fish, the modern binni, which had long been known as a great Christian center in early times and was therefore selected by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt for exploration in behalf of the Egyptian Exploration Fund. They began work on the ruins of the town, January 11, 1897, and on the following day discovered a papyrus leaf inscribed with a number of sayings introduced by the formula legei Iesous, "saith Jesus," some of which were at once seen to be quite new. When excavation was resumed in February, 1903, a second fragment was discovered, which must have belonged to the same or a similar collection, as the formula "saith Jesus" is employed in exactly the same way, and the sayings exhibit the same mixed character. The first of these two fragments was named by the discoverers logia, but the short preface to the second fragment suggests that the word used in the original title may have been logoi, which is found in Acts 20:35 as the title perhaps of a collection of sayings of Jesus used by the apostle Paul. It is convenient, however, to retain logia, at any rate for the present. Other remains of early Christian texts have been found on the same site (compare AGRAPHA) but none of precisely the same character.
3. Description of the Texts: The first fragment, found and published in 1897, afterward referred to as A, is a leaf from a papyrus book measuring in its present state 5 3/4 X 3 3/4 inches and having 42 lines on the two pages. As it is broken at the bottom it is impossible, in the absence of another leaf, to ascertain or even conjecture how much has been lost. At the top right-hand corner of one page are the letters iota, alpha, used as numerals, that is 11, and it has been suggested that this, with other characteristics, marks the page as the first of the two. The uncial writing is assigned to the 3rd century, perhaps to the early part of it. The text is fairly complete except at the end of the third logion, for the five following lines, and at the bottom. The second fragment, henceforth referred to as B, found in 1903 and published in 1904, has also 42 lines, or rather parts of lines, but on only one page or column, the Christian text being written on the back of a roll the recto of which contained a survey list. The characters of this, too, are uncial, and the date, like that of A, seems to be also the 3rd century, but perhaps a little later. B is unfortunately very defective, the bit of papyrus being broken vertically throughout, so that several letters are lost at the end of each line, and also horizontally for parts of several lines at the bottom.
4. Logia with Canonical Parallels: Seven of these sayings, or logia, inclusive of the preface of B, have or contain canonical parallels, namely:
(1) A1, which coincides with the usual text of Luke 6:42; (2) A5a (according to the editio princeps, 6a), which comes very close to Luke 4:24; (3) A6 (or 7), a variant of Matthew 5:14; (4) the saying contained in the preface of B which resembles John 8:52; (5) B2, ll. 7 f, "The kingdom of heaven is within you," which reminds us of Luke 17:21; (6) B3, ll. 4 f, "Many that are first shall be last; and the last first," which corresponds to Mark 10:31; compare Matthew 19:30; Luke 13:30; (7) B4, ll. 2-5, "That which is hidden from thee shall be revealed to thee: for there is nothing hidden that shall not be made manifest," which is like Mark 4:22 (compare Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2). These parallels or partial parallels--for some of them exhibit interesting variations--are, with one exception, of synoptic character.
5. New Sayings: The other seven or eight logia, although not without possible echoes of the canonical Gospels in thought and diction, are all non-canonical and with one exception new.
Three of them, namely B2 and 3 (apart from the canonical sayings given above) and 5, may be set aside as too uncertain to be of any value. What is preserved of the first ("Who are they that draw you (MS, us) to the kingdom?" etc.) is indeed very tempting, but the restoration of the lost matter is too precarious for any suggestion to be more than an ingenious conjecture. This is seen by comparing the restoration of this logion by the discoverers, Dr. Swete and Dr. C. Taylor, with that proposed by Delssmann (Licht vom Osten1, 329). While the English scholars take helko in the sense of "draw," the German takes it in the sense which it has in the New Testament, "drag," with the result of utter divergence as to the meaning and even the subject of the logion. The logia which remain are undeniably of great interest, although the significance of at least one is exceedingly obscure. The number of the sayings is not certain. Dr. Taylor has shown that in A2 f "and" may couple two distinct utterances brought together by the compiler. If this suggestion is adopted, and if the words after A3 in the editio princeps are regarded as belonging to it and not as the remains of a separate logion, we get the following eight sayings:
(1) "Except ye fast to the world (or "from the world"), ye shall in no wise find the kingdom of God" (A2a); (2) "Except ye keep the sabbath (Taylor "sabbatize the sabbath"), ye shall not see the Father" (A2b); (3) "I stood in the midst of the world, and in flesh wasI seen of them, andI found all men drunken, and none foundI athirst among them" (A3a); (4) "My soul grieveth over the sons of men, because they are blind in their heart and see not their wretchedness and their poverty" (the last clause restored by conjecture) (A3b); (5) "Wherever there are two they are not without God, and where there is one aloneI sayI am with him (after Blass). Raise the stone and (there) thou shalt find me: cleave the wood (Taylor, "the tree") and there am I" (A4); (6) "A physician does not work cures on them that know him" (A5b); (7) "Thou hearest with one ear but the other thou hast closed" (largely conjectural but almost certain) (A6); (8) "(There is nothing) buried which shall not be raised" (or "known") (B4, 1,5).
6. Origin and Character of the Logia: Attempts have been made to trace the collection represented by these fragments (assuming that they belong to the same work) to some lost gospel--the Gospel according to the Egyptians (Harnack, Van Manen), the Gospel of the Ebionites or the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (Zahn), or the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Batiffol), but without decisive result. That there is a connection of some kind with the last-mentioned apocryphal work is evident from the fact that B1 ("Jesus saith, Let not him who seeks .... cease until he find Him; and having found Him, let him be amazed; and being amazed he shall reign, and reigning shall rest") is ascribed by Clement of Alexandria to this writing, but that cannot have been the only source. It was probably one of a number drawn on by the compiler. The latter, so far as B is concerned, represents the sayings as spoken by Jesus to ".... and Thomas." In whatever way the gap is supplied--whether by "Philip," or "Judas" or "the other disciples"--one of the Twelve known as Thomas is clearly referred to as the medium or one of the media of transmission. It is possible that the short preface in which this statement is made belongs not to the whole collection but to a part of it. The whole work may, as Swete suggests (Expository Times, XV, 494), have been entitled "Words of Jesus to the Twelve," and this may have been the portion addressed to Thomas. The other fragment, A, might belong to a section associated with the name of another apostle. In any case the Logia must have formed part of a collection of considerable extent, as we know of material for 24 pages or columns of about 21 or 22 lines each. So far as can be judged the writing was not a gospel in the ordinary sense of that term, but a collection of sayings perhaps bearing considerable resemblance as to the form to the Logia of Matthew mentioned by Papias.
The remains of B5, however, show that a saying might be prefaced with introductory matter. Perhaps a short narrative was sometimes appended. The relation to the canonical Gospels cannot be determined with present evidence. The sayings preserved generally exhibit the synoptic type, perhaps more specifically the Lukan type, but Johannine echoes, that is, possible traces of the thought and diction represented in the Fourth Gospel, are not absent (compare A, logia 2 f, and preface to B). It seems not improbable that the compiler had our four Gospels before him, but nothing can be proved. There is no distinct sign of heretical influence. The much-debated saying about the wood and the stone (A4b) undoubtedly lends itself to pantheistic teaching, but can be otherwise understood.
Under these circumstances the date of the compilation cannot at present be fixed except in a very general way. If our papyri which represent two copies were written, as the discoverers think, in the 3rd century, that fact and the indubitably archaic character of the sayings make it all but certain that the text as arranged is not later than the 2nd century. To what part of the century it is to be assigned is at present undiscoverable. Sanday inclines to about 120 AD, the finders suggest about 140 AD as the terminus ad quem, Zahn dates 160-70 AD, and Dr. Taylor 150-200 AD. Further research may solve these problems, but, with the resources now available, all that can be said is that we have in the Logia of Oxyrhynchus a few glimpses of an early collection of sayings ascribed to Jesus which circulated in Egypt in the 3rd century of great interest and possibly of considerable value, but of completely unknown origin.
LITERATURE.
Of the extensive literature which has gathered round the Logia--as many as fifty publications relating to A only in the first few months--only a few can be mentioned here. A was first published in 1897 as a pamphlet and afterward as Numbers 1:1-54 of Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Valuable articles by Cross and Harnack peared in The Expositor, series V, volume VI, 257 ff, 321 ff, 401 ff, an important lecture by Swete in The Expository Times, VIII, 544 ff, 568, and a very useful pamphlet by Sanday and Lock in the same year. B appeared in 1904 in pamphlet form and as Number 654 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, with a fuller commentary. Dr. C. Taylor's pamphlets on A and B issued respectively in 1899 and 1905, and Swete's lecture on B, The Expositor T, XV, 488 ff, are of exceptional significance for the study of the subject. Compare also Griffinhoofe, The Unwritten Sayings of Christ (A only), 55-67; Klostermann, Kleine Texte, Numbers 8:1-26, pp. 11 f and 11, pp. 17 ff; Resch, Agrapha2, 68-73, 353 f; HDB, article "Agrapha," extra vol; also articles on "Unwritten Sayings" in HDB, 1909, and DCG.
William Taylor Smith
Logos
Logos - log'-os (logos):
I. GREEK SPECULATION
1. Heraclitus
2. Anaxagoras
3. Plato
4. Aristotle
5. Stoics
II. HEBREW ANTICIPATION OF DOCTRINE
1. Word as Revelation of God
2. Suggestions of Personal Distinctions in Deity
3. Theophanies
4. Wisdom
5. Targums
III. ALEXANDRIAN SYNTHESIS
Philo
IV. CHRISTIAN REALIZATION
1. Pauline Doctrine
2. Doctrine in Hebrews
3. Doctrine in Fourth Gospel
(1) Content of Doctrine
(a) Relation of Logos to God
(b) Relation of Logos to World
(2) Origin of Terminology
(a) Hebrew Source
(b) Hellenic Source
(c) Contrast between Philo and John
V. PATRISTIC DEVELOPMENT
LITERATURE
The doctrine of the Logos has exerted a decisive and far-reaching influence upon speculative and Christian thought. The word has a long history, and the evolution of the idea it embodies is really the unfolding of man's conception of God. To comprehend the relation of the Deity to the world has been the aim of all religious philosophy. While widely divergent views as to the Divine manifestation have been conceived, from the dawn of Western speculation, the Greek word logos has been employed with a certain degree of uniformity by a series of thinkers to express and define the nature and mode of God's revelation.
Logos signifies in classical Greek both "reason" and "word." Though in Biblical Greek the term is mostly employed in the sense of "word," we cannot properly dissociate the two significations. Every word implies a thought. It is impossible to imagine a time when God was without thought. Hence, thought must be eternal as the Deity. The translation "thought" is probably the best equivalent for the Greek term, since it denotes, on the one hand, the faculty of reason, or the thought inwardly conceived in the mind; and, on the other hand, the thought outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language. The two ideas, thought and speech, are indubitably blended in the term logos; and in every employment of the word, in philosophy and Scripture, both notions of thought and its outward expression are intimately connected.
In this article it will be our aim to trace the evolution of the doctrine from its earliest appearance in Greek philosophy through its Hebrew and Alexandrian phases till it attained its richest expression in the writings of the New Testament, and especially in the Fourth Gospel.
The doctrine may be said to have two stages: a Hellenistic and a Hebrew; or, more correctly, a pre-Christian and a Christian. The theory of Philo and of the Alexandrian thinkers generally may be regarded as the connecting link between the Greek and the Christian forms of the doctrine. The Greek or pre-Christian speculation on the subject is marked by the names of Heraclitus, Plato and the Stoics. Philo paves the way for the Christian doctrine of Paul, Hebrews and the Johannine Gospel.
I. Greek Speculation. The earliest speculations of the Greeks were occupied with the world of Nature, and the first attempts at philosophy take the shape of a search for some unitary principle to explain the diversity of the universe.
1. Heraclitus: Heraclitus was practically the first who sought to account for the order which existed in a world of change by a law or ruling principle. This profoundest of Greek philosophers saw everything in a condition of flux. Everything is forever passing into something else and has an existence only in relation to this process. We cannot say things are: they come into being and pass away. To account for this state of perpetual becoming, Heraclitus was led to seek out a new and primary element from which all things take their rise. This substance he conceived to be, not water or air as previous thinkers had conjectured, but something more subtle, mysterious and potent--fire. This restless, all-consuming and yet all-transforming activity--now darting upward as a flame, now sinking to an ember and now vanishing as smoke--is for him at once the symbol and essence of life. But it is no arbitrary or lawless element. If there is flux everywhere, all change must take place according to "measure." Reality is an "attunement" of opposites, a tension or harmony of conflicting elements. Heraclitus saw all the mutations of being governed by a rational and unalterable law. This law he calls sometimes "Justice," sometimes "Harmony"; more frequently "Logos" or "Reason," and in two passages at least, "God." Fire, Logos, God are fundamentally the same. It is the eternal energy of the universe pervading all its substance and preserving in unity and harmony the perpetual drift and evolution of phenomenal existence. Though Heraclitus sometimes calls this rational principle God, it is not probable that he attached to it any definite idea of consciousness. The Logos is not above the world or even prior to it. It is in it, its inner pervasive energy sustaining, relating and harmonizing its endless variety.
2. Anaxagoras: Little was done by the immediate successors of Heraclitus to develop the doctrine of the Logos, and as the distinction between mind and matter became more defined, the term nous superseded that of Logos as the rational force of the world. Anaxagoras was the first thinker who introduced the idea of a supreme intellectual principle which, while independent of the world, governed it. His conception of the nous or "mind" is, however, vague and confused, hardly distinguishable from corporeal matter. By the artificial introduction of a power acting externally upon the world, a dualism, which continued throughout Greek philosophy, was created. At the same time it is to the merit of Anaxagoras that he was the first to perceive some kind of distinction between mind and matter and to suggest a teleological explanation of the universe.
3. Plato: In Plato the idea of a regulative principle reappears. But though the word is frequently used, it is nous and not Logos which determines his conception of the relation of God and the world. The special doctrine of the Logos does not find definite expression, except perhaps in the Timaeus, where the word is employed as descriptive of the Divine force from which the world has arisen. But if the word does not frequently occur in the dialogues, there is not wanting a basis upon which a Logos-doctrine might be framed; and the conception of archetypal ideas affords a philosophical expression of the relation of God and the world. The idea of a dominating principle of reason was lifted to a higher plane by the distinction which Plato made between the world of sense and the world of thought, to the latter of which God belonged. According to Plato, true reality or absolute being consisted of the "Ideas" which he conceived as thoughts residing in the Divine mind before the creation of the world. To these abstract concepts was ascribed the character of supersensible realities of which in some way the concrete visible things of the world were copies or images. Compared with the "Ideas," the world of things was a world of shadows. This was the aspect of the Platonic doctrine of ideas which, as we shall see, Philo afterward seized upon, because it best fitted in with his general conception of the transcendence of God and His relation to the visible world. Three features of Plato's view ought to be remembered as having a special significance for our subject: (1) While God is regarded by Plato as the intelligent power by which the world is formed, matter itself is conceived by him as in some sense eternal and partly intractable. (2) While in the Philebus Plato employs the expression, "the regal principle of intelligence in the nature of God" nous basilikos en te tou Dios phusei), it is doubtful if reason was endowed with personality or was anything more than an attribute of the Divine mind. (3) The ideas are merely models or archetypes after which creation is fashioned.
4. Aristotle: The doctrine of the Logos cannot be said to occupy a distinctive place in the teaching of Aristotle, though the word does occur in a variety of senses (e.g. orthos logos, "right insight," the faculty by which the will is trained to proper action). Aristotle sought to solve the fundamental problem of Greek philosophy as to how behind the changing multiplicity of appearances an abiding Being is to be thought by means of the concept of development. Plato had regarded the "ideas" as the causes of phenomena--causes different from the objects themselves. Aristotle endeavored to overcome the duality of Plato by representing reality as the essence which contains within itself potentially the phenomena, and unfolds into the particular manifestations of the sensible world. This conception has exerted a powerful influence upon subsequent thought, and particularly upon the monotheistic view of the world. At the same time in working it out, the ultimate "prime-mover" of Aristotle was not materially different from the idea of "the Good" of Plato. And inasmuch as God was conceived as pure thought existing apart from the world in eternal blessedness, Aristotle did not succeed in resolving the duality of God and the universe which exercised the Greek mind.
5. Stoics: It is to the Stoics we must look for the first systematic exposition of the doctrine of the Logos. It is the key to their interpretation of life, both in the realms of Nature and of duty. Interested more in ethical than physical problems, they were compelled to seek general metaphysical basis for a rational moral life. Some unitary idea must be found which will overcome the duality between God and the world and remove the opposition between the sensuous and supersensuous which Plato and Aristotle had failed to reconcile. For this end the Logos-doctrine of Heraclitus seemed to present itself as the most satisfactory solution of the problem. The fundamental thought of the Stoics consequently is that the entire universe forms a single living connected whole and that all particulars are the determinate forms assumed by the primitive power which they conceived as never-resting, all-pervading fire. This eternal activity or Divine world-power which contains within itself the conditions and processes of all things, they call Logos or God. More particularly as the productive power, the Deity is named the logos spermatikos, the Seminal Logos or generative principle of the world. This vital energy not only pervades the universe, but unfolds itself into innumerable logoi spermatikoi or formative forces which energize the manifold phenomena of Nature and life. This subordination of all particulars to the Logos not only constitutes the rational order of the universe but supplies a norm of duty for the regulation of the activities of life. Hence, in the moral sphere "to live according to Nature" is the all-determining law of conduct.
II. Hebrew Anticipation of Doctrine. So far we have traced the development of the Logos-doctrine in Greek philosophy. We have now to note a parallel movement in Hebrew thought. Though strictly speaking it is incorrect to separate the inner Reason from the outer expression in the term Logos, still in the Hellenistic usage the doctrine was substantially a doctrine of Reason, while in Jewish literature it was more especially the outward expression or word that was emphasized.
1. Word as Revelation of God: The sources of this conception are to be found in the Old Testament and in the post-canonical literature. The God who is made known in Scripture is regarded as one who actively reveals Himself. He is exhibited therefore as making His will known in and by His spoken utterances. The "Word of God" is presented as the creative principle (Genesis 1:3; Psalms 33:6); as instrument of judgment (Hosea 6:5); as agent of healing (Psalms 107:20); and generally as possessor of personal qualities (Isaiah 55:2; Psalms 147:15). Revelation is frequently called the "Word of the Lord," signifying the spoken as distinct from the written word.
2. Suggestions of Personal Distinctions in Deity: In particular, we may note certain adumbrations of distinction of persons within the Being of God. It is contended that the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis points to a plurality of persons in the God-head. This indefinite language of Genesis is more fully explained by the priestly ritual in Nu (6:23-26) and in the Psalter. In Jer, Ezr and the vision of Isa (6:2-8) the same idea of Divine plurality is implied, showing that the Old Testament presents a doctrine of God far removed from the sterile monotheism of the Koran (compare Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, and Konig).
3. Theophanies: Passing from these indefinite intimations of personal distinction in the inner life of God, we may mention first that series of remarkable apparitions commonly known as the theophanies of the Old Testament. These representations are described as the "Angel of Yahweh" or of "the Covenant"; or as the "Angel of his presence." This angelic appearance is sometimes identified with Yahweh (Genesis 16:11, 13; Genesis 32:29-31; Exodus 3:2; 13:21), sometimes distinguished from Him (Genesis 22:15; 24:7); sometimes presented in both aspects (Exodus 3:6; Zechariah 1:11). We find God revealing Himself in this way to Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Manoah. Who was this angel? The earliest Fathers reply with general unanimity that He was the "Word" or "Son of God." But while the earlier church teachers distinguished between the "Angel of the Lord" and the Father, the Arians sought to widen the distinction into a difference of natures, since an invisible Being must be higher than one cognizable by the senses. Augustine insists upon the Scriptural truth of the invisibility of God as God, the Son not less than the Father. He will not presume, however, to say which of the Divine persons manifested Himself in this or that instance; and his general doctrine, in which he has been followed by most of the later teachers of the church, is that theophanies were not direct appearances of a Person of the Godhead, but self-manifestations of God through a created being.
4. Wisdom: A further development of the conception of a personal medium of revelation is discernible in the description of Wisdom as given in some of the later books of the Old Testament. The wisdom of Jewish Scripture is more than a human endowment or even an attribute of God, and may be said to attain almost to a personal reflex of the Deity, reminding us of the archetypal ideas of Plato. In Job, wisdom is represented as existent in God and as communicated in its highest form to man. It is the eternal thought in which the Divine Architect ever beholds His future creation (Job 28:23-27). If in Job wisdom is revealed only as underlying the laws of the universe and not as wholly personal, in the Book of Proverbs it is coeternal with Yahweh and assists Him in creation (Proverbs 8:22-31). It may be doubtful whether this is the language of a real person or only of a poetic personification. But something more than a personified idea may be inferred from the contents of the sapiential books outside the Canon. Sirach represents Wisdom as existing from all eternity with God. In Baruch, and still more in Wisdom, the Sophia is distinctly personal--"the very image of the goodness of God." In this pseudo-Solomonic book, supposed to be the work of an Alexandrian writer before Philo, the influence of Greek thought is traceable. The writer speaks of God's Word (me'mera') as His agent in creation and judgment.
5. Targums: Finally in the Targums, which were popular interpretations or paraphrases of the Old Testament Scripture, there was a tendency to avoid anthropomorphic terms or such expressions as involved a too internal conception of God's nature and manifestation. Here the three doctrines of the Word, the Angel, and Wisdom are introduced as mediating factors between God and the world. In particular the chasm between the Divine and human is bridged over by the use of such terms as me'mera' ("word") and shekhinah ("glory"). The me'mera proceeds from God, and is His messenger in Nature and history. But it is significant that though the use of this expression implied the felt need of a Mediator, the Word does not seem to have been actually identified with the Messiah.
III. Alexandrian Synthesis. We have seen that according to Greek thought the Logos was conceived as a rational principle or impersonal energy by means of which the world was fashioned and ordered, while according to Hebrew thought the Logos was regarded rather as a mediating agent or personal organ of the Divine Being. The Hellenistic doctrine, in other words, was chiefly a doctrine of the Logos as Reason; the Jewish, a doctrine of the Logos as Word.
Philo:
In the philosophy of Alexandria, of which Philo was an illustrious exponent, the two phases were combined, and Hellenistic speculation was united with Hebrew tradition for the purpose of showing that the Old Testament taught the true philosophy and embodied all that was highest in Greek reflection. In Philo the two streams meet and flow henceforth in a common bed. The all-pervading Energy of Heraclitus, the archetypal Ideas of Plato, the purposive Reason of Aristotle, the immanent Order of the Stoics are taken up and fused with the Jewish conception of Yahweh who, while transcending all finite existences, is revealed through His intermediatory Word. As the result of this Philonic synthesis, an entirely new idea of God is formulated. While Philo admits the eternity of matter, he rejects the Greek view that the world is eternal, since it denies the creative activity and providence of God. At the same time he separates Divine energy from its manifestations in the world, and is therefore compelled to connect the one with the other by the interposition of subordinate Powers. These Divine forces are the embodiment of the ideai, of Plato and the aggeloi, of the Old Testament. The double meaning of Logos--thought and speech--is made use of by Philo to explain the relation subsisting between the ideal world existing only in the mind of God and the sensible universe which is its visible embodiment. He distinguishes, therefore, between the Logos inherent in God (logos endiathetos), corresponding to reason in man, and the Logos which emanates from God (logos prophorikos), corresponding to the spoken Word as the revelation of thought. Though in His inner essence God is incomprehensible by any but Himself, He has created the intelligible cosmos by His self-activity. The Word is therefore in Philo the rational order manifested in the visible world.
Some special features of the Philonic Logos may be noted: (1) It is distinguished from God as the instrument from the Cause. (2) As instrument by which God makes the world, it is in its nature intermediate between God and man. (3) As the expressed thought of God and the rational principle of the visible world, the Logos is "the Eldest or Firstborn Son of God." It is the "bond" (desmos) holding together all things (De Mundi, i.592), the law which determines the order of the universe and guides the destinies of men and nations (same place) . Sometimes Philo calls it the "Man of God": or the "Heavenly man," the immortal father of all noble men; sometimes he calls it "the Second God," "the Image of God." (4) From this it follows that the Logos must be the Mediator between God and man, the "Intercessor" (hiketes) or "High Priest," who is the ambassador from heaven and interprets God to man. Philo almost exhausts the vocabulary of Hebrew metaphor in describing the Logos. It is "manna," "bread from heaven," "the living stream," the "sword" of Paradise, the guiding "cloud," the "rock" in the wilderness.
These various expressions, closely resembling the New Testament descriptions of Christ, lead us to ask: Is Philo's Logos a personal being or a pure abstraction? Philo himself seems to waver in his answer, and the Greek and the Jew in him are hopelessly at issue. That he personifies the Logos is implied in the figures he uses; but to maintain its personality would have been inconsistent with Philo's whole view of God and the world. His Jewish faith inclines him to speak of the Logos as personal, while his Greek culture disposes him to an impersonal interpretation. Confronted with this alternative, the Alexandrian wavers in indecision. After all has been said, his Logos really resolves itself into a group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct person, but as the thought of God which is expressed in the rational order of the visible universe.
In the speculations of Philo, whose thought is so frequently couched in Biblical language, we have the gropings of a sincere mind after a truth which was disclosed in its fullness only by the revelation of Pentecost. In Philo, Greek philosophy, as has been said, "stood almost at the door of the Christian church." But if the Alexandrian thinker could not create the Christian doctrine, he unconsciously prepared the soil for its acceptance. In this sense his Logos-doctrine has a real value in the evolution of Christian thought. Philo was not, indeed, the master of the apostles, but even if he did nothing more than call forth their antagonism, he helped indirectly to determine the doctrine of Christendom.
IV. Christian Realization. We pass now to consider the import of the term in the New Testament. Here it signifies usually "utterance," "speech" or "narrative." In reference to God it is used sometimes for a special utterance, or for revelation in general, and even for the medium of revelation--Holy Scripture. In the prologue of the Fourth Gospel it is identified with the personal Christ; and it is this employment of the term in the light of its past history which creates the interest of the problem of the New Testament doctrine.
1. Pauline Doctrine: The author of the Fourth Gospel is not, however, the first New Testament writer who represents Jesus as the Logos. Though Paul does not actually use the word in this connection, he has anticipated the Johannine conception. Christ is represented by Paul as before His advent living a life with God in heaven (Galatians 4:4; Romans 10:6). He is conceived as one in whose image earthly beings, and especially men, were made (1 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49); and even as participating in the creation (1 Corinthians 8:6). In virtue of His distinct being He is called God's "own Son" (Romans 8:32).
Whether Paul was actually conversant with the writings of Philo is disputed (compare Pfleider, Urchristentum), but already when he wrote to the Colossians and Ephesians the influence of Alexandrian speculation was being felt in the church. Incipient Gnosticism, which was an attempt to correlate Christianity with the order of the universe as a whole, was current. Most noticeable are the pointed allusions to Gnostic watchwords in Ephesians 3:19 ("fullness of God") and in Colossians 2:3 ("Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden"), where Paul shows that everything sought for in the doctrine of the Pleroma is really given in Christ. The chief object of these epistles is to assert the unique dignity and absolute power of the Person of Christ. He is not merely one of the Eons which make up the Pleroma, as Gnostic teachers affirm, but a real and personal Being in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells. He is not merely an inferior workman creating glory for a higher Master. He creates for Himself. He is the end as well as the source of all created. things (Colossians 1:15-20). Though throughout this epistle the word "Logos" is never introduced, it is plain that the eikon, of Paul is equivalent in rank and function to the Logos of John. Each exists prior to creation, each is equal to God, shares His life and cooperates in His work.
2. Doctrine in Hebrews: In the Epistle to the Hebrews we have an equally explicit, if not fuller, declaration of the eternal Deity of Christ. Whatever may be said of Paul there can be little doubt that the author of He was familiar with the Philonic writings. Who this writer was we do not know; but his Philonism suggests that he may have been an Alexandrian Jew, possibly even a disciple of Philo. In language seemingly adapted from that source ("Son of God," "Firstborn," "above angels," "Image of God," "Agent in Creation," "Mediator," "Great High Priest" "Melchizedek") the author of He sneaks of Christ as a reflection of the majesty and imprint of the nature of God, just as in a seal the impression resembles the stamp. The dignity of His title indicates His essential rank. He is expressly dressed as God; and the expression "the effulgence of his glory" (the Revised Version (British and American) apaugasma) implies that He is one with God (Hebrews 1:3). By Him the worlds have been made, and all things are upheld by the fiat of His word (Hebrews 1:3). In the name He bears, in the honors ascribed to Him, in His superiority to angels, in His relationship as Creator both to heaven and earth (Hebrews 1:10), we recognize (in language which in the letter of it strongly reminds us of Philo, yet in its spirit is so different) the description of one who though clothed with human nature is no mere subordinate being, but the possessor of all Divine prerogatives and the sharer of the very nature of God Himself.
3. Doctrine in the Fourth Gospel: In the Fourth Gospel the teaching of Paul and the author of He finds its completest expression. "The letter to the He stands in a sense half-way between Pauline and Johannine teaching" (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, 11). It is, however, too much to say that these three writers represent the successive stages of single line of development. While all agree in emphasizing the fact of Christ's Divine personality and eternal being, Paul represents rather the religious interest, the Epistle to the Hebrews the philosophical. In the Johannine Christology the two elements are united.
In discussing the Johannine doctrine of the Logos we shall Speak first of its content and secondly of its terminology.
(1) Content of Doctrine. The evangelist uses "Logos" 6 times as a designation of the Divine preexistent person of Christ (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 19:13), but he never puts it into the mouth of Christ. The idea which John sought to convey by this term was not essentially different from the conception of Christ as presented by Paul. But the use of the word gave a precision and emphasis to the being of Christ which the writer must have felt was especially needed by the class of readers for whom his Gospel was intended. The Logos with whom the Fourth Gospel starts is a Person. Readers of the Synoptics had long been familiar with the term "Word of God" as equivalent to the Gospel; but the essential purport of John's Word is Jesus Himself, His Person. We have here an essential change of meaning. The two applications are indeed connected; but the conception of the perfect revelation of God in the Gospel passes into that of the perfect revelation of the Divine nature in general (compare Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii, 320).
In the prologue (which, however, must not be regarded as independent of, or having no integral connection with, the rest of the book) there is stated: (a) the relation of the Logos to God; and (b) the relation of the Logos to the world.
(a) Relation of Logos to God: Here the author makes three distinct affirmations:
(i) "In the beginning was the Word."
The evangelist carries back his history of our Lord to a point prior to all temporal things. Nothing is said of the origin of the world. As in Genesis 1:1, so here there is only implied that the Logos was existent when the world began to be. When as yet nothing was, the Logos was. Though the eternal preexistence of the Word is not actually stated, it is implied.
(ii) "The Word was with God."
Here His personal existence is more specifically defined. He stands distinct from, yet in eternal fellowship with, God. The preposition pros (bei, Luther) expresses beyond the fact of coexistence that of perpetual intercommunion. John would guard against the idea of mere self-contemplation on the one hand, and entire independence on the other. It is union, not fusion.
(iii) "The Word was God."
He is not merely related eternally, but actually identical in essence with God. The notion of inferiority is emphatically excluded and the true Deity of the Word affirmed. In these three propositions we ascend from His eternal existence to His distinct personality and thence to His substantial Godhead. All that God is the Logos is. Identity, difference, communion are the three phases of the Divine relationship.
(b) Relation of Logos to the World: The Logos is word as well as thought, and therefore there is suggested the further idea of communicativeness. Of this self-communication the evangelist mentions two phases--creation and revelation. The Word unveils Himself through the mediation of objects of sense and also manifests Himself directly. Hence, in this section of the prologue (John 1:3-5) a threefold division also occurs. (i) He is the Creator of the visible universe. "All things were made through him"--a phrase which describes the Logos as the organ of the entire creative activity of God and excludes the idea favored by Plato and Philo that God was only the architect who molded into cosmos previously existing matter. The term egeneto ("becomes," werden), implies the successive evolution of the world, a statement not inconsistent with the modern theory of development. (ii) The Logos is also the source of the intellectual, moral and spiritual life of man. "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." He is the light as well as the life--the fountain of all the manifold forms of being and thought in and by whom all created things subsist, and from whom all derive illumination (compare 1 John 1:1-3; also Colossians 1:17). But inasmuch as the higher phases of intelligent life involve freedom, the Divine Light, though perfect and undiminished in itself, was not comprehended by a world which chose darkness rather than light (John 1:5, 11). (iii) The climax of Divine revelation is expressed in the statement, The Word became flesh," which implies on the one hand the reality of Christ's humanity, and, on the other, the voluntariness of His incarnation, but excludes the notion that in becoming man the Logos ceased to be God. Though clothed in flesh, the Logos continues to be the self-manifesting God, and retains, even in human form, the character of the Eternal One. In this third phase is embodied the highest manifestation of the Godhead. In physical creation the power of God is revealed. In the bestowal of light to mankind His wisdom is chiefly manifested. But in the third especially is His love unveiled. All the perfections of the Deity are focused and made visible in Christ--the "glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
Thus the Word reveals the Divine essence. The incarnation makes the life, the light and the love which are eternally present in God manifest to men. As they meet in God, so they meet in Christ. This is the glory which the disciples beheld; the truth to which the Baptist bore witness (John 1:7); the fullness whereof His apostles received (John 1:16); the entire body of grace and truth by which the Word gives to men the power to become the sons of God.
There is implied throughout that the Word is the Son. Each of these expressions taken separately have led and may lead to error. But combined they correct possible misuse. On the one hand, their union protects us from considering the Logos as a mere abstract impersonal quality; and, on the other, saves us from imparting to the Son a lower state or more recent origin than the Father. Each term supplements and protects the other. Taken together they present Christ before His incarnation as at once personally distinct from, yet equal with, the Father--as the eternal life which was with God and was manifested to us.
(2) Origin of Terminology. We have now to ask whence the author of the Fourth Gospel derived the phraseology employed to set forth his Christology. It will be well, however, to distinguish between the source of the doctrine itself and the source of the language. For it is possible that Alexandrian philosophy might have suggested the linguistic medium, while the doctrine itself had another origin. Writers like Reuss, Keim, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Schmiedel, etc., who contend for the Alexandrian derivation of the prologue, are apt to overlook two considerations regarding the Johannine doctrine: (1) There is no essential difference between the teaching of John and that of the other apostolic writers; and even when the word "Logos" is not used, as in Paul's case, the view of Christ's person is virtually that which we find in the Fourth Gospel. (2) The writer himself affirms that his knowledge of Christ was not borrowed from others, but was derived from personal fellowship with Jesus Himself. "We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten." This is John's summary and witness upon which he proceeds to base the vivid memories of Jesus which follow. The Johannine doctrine is not to be regarded merely as a philosophical account of the nature of God and His creation of the world, but rather as the statement of a belief which already existed in the Christian church and which received fresh testimony and assurance from the evangelist's own personal experience.
But the question may still be asked: Even if it was no novel doctrine which John declared, what led him to adopt the language of the Logos, a word which had not been employed in this connection by previous Christian writers, but which was prevalent in the philosophical vocabulary of the age? It would be inconceivable that the apostle lighted upon this word by chance or that he selected it without any previous knowledge of its history and value. It may be assumed that when he speaks of the "Word" in relation to God and the world, he employs a mode of speech which was already familiar to those for whom he wrote and of whose general import he himself was well aware.
The truth that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ was borne in upon John. The problem which confronted him was how he could make that truth real to his contemporaries. This he sought to do by using the language of the highest religious thought of his day.
We have seen that the term "Logos" had undergone a twofold and to some extent parallel evolution. On the one hand, it had a Hebrew and, on the other, a Hellenic history. In which direction are we to look for the immediate source of the Johannine terminology?
(a) Hebrew Source: As a Palestinian Jew familiar with current Jewish ideas and forms of devout expression, it would be natural for him to adopt a word, or its Greek equivalent, which played so important a part in shaping and expressing the religious beliefs of the Old Testament people. Many scholars consider that we have here the probable source of Johannine language. In the Old Testament, and particularly, in the Targums or Jewish paraphrases, the "Word" is constantly spoken of as the efficient instrument of Divine action; and the "Word of God" had come to be used in a personal way as almost identical with God Himself. In Revelation 19:13, we have obviously an adoption of this Hebrew use of the phrase. Throughout the Gospel there is evinced a decided familiarity and sympathy with the Old Testament teaching, and some expressions would seem to indicate the evangelist's desire to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish expectation (e.g. John 1:14, 29, 31; 2:19; 3:14; John 6:32, 48-50), and the living embodiment of Israelite truth (John 1:16; 8:12; 11:25; 14:6). But as against this it has been pointed out by Weizsacker (Apostolisches Zeitalter) that the Word of God is not conceived in the Old Testament as an independent Being, still less as equivalent for the Messiah, and that the rabbinical doctrine which identifies the memra with God is of much later date.
At the same time the Hebrew cast of thought of the Johannine Gospel and its affinities with Jewish rather than Hellenic modes of expression can hardly be gainsaid. Though John's knowledge of and sympathy with Palestinian religion may not actually account for his use of the term "Logos," it may have largely colored and directed his special application of it. For, as Neander observes, that name may have been put forward at Ephesus in order to lead those Jews, who were busying themselves with speculations on the Logos as the center of all theophanies, to recognize in Christ the Supreme Revelation of God and the fulfillment of their Messianic hopes.
(b) Hellenic Source: Other writers trace the Johannine ideas and terms to Hellenic philosophy and particularly to Alexandrian influence as represented in Philo. No one can compare the Fourth Gospel with the writings of Philo without noting a remarkable similarity in diction, especially in the use of the word "Logos". It would be hazardous, however, on this ground alone to impute conscious borrowing to the evangelist. It is more probable that both the Alexandrian thinker and the New Testament writer were subject to common influences of thought and expression. Hellenism largely colors the views and diction of the early church. Paul takes over many words from Greek philosophy. "There is not a single New Testament writing," says Harnack (Dogmen-Geschichte, I, 47, note), "which does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general culture which resulted from the Hellenizing of the East." But, while that is true, it must not be forgotten, as Harnack himself points out, "that while the writers of the New Testament breathe an atmosphere created by Greek culture, the religious ideas in which they live and move come to them from the Old Testament."
It is hardly probable that John was directly acquainted with the writings of Philo. But it is more than likely that he was cognizant of the general tenor of his teaching and may have discovered in the language which had floated over from Alexandria to Ephesus a suitable vehicle for the utterance of his own beliefs, especially welcome and intelligible to those who were familiar with Alexandrian modes of thought.
But whatever superficial resemblances there may be between Philo and John (and they are not few or vague), it must be at once evident that the whole spirit and view of life is fundamentally different. So far from the apostle being a disciple of the Alexandrian or a borrower of his ideas, it would be more correct to say that there is clearly a conscious rejection of the Philonic conception, and that the Logos of John is a deliberate protest against what he must have regarded as the inadequate and misleading philosophy of Greece.
(c) Contrast between Philo and John: The contrast between the two writers is much more striking than the resemblance. The distinction is not due merely to the acceptance by the Christian writer of Jesus as the Word, but extends to the whole conception of God and His relation to the world which has made Christianity a new power among men. The Logos of Philo is metaphysical, that of John, religious. Philo moves entirely in the region of abstract thought, his idea of God is pure being; John's thought is concrete and active, moving in a region of life and history. Philo's Logos is intermediate, the instrument which God employs in fashioning the world; John's Logos is not subsidiary but is Himself God, and as such is not a mere instrument, but the prime Agent in creation. According to Philo the Deity is conceived as an architect who forms the world out of already existent matter. According to John the Logos is absolute Creator of all that is, the Source of all being, life and intelligence. In Philo the Logos hovers between personality and impersonality, and if it is sometimes personified it can hardly be said to have the value of an actual person; in John the personality of the Logos is affirmed from the first and it is of the very essence of his doctrine, the ground of His entire creative energy. The idea of an incarnation is alien to the thought of Philo and impossible in his scheme of the universe; the "Word that has become flesh" is the pivot and crown of Johannine teaching. Philo affirms the absolute incomprehensibility of God; but it is the prime object of the evangelist to declare that God is revealed in Christ and that the Logos is the unveiling through the flesh of man of the self-manifesting Deity. Notwithstanding the personal epithets employed by Philo, his Logos remains a pure abstraction or attribute of God, and it is never brought into relation with human history. John's Logos, on the other hand, is instinct with life and energy from the beginning, and it is the very heart of his Gospel to declare as the very center of life and history the great historical event of the incarnation which is to recreate the world and reunite God and man.
From whatever point of view we compare them, we find that Philo and John, while using the same language, give an entirely different value to it. The essential purport of the Johannine Logos is Jesus Christ. The adoption of the term involves its complete transformation. It is baptized with a new spirit and henceforth stands for a new conception. From whatsoever source it was originally derived--from Hebrew tradition or Hellenic speculation--on Christian soil it is a new product. It is neither Greek nor Jewish, it is Christian. The philosophical abstraction has become a religious conception. Hellenism and Hebrewism have been taken up and fused into a higher unity, and Christ as the embodiment of the Logos has become the creative power and the world-wide possession of mankind.
The most probable view is that Philo and John found the same term current in Jewish and Gentilecircles and used it to set forth their respective ideas; Philo, following his predilections for Greek philosophy, to give a Hellenic complexion to his theory of the relation of Divine Reason to the universe; John, true to ,his Hebrew instincts, seeing in the Logos the climax of that revelation of God to man of which the earlier Jewish theophanies were but partial expressions.
There is nothing improbable in the surmise that the teaching of Philo gave a fresh impulse to the study of the Logos as Divine Reason which was already shadowed forth in the Biblical doctrine of Wisdom (Westcott). Nor need we take offense that such an important idea should have come to the Biblical author from an extra-Biblical writer (compare Schmiedel, Johannine Writings), remembering only that the author of the Johannine Gospel was no mechanical borrower, but an entirely independent and original thinker who gave to the Logos and the ideas associated with it a wholly-new worth and interpretation. Thus, as has been said, the treasures of Greece were made contributory to the full unfolding of the Gospel.
V. Patristic Development. The Johannine Logos became the fruitful source of much speculation in Gnostic circles and among the early Fathers regarding the nature of Christ. The positive truth presented by the Fourth Gospel was once more broken up, and the various elements of which it was the synthesis became the seeds of a number of partial and one-sided theories respecting the relation of the Father and the Son. The influence of Greek ideas, which had already begun in the Apostolic Age, became more pronounced and largely shaped the current of ante-Nicene theology (see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures).
Gnosticism in particular was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with philosophy; but in Gnostic systems the term "Logos" is only sparingly employed. According to Basilides the "Logos" was an emanation from the nous as personified Wisdom, which again was directly derived from the Father. Valentinus, in whose teaching Gnosticism culminated, taught that Wisdom was the last of a series of Eons which emanated from the Primal Being, and the Logos was an emanation of the first two principles which issued from God--Reason, Faith. Justin Martyr, the first of the sub-apostolic Fathers, sought to unite the Scriptural idea of the Logos as Word with the Hellenic idea of Reason. According to him God produced in His own nature a rational power which was His agent in creation and took the form in history of the Divine Man. Christ is the organ of all revelations, and as the logos spermatikos, He sows the seeds of virtue and truth among the heathen. All that is true and beautiful in the pagan world is to be traced to the activity of the Logos before His incarnation. Tatian and Theophilus taught essentially the same doctrine; though in Tatian there is a marked leaning toward Gnosticism, and consequently a tendency to separate the ideal from the historical Christ. Athenagoras, who ascribes to the Logos the creation of all things, regarding it in the double sense of the Reason of God and the creative energy of the world, has a firm grasp of the Biblical doctrine, which was still more clearly expressed by Irenaeus, who held that the Son was the essential Word, eternally begotten of the Father and at once the interpreter of God and the Creator of the world.
The Alexandrian school was shaped by the threefold influence of Plato, Philo and the Johannine Gospel. Clement of Alexandria views the Son as the Logos of the Father, the Fountain of all intelligence, the Revealer of the Divine Being and the Creator and Illuminator of mankind. He repudiates the idea of the inferiority of the Son, and regards the Logos not as the spoken but as the creative word. Origen seeks to reconcile the two ideas of the eternity and the subordination of the Logos, and is in this sense a mediator between the Arian and more orthodox parties and was appealed to by both. According to him the Son is equal in substance with the Father, but there is a difference in essence. While the Father is "the God" (ho theos) and "God Himself" (autotheos), the Logos is "a second God" (deuteros theos). In the Nicene Age, under the shaping influence of the powerful mind of Athanasius, and, to a lesser degree, of Basil and the two Gregories, the Logos-doctrine attained its final form in the triumphant statement of the Nicene Creed which declared the essential unity, but, at the same time, the personal distinction of the Father and Son. The Council of Nicea practically gathered up the divergent views of the past and established the teaching of the Fourth Gospel as the doctrine of the church.
LITERATURE.
(1) On Greek Logos:
Schleiermacher, Herakleitos der Dunkle; Histories of Philosophy, Zeller, Ueberweg, Hitter; Heinze, Die Lehre yore Logos in der Greek Phil. (1872); Aall, Gesch. d. Logosidee in d. Greek Phil. (1896).
(2) On Jewish Doctrine:
Oehler, O T Theol. (1873); Schurer, Lehrbuch d. New Testament Zeitgesch; Schultz, Old Testament Theol.
(3) On Alexandrian Doctrine:
Gfrorer, Philo u. die alex. Theosophie (1831); Dahne, Gesch. Darstell. der jud-alex. Religions-Philosophic (1843); Keferstein, Philos Lehre yon den gottlichen Mittelwesen (1846); Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi; Siegfried, Philo v. Alex. (1875); Drummond, Philo Judaeus (1888); Reville, La doctrine du Logos; Huber, Die Philosophic der Kirchenvater; Grossmann, Questiones Philoneae (1841); Watson, Philos. Basis of Religion (1907).
(4) On Johannine Gospel:
Relative comma. of Meyer, Godet, Westcote, Luthardt, E. Scott (1907); Liddon, Divinity of our Lord ("Bampton Lectures," 1866); Watkins, Modern Criticism on the Fourth Gospel ("Bampton Lectures," 1890); Gloag, Introduction to Johannine Writing, (1891); Stevens, Johannine Theol. (1894); Drummond, Gospel of John; Bertling, Der Johan. Logos (1907); Schmiedel, The Johannine Writings (1908); Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii; Beyschlag and Weiss, Biblical Theol. of New Testament; Drummond, Via, Veritas, Vita (1894); Hatch, Greek Ideas and Usages, Their Influence upon the Christian Church (Hibbert Lectures, 1888).
(5) Patristic Period:
Harnack, Dogmen-Gesch.; Baur, Kirchen-Gesch.; Dorner, System d. chr. Glaubenslehre; Loofs, Leitfaden fur seine Vorlesungen uber Dogmengeschichte; Atzbergen, Die Logoslehre d. heiligen Athanasius (1880).
B.D. Alexander
Loins
Loins - loinz (chalats, Aramaic charats, mothen, kecel, yarekh; osphus): This variety of Hebrew synonyms seems to be used rather promiscuously for the loins, though there is no little difference in the secondary meanings of these words. They represent various modes of expressing the loins as the seat of strength and vigor (Job 40:16, Hebrew mothen, here used of Behemoth), the center of procreative power, the portion of the body which is girded about, and is considered as specially needful of covering, even under primitive conditions of life (Job 31:20), and where painful disease most effectually unfits a man for work and warfare.
Jacob receives the Divine promise that "kings shall come out of (his) loins" (chalats, Genesis 35:11), and we read of 66 souls "that came out of his loins" (yarekh) which went into Egypt (Genesis 46:26). The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the Levites as having come out of the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:5).
As the seat of strength (compare LEG; THIGH), the loins are girded with belts of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matthew 3:4), or cloth, often beautifully embroidered (Exodus 28:39), or of costly material (Exodus 39:29; Jeremiah 13:1 f). Girded loins are a sign of readiness for service or endeavor (Exodus 12:11; 1 Kings 18:46; 2 Kings 4:29; Job 38:3; Proverbs 31:17; Luke 12:35; 1 Peter 1:13). Of God it is said that "he looseth the bond of kings, and bindeth their loins with a girdle," i.e. strengthens them (Job 12:18). On the loins the sword is worn (2 Samuel 20:8). It is a sign of mourning to gird the loins with sackcloth (1 Kings 20:32; Isaiah 32:11; Jeremiah 48:37; Amos 8:10; see also the First Papyrus of Elephantine, l. 20). A man whose strength is in his attachment to truth, in other words is faithful, is spoken of as having his loins girt about with truth (Ephesians 6:14). Thus, the Messiah is described: "Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins" (Isaiah 11:5). One of the most primitive modes of clothing consisted of a fleece tied around the loins (Job 31:20).
The condition of unfitness for service is described in that the loins (kecel) are filled with a burning (Psalms 38:7, the King James Version "loathsome disease"), or that "a sore burden" is laid upon the "loins" (mothen, Psalms 66:11). Thus the loins are made "continually to shake" (Psalms 69:23), "the joints of (the) loins" (charats) are loosed (Daniel 5:6), the "loins are filled with anguish" (Isaiah 21:3). It is very likely that originally a disabling lumbago or the painful affections of the gall or the bladder (calculus, etc.) are meant, but very soon the expression becomes merely metaphorical to express personal helplessness, especially that which can but rely upon assistance and help from God.
H. L. E. Luering
Lois
Lois - lo'-is (Lois (2 Timothy 1:5)): The grandmother of Timothy, and evidently the mother of Eunice, Timothy's mother. The family lived at Lystra (Acts 16:1). It was on the occasion of Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 14:1-28) that Eunice and Timothy were converted to Christ, and it was, in all likelihood, on the same occasion that Lois also became a Christian. Paul speaks of the unfeigned faith that there was in Timothy, and he adds that this faith dwelt at the first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice. This is the only passage where Lois is mentioned; but by comparing 2 Timothy 1:5 with 2 Timothy 3:15 (the King James Version), where Paul refers to Timothy's having "from a child known the holy scriptures," it would appear that Lois was associated with Eunice, both in a reverent faith in God and in the careful instruction in the Old Testament which was given to Timothy.
John Rutherfurd
Longevity
Longevity - lon-jev'-i-ti: In the part of Genesis ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), the names and genealogies of the patriarchs are given (Genesis 5:1-32; Genesis 11:1-32). In the three versions which are our chief sources, Massoretic Text, Septuagint and Sam, the age-numbers given for these patriarchs are hopelessly at variance. It is in accord with what we find in the earliest legend of most races that in these chapters a great length of life is ascribed to these; thus Berosus attributes to the first 10 kings of Babylonia a span of 430,000 years, and Hesiod (Works and Days, 129) says that in the Silver Age childhood lasted 100 years, during which a boy was reared and grew up beside his mother. On the other hand the evidence of prehistoric archaeology shows that the rate of development of the individual in the early Stone Age differed very little from that of humanity at the present day. It is possible that, in the case of the Hebrew record, the names of certain pre-Abrahamic patriarchs were derived from an ancient tradition, and that in the desire to fill up the chronology of the period before the call of Abraham, these names were inserted and the time which was supposed to have elapsed was divided among them; on the basis of some such hypothesis as that which is said to have existed among the Jews, that the Messiah should come 4,000 years after Adam.
We know from the archaeological evidence that the antiquity of primitive man extends to a date very much farther back than 4,000 years. Indeed, we can prove that before 4000 BC there were settled nationalities both in the valley of the Nile and that of the Euphrates, and that among these the duration of individual life was much the same as at the present day. The first three dynasties in Egypt, starting at or about 4400 BC, consisted of 25 consecutive kings, the average length of whose several reigns was about 30 years. The biographic sketches of Biblical persons other than those in Genesis showed that their longevity did not exceed that of our contemporaries. Eli was blind and feeble at 98. At 70 David was bedridden and frail. Manasseh, the king of Judah whose reign was longest, died at 67; Uzziah died at 68. The statement in Psalms 90:10 attributed to Moses is a correct estimate of what has been the expectation of life at all time.
At the present day among Palestinian fellahin very old men are uncommon. I have never seen anyone among them who could prove that he was 80 years of age; the rate of infant mortality is appallingly high. Maturity is earlier, and signs of senility appear among them sooner than among the same class in Great Britain.
Alexander Macalister
Longsuffering
Longsuffering - long-suf'-er-ing ('erekh 'appayim; makrothumia): The words 'erekh 'appayim, translated longsuffering, mean literally, "long of nose" (or "breathing"), and, as anger was indicated by rapid, violent breathing through the nostrils, "long of anger," or "slow to wrath." The adjective is applied to God (Exodus 34:6 the King James Version, in the name of Yahweh as proclaimed to Moses; Numbers 14:18 the King James Version; Psalms 86:15 the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) "slow to anger," which is also the translation in other places; the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Nehemiah 9:17; Psalms 103:8; 145:8; Proverbs 15:18; 16:32; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3); it is associated with "great kindness" and "plenteous in mercy." The substantive occurs in Jeremiah 15:15: "Take me not away in thy longsuffering." In Ecclesiastes 7:8, we have 'erekh ruach, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "patient in spirit."
The word in the New Testament rendered "longsuffering," makrothumia (once makrothumeo, "to be longsuffering"), which is the rendering of 'erekh 'appayim in the Septuagint, is literally, "long of mind or soul" (regarded as the seat of the emotions), opposed to shortness of mind or soul, irascibility, impatience, intolerance. It is attributed to God (Romans 2:4; 9:22; 2 Peter 3:9), of His bearing long with sinners and slowness to execute judgment on them. It is, therefore, one of "the fruits of the Spirit" in man (Galatians 5:22) which Christians are frequently exhorted to cherish and show one toward the other (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 1:11; 3:12, etc.); it belongs, Paul says, to the love, without which all else is nothing: "Love suffereth long (makrothumei), and is kind" (1 Corinthians 13:4); The verb makrothumeo is sometimes translated by "patience" (Matthew 18:26, 29, "Have patience with me"). Luke 18:7 has been variously rendered; the King James Version has "And shall not God avenge his own elect .... though he bear long with them"; the Revised Version (British and American) "and yet he is longsuffering over them," the American Revised Version margin "and is he slow to punish on their behalf?" Weymouth (New Testament in Modern Speech) has "although he seems slow in taking action on their behalf," which most probably gives the sense of the passage; in James 5:7-8 the verb occurs thrice, the King James Version "be patient," "hath long patience"; the Revised Version (British and American) also translates by "patient"; this, however, as in Matthew 18:26, 29, seems to lose the full force of the Greek word. According to Trench (Synonyms of the New Testament, 189), the difference between hupomone ("patience") and makrothumia is that the latter word expresses patience in respect to persons, and the former in respect to things; hence, hupomone is never ascribed to God; where He is called "the God of patience," it is as He gives it to His servants and saints. But in James 5:7 it is used with reference to things, and in Colossians 1:11 it is associated with patience (compare Hebrews 6:12, 15), suggesting patient endurance of trials and sufferings. In Colossians 1:11 it is also associated with "joy," indicating that it is not a mere submissiveness, but a joyful acceptance of the will of God, whatever it may be. In Wisdom of Solomon 15:1; Ecclesiastes 5:4, we have "longsuffering" (makrothumos) ascribed to God; also in Ecclesiastes 2:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "mercy."
W. L. Walker
Look
Look - look: (1) The uses of the simple verb in English Versions of the Bible are nearly all good modern English. In Isaiah 5:2, however, "He looked that it should bring forth grapes"--"look" is used in the sense of "expect." Compare the King James Version of Sirach 20:14; Acts 28:6, "They looked when he should have swollen" (the Revised Version (British and American) "They expected that he would have swollen"). In 1 Maccabees 4:54, the King James Version has inserted "look" (omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)) as a simple interjection, without a corresponding word in the Greek (2) "Look upon" means "fix one's attention on," and is often so used in English Versions of the Bible without further significance (Ecclesiastes 2:11; Luke 22:56, etc.); but in 2 Chronicles 24:22 the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), "Yahweh look upon it" means "remember." However, continual attention given to an object usually denotes that pleasure is found in it, and from this fact such uses as those of Proverbs 23:31, "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red," are derived. In particular, God's "looking upon" a person becomes a synonym for "showing favor unto," as in Deuteronomy 26:7 the King James Version; Psalms 84:9 the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American); Psalms 119:132 the King James Version; Luke 1:48 the Revised Version (British and American) only, etc. (the Revised Version (British and American) usually, re-words, in such passages). On the other hand, "look on" may be weakened, as in such phrases as "fair to look unon" (Genesis 12:11 etc.), where it means only "fair to the sight." Or as in modern English, "look on" may describe the attitude of the passive spectator, even when applied to God. So Psalms 35:17, "Lord, how long wilt thou look on?" (3) "Look to" usually means "pay attention to," as in Proverbs 14:15; Jeremiah 39:12; 2 John 1:8, etc., and the Revised Version (British and American) occasionally uses this phrase in place of AV's "look upon" (Philippians 2:4). The reverse change is made in the King James Version's 1 Samuel 16:12, "goodly to look to"; Ezekiel 23:15, "all of them princes to look to," but in the latter verse a more drastic revision was needed, for the meaning is "all of them in appearance as princes." "Look out" may mean "search for" (Genesis 41:33; Acts 6:3), but may also be used literally, (Genesis 26:8, etc.). The King James Version's "looking after those things" in Luke 21:26 has been changed by the Revised Version (British and American) into "expectation of the things." "Look one another in the face" in 2 Kings 14:8, 11 means "meet in battle."
Burton Scott Easton
Looking-glass
Looking-glass - look'-ing-glas (Exodus 38:8 the King James Version margin "brasen glasses").
Loom
Loom - loom.
See WEAVING.
Loop
Loop - loop (in plural lula'oth (Exodus 26:4 f,Exodus 10:1-29 f; Exodus 36:11 f,Exodus 17:1-16)): A ring or fold made of blue thread to fasten into the corresponding golden clasps, or taches upon the curtains of the tabernacle, joining them in sets, or pairs.
See TABERNACLE.