International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Potiphar — Pruning-hook

Potiphar

Potiphar - pot'-i-far (poTiphar; compare Egyptian Potiphera (Genesis 39:1 f)): A high Egyptian official who became the master of Joseph. It is particularly mentioned that he was an Egyptian, i.e. one of the native Egyptian officials at the Hyksos court.

Poti-phera

Poti-phera - po-tif'-e-ra (poTi phera`; Egyptian Padipara, "the (one) given of the sun-god"; compare Hebrew Nathaniel, "the gift of God," Genesis 41:45, 50; 46:20): There is no certain evidence from Egypt that this name was in existence until the XXIInd Dynasty, about 950 BC. But names of the Hyksos period, and, indeed, any kind of Hyksos inscriptions, are so scarce on account of the destruction of Hyksos monuments by the Egyptians of later times that the absence of such names is really no evidence on the subject. The fact that this name has not been discovered earlier than 950 BC does not give any warrant for the claim that the narrative is of a late date.

M. G. Kyle

Potsherd

Potsherd - pot'-shurd (cheres): A piece of earthenware (Job 2:8; Psalms 22:15; Isaiah 45:9). the Revised Version (British and American) renders the word in Proverbs 26:23, "an earthen vessel," and in Job 41:30 substitutes "sharp potsherds" for "sharp stones." Sirach 22:7 refers to the art of "gluing a potsherd (ostrakon) together."

See HARSITH; OSTRACA.

Potsherd Gate

Potsherd Gate - (Jeremiah 19:2).

See HARSITH.

Pottage

Pottage - pot'-aj.

See FOOD,III .

Potter; Pottery

Potter; Pottery - pot'-er, pot'-er-i:

1. Historical Development

2. Forms

3. Methods of Production

4. Uses

5. Biblical Terms

6. Archaeological Significance

LITERATURE

1. Historical Development: (1) Prehistoric. The making of pottery ranks among the very oldest of the crafts. On the rocky plateaus of Upper Egypt, overlooking the Nile valley, are found the polished red earthenware pots of the prehistoric Egyptians. These are buried in shallow oval graves along with the cramped-up bodies of the dead and their chipped flint weapons and tools. These jars are the oldest examples of the potter's article It is inconceivable that in the country of Babel, Egypt's great rival in civilization, the ceramic arts were less developed at the same period, but the difference in the nature of the country where the first Mesopotamian settlement probably existed makes it unlikely that relics of the prehistoric dwellers of that country will ever be recovered from under the debris of demolished cities and the underlying deposits of clay and silt.

(2) Babylonia. The oldest examples of Babylonian ceramics date from the historical period, and consist of baked clay record tablets, bricks, drainage pipes, household shrines, as well as vessels for holding liquids, fruits and other stores. (See Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria, I, figures 159, 160,II , figures 163, 168.) Examples of pottery of this early period are shown in the accompanying figures. By the 9th to the 7th century BC the shaping of vessels of clay had become well developed. Fragments of pottery bearing the name of Esarhaddon establish the above dates.

(3) Egypt. With the close of the neolithic period in Egypt and the beginning of the historical or dynastic period (4500-4000 BC) there was a decline in the pottery article The workmanship and forms both became bad, and not until the IVth Dynasty was there any improvement. In the meantime the process of glazing had been discovered and the art of making beautiful glazed faience became one of the most noted of the ancient Egyptian crafts. The potter's wheel too was probably an invention of this date.

(4) Palestine. The making of pottery in the land which later became the home of the children of Israel began long before this people possessed the land and even before the Phoenicians of the coast cities had extended their trade inland and brought the earthenware vessels of the Tyrian or Sidonian potters. As in Egypt and Babylonia, the first examples were hand-made without the aid of the wheel.

It is probable that Jewish potters learned their art from the Phoenicians. They at least copied Phoenician and Mycenaean forms. During their wanderings the children of Israel were not likely to make much use of earthenware vessels, any more than the Arabs do today. Skins, gourds, wooden and metal vessels were less easily broken.

To illustrate this, a party, of which the writer was a member, took on a desert trip the earthenware water jars specially made for travel, preferring them to the skin bottles such as the Arab guides carried, for the bottles taint the water. At the end of six days only one out of eight earthenware jars was left. One accident or another had broken all the others.

When the Israelites became settled in their new surroundings they were probably not slow in adopting earthenware vessels, because of their advantages, and their pottery gradually developed distinctive though decadent types known as Jewish.

Toward the close of the Hebrew monarchy the pottery of the land again showed the effect of outside influences. The red and black figured ware of the Greeks was introduced, and still later the less artistic Roman types, and following these by several centuries came the crude glazed vessels of the Arabic or Saracenic period--forms which still persist.

2. Forms: It is not within the limits of this article to describe in detail the characteristics of the pottery of the various periods. The accompanying illustrations taken from photographs of pottery in the Archaeological Museum of the Syrian Protestant College, Beirut, give a general idea of the forms. Any attempt at classification of Palestinian pottery must be considered more or less provisional, due to the uncertainty of origin of many forms. The classification of pre-Roman pottery here used is that adopted by Bliss and Macalister and based upon Dr. Petrie's studies.

(1) Early Pre-Israelite, Called also "Amorite" (before 1500 BC).

Most of the vessels of this period are handmade and often irregular in shape. A coarse clay, turning red or black when burned, characterizes many specimens. Some are brick red. Specimens with a polished or burnished surface are also found.

(2) Late Pre-Israelite or Phoenician (1500-1000 BC).

From this period on, the pottery is all wheel-turned. The clay is of a finer quality and burned to a brown or red. The ware is thin and light. Water jars with pointed instead of fiat bases appear. Some are decorated with bands or lines of different colored meshes. Cypriote ware with its incised decorations was a like development of the period.

(3) Jewish (1000-300 BC). Foreign influence is lost. The types which survive degenerate. New forms are introduced. Ordinary coarse clay burning red is used. Cooking pots are most characteristic. Many examples bear Hebrew stamps, the exact meaning of which is uncertain.

(4) Seleucidan. Foreign influence again appears. Greek and other types are imported and copied. Ribbed surfaces are introduced. The old type of burnishing disappears.

(5) Roman and Saracenic. Degenerate forms persisting till the present time.

(6) Present-day Pottery. 3. Methods of Production: The clay as found in the ground is not suitable for use. It is dug out and brought to the vicinity of the pottery (the "potter's field," Matthew 27:7) and allowed to weather for weeks. The dry material is then dumped into a cement-lined tank or wooden trough and covered with water. When the lumps have softened they are stirred in the water until all have disintegrated and a thin slimy mud or "slip" has been formed. In coast cities-the potteries are all near the sea, as the sea-water is considered better for the "slipping" process. The slip is drawn off into settling tanks. All stones and lumps remain behind. When the clay has settled, the water is drawn off and the plastic material is worked by treading with the feet (compare Isaiah 41:25; Wisdom of Solomon 15:7). The clay used on the Syrian coast is usually a mixture of several earths, which the potters have learned by experience gives the right consistency. The prepared clay is finally packed away and allowed to stand another six months before using, during which time the quality, especially the plasticity, is believed to improve.

Before the invention of the potter's wheel the clay was shaped into vessels by hand. In all of the countries previously mentioned the specimens representing the oldest work are all hand-made. Chopped straw was usually added to the clay of these early specimens. This material is omitted in the wheel-shaped objects. In a Mt. Lebanon village which is noted for its pottery the jars are still made by hand. Throughout the country the clay stoves are shaped by hand out of clay mixed with straw.

The shaping of vessels is now done on wheels, the use of which dates back to earliest history. Probably the Egyptians were the first to use such a machine (IVth Dynasty). In their original form they were stone disks arranged to be turned by hand on a vertical axis. The wheel stood only a few inches above the ground, and the potter sat or squatted down on the ground before it as he shaped his object (see Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt,II , figure 397). The wheels used in Palestine and Syria today probably differ in no respect from those used in the potter's house visited by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 18:1-6). The wheel or, to be more exact, wheels (compare Jeremiah 18:3) are fitted on a square wooden or iron shaft about 3 ft. long. The lower disk is about 20 inches in diameter, and the upper one 8 inches or 12 inches. The lower end of the shaft is pointed and fits into a stone socket or bearing in which it rotates. A second bearing just below the upper disk is so arranged that the shaft inclines slightly away from the potter. The potter leans against a slanting seat, bracing himself with one foot so that he will not slide off, and with the sole of his other foot he kicks the upper face of the lower wheel, thus making the whole machine rotate. The lower wheel is often of stone to give greater momentum. With a marvelous dexterity, which a novice tries in vain to imitate, he gives the pieces of clay any shape he desires.

After the vessel is shaped it is dried and finally fired in a furnace or kiln. The ancient Egyptian kiln was much smaller than the one used today (Wilkhinson, II, 192). Most of the kilns are of the crudest form of the "up-draught" variety, i.e. a large chamber with perforated bottom and a fireplace beneath. The fire passes up through the holes, around the jars packed in tiers in the chamber, and goes out at the top. An interesting survival of an early Greek form is still used in Rachiyet-el-Fakhar in Syria. In this same village the potters also use the lead dross, which comes from the parting of silver, for glazing their jars (compare Proverbs 26:23).

In firing pottery there are always some jars which come out imperfect. In unpacking the kiln and storing the product others get broken. As a consequence the ground in the vicinity of a pottery is always strewn with potsherds (see also separate article). The ancient potteries can frequently be located by these sherds. The potter's field mentioned in Matthew 27:7, 10 was probably a field near a pottery strewn with potsherds, thus making it useless for cultivation although useful to the potter as a place in which to weather his clay or to dry his pots before firing.

4. Uses: Pottery was used in ancient times for storing liquids, such as wine or oil, fruits, grains, etc. The blackened bottoms of pots of the Jewish period show that they were used for cooking. Earthenware dishes were also used for boiling clothes. Every one of these uses still continues. To one living in Bible lands today it seems inconceivable that the Hebrews did not readily adopt, as some writers disclaim, the porous earthen water jars which they found already in use in their new country. Such jars were used for carrying live coals to start a fire, and not only for drawing water, as they are today, but for cooling it (Isaiah 30:14). The evaporation of the water which oozes through the porous material cools down the contents of a jar, whereas a metal or leathern vessel would leave it tepid or tainted. They were also used for holding shoemaker's glue or wax; for filling up the cracks of a wall before plastering; ground up they are used as sand in mortar.

5. Biblical Terms: Only a few of the Hebrew words for vessels of different sorts, which in all probability were made of pottery, have been translated by terms which indicate that fact (For cheres, and yatsar, see EARTHEN VESSELS; OSTRACA.) kadh, is translated "pitcher" in Genesis 24:14 ff; Judges 7:16 ff; Ecclesiastes 12:6 (compare keramion, Mark 14:13; Luke 22:10); "jar" in 1 Kings 17:12 (compare hudria, John 4:28). The kadh corresponded in size and use to the Arabic jarrah (compare English derivative "jar"). The jarrah is used for drawing and storing water and less frequently for holding other liquids or solids. It is used as an proximate standard of measure. For example, a man estimates the capacity of a cistern in jirar (plural of jarrah). baqbuq, "a bottle," usually leathern, but in Jeremiah 19:1, 10 of pottery. This may have been like the Arabic ibriq, which causes a gurgling sound when liquid is turned from it. Baqbuq is rendered "cruse" in 1 Kings 14:3.

keli "vessel," was of wood, metal or earthen-ware in Leviticus 6:28; Psalms 2:9; 31:12; Isaiah 30:14; Jeremiah 19:11, etc.; compare ostrakinos, 2 Corinthians 4:7, etc.

pakh, is translated "vial" in 1 Samuel 10:1; 2 Kings 9:1; see so-called pilgrim bottles.

koc also qasah "cup" or "bowl," translated "cup" in many passages, like Arabic ka's, which was formerly used for drinking instead of modern cups.

gabhia, translated "bowl" in Jeremiah 35:5.

parur, translated "pots" in Numbers 11:8; compare Judges 6:19; 1 Samuel 2:14; compare chutra, which is similar to Arabic.

kidr, commonly used for cooking today.

'etsebh, "pot," Jeremiah 22:28 the American Revised Version margin.

6. Archaeological Significance: The chemical changes wrought in clay by weathering and firing render it practically indestructible when exposed to the weather and to the action of moisture and the gaseous and solid compounds found in the soil. When the sun-baked brick walls of a Palestinian city crumbled, they buried, often intact, the earthenware vessels of the period. In the course of time, perhaps after decades or centuries, another city was built on the debris of the former. The brick walls required no digging for foundations, and so the substrata were left undisturbed. After long periods of time the destruction, by conquering armies or by neglect, of succeeding cities, produced mounds rising above the surrounding country, sometimes to a height of 60 or 100 ft. A typical example of such a mound is Tell el-Chesy (? Lachish). Dr. Flinders Petrie, as a result of the study of the various strata of this mound, has formed the basis of a classification of Palestinian pottery (see 2, above). With a knowledge of the forms of pottery of each period, the excavator has a guide, though not infallible, to the date of the ruins he finds.

Potter's Field

Potter's Field - pot'-erz.

See ACELDAMA.

Pound

Pound - pound (maneh; mna, litra; Latin, libra): Pound does not correctly represent the Hebrew maneh, which was more than a pound (see MANEH). The litra of John 12:3 and John 19:39 is the Roman pound (libra) of 4,950 grains, which is less than a pound troy, being about 10 1/3 oz. In a monetary sense (its use in Luke 19:13-25) it is the mna, or maneh, which was either of silver or gold, the former, which is probably the one referred to by Luke, being equal to 6,17 British pounds, or about $33 (in 1915); the latter 102,10 British pounds or $510 (in 1915).

See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Figurative: "Pound," like "talent," is used in the New Testament for intellectual gifts and spiritual endowments, as in the passage given above.

H. Porter

Poverty

Poverty - pov'-er-ti:

1. Old Testament References: This word, found but once in the Old Testament (Genesis 45:11) outside of the Book of Proverbs in which it occurs 11 times (6:11; 10:15; 11:24 the King James Version; 13:18; 20:13; 23:21; 24:34; 28:19,22 the King James Version; 30:8; 31:7), is a translation of yiwaresh, "to be poor," "to come to poverty" (Genesis 45:11). Four different Hebrew words are used in the 11 references in Prov, all bearing the idea of being in need of the necessities of life, although a distinction is made between being in want and being in extreme want. Proverbs 18:23 well illustrates the general meaning of "poverty" as found in this book: "The poor (rush, "to be impoverished," "destitute") useth entreaties; but the rich answereth roughly."

2. New Testament References

"Poverty" occurs 3 times in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 8:2, 9; Revelation 2:9) and is the translation of ptocheia, "to be reduced to a state of beggary or pauperism."

The teaching of the Bible on this subject would, however, be incomplete unless all the references to the "poor" were considered in this connection. Indeed the word for "poverty" has its root in the word for "poor" (ptochos; `ani, or dal).

See POOR.

3. Two Degrees of Poverty: At least two degrees of poverty are recognized. The Old Testament does not distinguish between them as clearly as does the New Testament. The New Testament, for example, by its use of two words for "poor" sets forth this distinction. In 2 Corinthians 9:9, "he hath given to the poor," the word used is penes, which does not indicate extreme poverty, but simply a condition of living from hand to mouth, a bare and scant livelihood, such as that made by the widow who cast her two mites into the treasury (Luke 21:2); while in such passages as 2 Corinthians 6:10: "As poor, yet making many rich," and Luke 6:20: "Blessed are ye poor" (ptochoi, a condition is indicated of abject beggary, pauperism, such as that in which we find Lazarus who was laid at the gate of the rich man's palace, begging even the crumbs which fell from the table of the rich man (Luke 16:20-21). It was into this latter condition that Christ voluntarily entered for our sakes: "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor (a mendicant, a beggar), that ye through his poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). Between 30 and 40 times in the New Testament this latter word is used.

4. Causes of Poverty: The causes of poverty are failure of harvest and poor crops (Nehemiah 5:1-3); devastation caused by enemies sweeping through the land; the oppression of the people by their own rulers (Isaiah 5:8); excessive interest, usury (Nehemiah 5:1-5); persecution because of the faith (2 Corinthians 6:1-18; 2 Corinthians 8:1-24). Widows and orphans by reason of their desolate condition were in a special sense subject to poverty. Gluttony brings poverty (Proverbs 23:21), as does indolence (Proverbs 28:19).

God commanded His people to care for the poor. The exhortations to relieve poverty are numerous, especially in the Pentateuch. Those in poverty must be treated with kindness (Deuteronomy 15:7-11); must be allowed to glean in the vineyards (Leviticus 19:10); to reap the harvest (Leviticus 23:22; compare Ruth 2:14-16); must not be neglected (Proverbs 28:27); nor dealt with harshly (Amos 8:4-6); must be treated as equal before God (Proverbs 22:2); are to share in our hospitality (Luke 14:13, 21). Indeed, the truth or falsity of a man's religion is to be tested, in some sense at least, by his relation to those in need (James 1:27). The year of Jubilee was intended to be of great benefit to the poor by restoring to them any possessions which they, by reason of their poverty, had been compelled to deed over to their creditors (Leviticus 25:25-54; Deuteronomy 15:12-15). God required certain tithes from His people which were to be devoted to the helping of the poor and needy (Deuteronomy 14:28; Deuteronomy 26:12-13). So in the New Testament the apostles lay special emphasis upon remembering the poor in the matter of offerings. Paul, especially, inculcated this duty upon the churches which he had rounded (Romans 15:26; Galatians 2:10). The attitude of the early Christian church toward its poor is amply illustrated in that first attempt at communism in Acts 2:1-47; Acts 4:1-37. James, in his Epistle, stingingly reminds his readers of the fact that they had grossly neglected the important matter of caring for the poor (chapter 2). Indeed, so strong is he in his plea for the care of the poor that he claims that the man who willfully neglects the needy thereby proves that the love of God has no place in his heart, and that he has consequently no real faith in God (2:14-26). Christians are exhorted to abound in the grace of hospitality, which, of course, is nothing less than kindness to those in need (Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 6:18; 1 John 3:17).

See POOR.

The happiest mother and the noblest and holiest son that ever lived were among the poor. Jesus was born of poor parents, and had not where to lay His head (Matthew 8:20), no money with which to pay tribute (Matthew 17:27), no home to call His own (John 7:53; compare John 8:1), and was buried in a borrowed grave (Matthew 27:57-61).

Figurative: Of course there is also a spiritual poverty indicated by the use of this word--a poverty in spiritual things: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." By this is meant, Blessed are they who feel that they have no self-righteousness, no worth of their own to present to Christ as a ground of their salvation, who feel their utter bankruptcy of spirit, who say "Nothing in my hand I bring." It is to this state of spirit that Christ refers in Revelation 3:17: "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked."

William Evans

Powders

Powders - pou'-derz ('abheqath rokhel): The "powders of the merchant" in Song of Solomon 3:6 were probably perfumes, as they are associated with myrrh and frankincense in the account of the festal procession of the litter of Solomon. They may have been some sweet-scented wood in powder, or else some form of incense.

Power

Power - pou'-er: This word, indicative of might, strength, force, is used in the Old Testament to render very many Hebrew terms, the translation in numerous instances being varied in the Revised Version (British and American) to words like "valor," "rule," "strength," "might," "dominion." The principal words for "power" in the New Testament are dunamis, and exousia. In the latter case the Revised Version (British and American) frequently changes to "authority" (Mark 3:15; 6:7; Ephesians 1:21, etc.) or "right" (Romans 9:21; 1 Corinthians 9:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:9, etc.). Power is attributed preeminently to God (1 Chronicles 29:11; Job 26:14; Psalms 66:7; 145:11; Revelation 7:12, etc.). On this attribute of power of God, see OMNIPOTENCE. The supreme manifestation of the power, as of the wisdom and love of God, is in redemption (1 Corinthians 1:18, 24). The preaching of the gospel is accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5, etc.). Miracles, as "mighty works," are denoted by the term "powers" (so Matthew 11:21, 23 the Revised Version margin, etc.). The end of all time's developments is that God takes to Him His great power and reigns (Revelation 11:17).

James Orr

Power of Keys

Power of Keys - See KEYS,POWER OF THE .

Praetorian Guard

Praetorian Guard - pre-to'-ri-an: "My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other, places" (Philippians 1:13 the King James Version). This verse is translated in the Revised Version (British and American), "My bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole praetorian guard, and to all the rest," and is noteworthy.

1. Pretorium in Philippians--Usual View: It has been usual to connect the words, "the soldier that guarded him," Acts 28:16, with this statement in Philippians 1:13, that the apostle's bonds were manifest in the whole praetorium, and to understand that the former was the cause of the latter; that the result of Paul's making the gospel known in his own hired house to those soldiers to one of whom he was chained by the wrist day and night, was that it became known in all the praetorian regiment that his bonds were endured for Christ's sake, that it was for conscience' sake that he was suffering wrongfully, that he was no wrongdoer but a prisoner of Jesus Christ. In this way the gospel would spread through the whole of the praetorian guard in that regiment's headquarters which were situated in a permanent camp established by Tiberius in Rome, outside the Colline Gate, at the Northeast of the city. This verse would also mean that the gospel had been proclaimed in the same way to those members of the praetorian guard who were on duty as the bodyguard of the emperor and who were lodged in one of the buildings which adjoined the emperor's palace on the Palatine Hill.

2. Lightfoot on Interpretations: Thus, Lightfoot, discussing the meaning of the phrase "in the whole praetorium" (Commentary on Philippians, 99 ff), reviews the different interpretations which have been given of the word, and shows (1) that no instance is to be found of its signifying Nero's palace on the Palatine Hill; (2) that there is no authority for the interpretation which would make it mean the praenterinn barracks on the Palatine; (3) that neither is there any authority for making it mean the praetorian camp outside the walls of Rome. In Lightfoot's words (op. cit., 101), "All attempts to give a local sense to `praetorium' thus fail for want of evidence." Lightfoot accordingly defends the interpretation, "the praetorian guard," and the Revised Version (British and American), above cited, follows him in this.

3. View of Mommsen and Ramsay: One of the meanings of "praetorium" is a council of war, the officers who met in the general's tent (see PRAETORIUM). Lightfoot is very decided in interpreting "praetorium" to mean the praetorian regiment, the imperial guards, and he adds, "in this sense and in this alone can it be safely affirmed that the apostle would hear the word praetorium used daily," and that this sense is in all respects appropriate. But the other meaning, though not appropriate here, namely, a council of war composed of the officers and their general, is much nearer to that which is now accepted by such authorities as Mommsen and Sir W.M. Ramsay, who hold that in this passage "praetorium" means a council, not of war, however, but the council of judgment, the emperor's court of appeal in which he was assisted by his legal assessors (see Mommsen, Berlin Akad. Sitzungsber., 1895, 501; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and the Rein Citizen, 357; Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, 35). Over this court there presided the emperor or his delegate, the prefect of the praetorian guard, and associated with him were twenty assessors selected from the senators. Formerly their votes were taken by ballot, but Nero preferred to receive from each a written opinion and on the next day to deliver his judgment in person. Such, it is now believed, is the praetorium to which Paul refers.

The meaning, therefore, of the words, "My bonds in Christ are manifest in the whole praetorium," will be that when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians his first Roman trial was already so far advanced that he had been able to impress upon his judges, the twenty assessors and their president, the fact that he was no evildoer, but that the sole cause of his imprisonment was his loyalty to Christ. It was manifest to all the members of the emperor's court of appeal that Paul was enduring his long imprisonment, suffering wrongfully, but only for the sake of Jesus Christ.

4. Bearing on Paul's Captivity and Trial: The important bearing will be seen which this signification of "praetorium" in this passage has on the question of the order in which Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon--the epistles of Paul's captivity in Rome--were written. On subjective evidence Lightfoot concludes that Philippians is the earliest of them, basing his opinion largely on the resemblance which exists in many particulars between the thoughts and expressions in Philippians and in the Epistle to the Romans, making Philippians, as it were, a connecting link between Paul's earlier and his later epistles. See Lightfoot, Philipplans, 42 f; he writes: "These resemblances suggest as early a date for the Epistle to the Philippians as circumstances will allow," earlier, that is, than Colossians and Ephesians. But Lightfoot's argument is set aside by the new light which has been thrown upon the real meaning of "praetorium." Sir W.M. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 357) writes: "The trial seems to have occurred toward the end of AD 61. Its earliest stages were over before Paul wrote to the Philipplans, for he says, `The things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the progress of the Good News; so that my bonds became manifest in Christ in the whole Pretorium, and to all the rest; and that most of the Brethren in the Lord, being confident in my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.' This passage has been generally misconceived and connected with the period of imprisonment; and here again we are indebted to Mommsen for the proper interpretation. The Praetorum is the whole body of persons connected with the sitting in judgment, the supreme Imperial Court, doubtless in this case the Prefect or both Prefects of the Praetorian Guard, representing the emperor in his capacity as the fountain of justice, together with the assessors and high officers of the court. The expression of the chapter as a whole shows that the trial is partly finished, and the issue as yet is so favorable that the Brethren are emboldened by the success of Paul's courageous and freespoken defense and the strong impression which he evidently produced on the court; but he himself, being entirely occupied with the trial, is for the moment prevented from preaching as he had been doing when he wrote to the Colossians and the Asian churches generally."

5. Bearing on Date of Epistle: Thus, the correct meaning of "praetorium" enables us to fix the date of the Epistle to the Philippians as having been written close to the end of Paul's first Roman imprisonment. That this inference is correct is confirmed by various other facts, such as his promise to visit that city, and the fact that in Philippians 2:20 f the King James Version he says regarding Timothy, "I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." We could not conceive of Paul writing like this if Mark, Tychicus, Aristarchus, and especially if Luke had been with him then, and yet we know (Colossians 4:7, 10, 14) that each and all of these companions of the apostle were with him in Rome when he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians. They had evidently, along with others, been sent on missions to Asia or other places, so that Paul now had only Timothy "likeminded" when he wrote to Philippi.

See PAUL,THE APOSTLE ; PHILIPPIANS,THE EPISTLE TO THE .

All these facts and considerations confirm us in accepting the signification of "praetorium" as the emperor's supreme court of appeal, before which Paul when he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians had so conducted his defense as to produce a most favorable impression, from which he inferred that he might soon be liberated from imprisonment. And his liberation, as the event proved, soon followed.

John Rutherfurd

Praetorium

Praetorium - pre-to'-ri-um praitorion, Matthew 27:27 (the King James Version "common hall"); Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9 (in all margins "palace," and in the last three the King James Version "judgment hall"); Acts 23:35, (Herod's) "palace," margin "Praetorium," the King James Version "judgment hall"; Philippians 1:13, "praetorian guard" (margin "Greek `in the whole Pretorium,' " the King James Version "palace," margin "Caesar's court"):

1. Governor's Official Residence: The Pretorium was originally the headquarters of a Roman camp, but in the provinces the name became attached to the governor's official residence. In order to provide residences for their provincial governors, the Romans were accustomed to seize and appropriate the palaces which were formerly the homes of the princes or kings in conquered countries. Such a residence might sometimes be in a royal palace, as was probably the case in Caesarea, where the procurator used Herod's palace (Acts 23:35).

2. In Gospels Herod's Palace: The Pretorium where Jesus was brought to trial has been traditionally located in the neighborhood of the present Turkish barracks where once stood the Antonia and where was stationed a large garrison (compare Acts 21:32-35), but the statements of Josephus make it almost certain that the headquarters of the procurator were at Herod's palace. This was a building whose magnificence Josephus can hardly sufficiently appraise (Wars, I, xxi, 1; V, iv, 4). It was in this palace that "Florus, the procurator took up his quarters, and having placed his tribunal in front of it, held his sessions and the chief priests, influential persons and notables of the city appeared before the tribunal" (Wars II, xiv, 8). Later on, "Florus .... brought such as were with him out of the king's palace, and would have compelled them to get as far as the citadel (Antonia); but his attempt failed" (II, xv, 5). The word translated "palace" here is aule, the same word as is translated "court" in Mark 15:16, "the soldiers led him away within the court (aule), which is the Pretorium." There is no need to suppose that Herod Antipas was in the same palace (Luke 23:4 ff); it is more probable he went to the palace of the Hasmoneans which lay lower down on the eastern slope of this southwest hill, where at a later time Josephus expressly states that Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice were living (Wars, II, xvi, 3).

The palace of Herod occupied the highest part of the southwest hill near the northwest angle of the ancient city, now traditionally called Zion, and the actual site of the Pretorium cannot have been far removed from the Turkish barracks near the so-called "Tower of David." It is interesting to note that the two stations of the Turkish garrison of Jerusalem today occupy the same spots as did the Roman garrison of Christ's time. It is needless to point out how greatly this view of the situation of the Pretorium must modify the traditional claims of the "Via Dolorosa," the whole course of which depends on theory that the "Way of Sorrow" began at the Antonia, the Pretorium of late ecclesiastical tradition.

Praise

Praise - praz (tehillah, "psalm," "praise," todhah, "confession" "thanksgiving," shabhach, "to praise" "glorify," zamar, yadhah, "to stretch out the hand," "confess"; aineo, epaineo, (epainos):

1. Its Meaning: The word comes from the Latin pretium, "price," or "value," and may be defined generally as an ascription of value or worth. Praise may be bestowed upon unworthy objects or from improper motives, but true praise consists in a sincere acknowledgment of a real conviction of worth. Its type may be seen in the representation given in the Apocalypse of the adoration of God and of the Lamb, which is inspired by a sense of their worthiness to be adored (Revelation 4:11; 5:12).

2. With Man as Its Object: Man may be the object of praise, and may receive it either from God or from his fellow-men. In the former case (Romans 2:29; 1 Corinthians 4:5) the praise is inevitably just, as resting on a divine estimate of worth; in the latter case its value depends upon the grounds and motives that lie behind it. There is a praise which is itself a condemnation (Luke 6:26), an honor which seals the eyes in unbelief (John 5:44), a careless use of the epithet "good" which is dishonoring to God (Luke 18:19). This is the "praise of men" which Jesus warned His followers to shun as being incompatible with the "praise of God" (Matthew 6:1-4; compare John 12:43; Galatians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:6). On the other hand, there is a praise that is the instinctive homage of the soul to righteousness (Luke 23:47), the acknowledgment given to well-doing by just government (Romans 13:3; 1 Peter 2:14), the tribute of the churches to distinguished Christian service (2 Corinthians 8:18). Such praise, so far from being incompatible with the praise of God, is a reflection of it in human consciousness; and so Paul associates praise with virtue as an aid and incentive to holy living on which the mind should dwell (Philippians 4:8).

3. With God as Its Object: In the Bible it is God who is especially brought before us as the object of praise. His whole creation praises Him, from the angels of heaven (Psalms 103:20; Revelation 5:11) to those lower existences that are unconscious or even inanimate (Psalms 19:1-4; Psalms 148:1-10; Revelation 5:13). But it is with the praises offered to God by man, and with the human duty of praising God, that the Scriptures are principally concerned. In regard to this subject the following points may be noticed:

(1) The Grounds of Praise. Sometimes God is praised for His inherent qualities. His majesty (Psalms 104:1) or holiness (Isaiah 6:3) fills the mind, and He is "glorified as God" (Romans 1:21) in view of what He essentially is. More frequently He is praised for His works in creation, providence, and redemption. References may be dispensed with here, for the evidence meets us on almost every page of the sacred literature from Genesis to Revelation, and the Book of Psalms in particular, from beginning to end, is occupied with these themes. When God's operations under these aspects present themselves, not simply as general effects of His power and wisdom, but as expressions of His personal love to the individual, the nation, the church, His works become benefits, and praise passes into blessing and thanksgiving (Psalms 34:1-22; Psalms 103:1-22; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3).

(2) The Modes of Praise. True praise of God, as distinguished from false praise (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:8), is first of all an inward emotion--a gladness and rejoicing of the heart (Psalms 4:7; 33:21), a music of the soul and spirit (Psalms 103:1; Luke 1:46 f) which no language can adequately express (Psalms 106:2; 2 Corinthians 9:15). But utterance is natural to strong emotion, and the mouth instinctively strives to express the praises of the heart (Psalms 51:15 and passim). Many of the most moving passages in Scripture come from the inspiration of the spirit of praise awakened by the contemplation of the divine majesty or power or wisdom or kindness, but above all by the revelation of redeeming love. Again, the spirit of praise is a social spirit calling for social utterance. The man who praises God desires to praise Him in the hearing of other men (Psalms 40:10), and desires also that their praises should be joined with his own (Psalms 34:3). Further, the spirit of praise is a spirit of song. It may find expression in other ways--in sacrifice (Leviticus 7:13), or testimony (Psalms 66:16), or prayer (Colossians 1:3); but it finds its most natural and its fullest utterance in lyrical and musical forms. When God fills the heart with praise He puts a new song into the mouth (Psalms 40:3). The Book of Psalms is the proof of this for the Old Testament. And when we pass to the New Testament we find that, alike for angels and men, for the church on earth and the church in heaven, the higher moods of praise express themselves in bursts of song (Luke 2:14; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Revelation 5:9; 14:3; 15:3). Finally, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, the spirit of song gives birth to ordered modes of public praise. In their earlier expressions the praises of Israel were joyful outbursts in which song was mingled with shouting and dancing to a rude accompaniment of timbrels and trumpets (Exodus 15:20 ff; 2 Samuel 6:5, 14 ff). In later times Israel had its sacred Psalter, its guilds of trained singers (Ezra 2:41; Nehemiah 7:44), its skilled musicians (Psalms 42:1-11; Psalms 49:1-20, etc.); and the praise that waited for God in Zion was full of the solemn beauty of holiness (Psalms 29:2; 96:9). In the New Testament the Psalter is still a manual of social praise. The "hymn" which Jesus sang with His disciples after the Last Supper (Matthew 26:30) would be a Hebrew psalm, probably from the Hallel (Psalms 113:1-9 through Psalms 118:1-29) which was used at the Passover service, and various references in the Epistles point to the continued employment of the ancient psalms in Christian worship (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13). But the Psalter of the Jewish church could not suffice to express the distinctive moods of Christian feeling. Original utterance of the spirit of Christian song was one of the manifestations of the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:15-17). Paul distinguishes hymns and spiritual songs from psalms (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16); and it was hymns that he and Silas sang at midnight in the prison of Philippi (Acts 16:25 the Revised Version (British and American)). But from hymns and songs that were the spontaneous utterance of individual feeling the development was natural, in New Testament as in Old Testament times, to hymns that were sung in unison by a whole congregation; and in rhythmic passages like 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 15:3 f, we seem to have fragments of a primitive Christian hymnology, such as Pliny bears witness to for the early years of the Revelation 2:11-29nd century, when he informs Trajan that the Christians of Bithynia at their morning meetings sang a hymn in alternate strains to Christ as God (Ep. x.97).

See PERSECUTION.

(3) The Duty of Praise. Praise is everywhere represented in the Bible as a duty no less than a natural impulse and a delight. To fail in this duty is to withhold from God's glory that belongs to Him (Psalms 50:23; Romans 1:20 f); it is to shut one's eyes to the signs of His presence (Isaiah 40:26 ff), to be forgetful of His mercies (Deuteronomy 6:12), and unthankful for His kindness (Luke 6:35). If we are not to fall into these sins, but are to give to God the honor and glory and gratitude we owe Him, we must earnestly cultivate the spirit and habit of praise. From holy men of old we learn that this may be done by arousing the soul from its slothfulness and sluggishness (Psalms 57:8; 103:1), by fixing the heart upon God (Psalms 57:7; 108:1), by meditation on His works and ways (Psalms 77:11 ff), by recounting His benefits (Psalms 103:2), above all, for those to whom He has spoken in His Son, by dwelling upon His unspeakable gift (2 Corinthians 9:15; compare Romans 8:31 ff; 1 John 3:1).

Prayer

Prayer - prar (deesis, proseuche, (enteuxis; for an excellent discussion of the meaning of these see Thayer's Lexicon, p. 126, under the word deesis; the chief verbs are euchomai, proseuchomai, and deomai, especially in Luke and Acts; aiteo, "to ask a favor" distinguished from erotao, "to ask a question," is found occasionally): In the Bible "prayer" is used in a simpler and a more complex a narrower and a wider signification. In the former case it is supplication for benefits either for one's self (petition) or for others (intercession). In the latter it is an act of worship which covers all soul in its approach to God. Supplication is at the heart of it, for prayer always springs out of a sense of need and a belief that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). But adoration and confession and thanksgiving also find a It place, so that the suppliant becomes a worshipper. It is unnecessary to distinguish all the various terms for prayer that are employed in the Old Testament and the New Testament. But the fact should be noticed that in the Hebrew and Greek aloe there are on the one hand words for prayer that denote a direct petition or short, sharp cry of the heart in its distress (Psalms 30:2; 2 Corinthians 12:8), and on the other "prayers" like that of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10), which is in reality a song of thanksgiving, or that of Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, in which intercession is mingled with doxology (Ephesians 3:14-21).

1. In the Old Testament: The history of prayer as it meets us here reflects various stages of experience and revelation. In the patriarchal period, when `men began to call upon the name of the Lord' (Genesis 4:26; compare Genesis 12:8; 21:33), prayer is naive, familiar and direct (Genesis 15:2 ff; Genesis 17:18; 18:23 ff; Genesis 24:12). It is evidently associated with sacrifice (Genesis 12:8; 13:4; 26:25), the underlying idea probably being that the gift or offering would help to elicit the desired response. Analogous to this is Jacob's vow, itself a species of prayer, in which the granting of desired benefits becomes the condition of promised service and fidelity (Genesis 28:20 ff). In the pre-exilic history of Israel prayer still retains many of the primitive features of the patriarchal type (Exodus 3:4; Numbers 11:11-15; Judges 6:13 ff; Judges 11:30 f; 1 Samuel 1:11; 2 Samuel 15:8; Psalms 66:13 f). The Law has remarkably little to say on the subject, differing here from the later Judaism (see Schurer,HJP ,II , i, 290, index-vol, p. 93; and compare Matthew 6:5 ff; Matthew 23:14; Acts 3:1; 16:13); while it confirms the association of prayer with sacrifices, which now appear, however, not as gifts in anticipation of benefits to follow, but as expiations of guilt (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) or thank offerings for past mercies (Deuteronomy 26:1-11). Moreover, the free, frank access of the private individual to God is more and more giving place to the mediation of the priest (Deuteronomy 21:5; 26:3), the intercession of the prophet (Exodus 32:11-13; 1 Samuel 7:5-13; 12:23), the ordered approach of tabernacle and temple services (Exodus 40:1-38; 1 Kings 8:1-66). The prophet, it is true, approaches God immediately and freely--Moses (Exodus 34:34; Deuteronomy 34:10) and David (2 Samuel 7:27) are to be numbered among the prophets--but he does so in virtue of his office, and on the ground especially of his possession of the Spirit and his intercessory function (compare Ezekiel 2:2; Jeremiah 14:15).

A new epoch in the history of prayer in Israel was brought about by the experiences of the Exile. Chastisement drove the nation to seek God more earnestly than before, and as the way of approach through the external forms of the temple and its sacrifices was now closed, the spiritual path of prayer was frequented with a new assiduity. The devotional habits of Ezra (Ezra 7:27; 8:23), Nehemlab (Nehemiah 2:4; 4, 9, etc.) and Daniel (Daniel 6:10) prove how large a place prayer came to hold in the individual life; while the utterances recorded in Ezra 9:6-15; Nehemiah 1:5-11; Nehemiah 9:5-38; Daniel 9:4-19; Isaiah 63:7 through Isaiah 64:12 serve as illustrations of the language and spirit of the prayers of the Exile, and show especially the prominence now given to confession of sin. In any survey of the Old Testament teaching the Psalms occupy a place by themselves, both on account of the large period they cover in the history and because we are ignorant in most cases as to the particular circumstances of their origin. But speaking generally it may be said that here we see the loftiest flights attained by the spirit of prayer under the old dispensation--the intensest craving for pardon, purity and other spiritual blessings (Psalms 51:1-19; Psalms 130:1-8), the most heartfelt longing for a living communion with God Himself (Psalms 42:2; 63:1; 84:2).

2. In the New Testament: Here it will be convenient to deal separately with the material furnished by the Gospel narratives of the life and teaching of Christ and that found in the remaining books. The distinctively Christian view of prayer comes to us from the Christ of the Gospels. We have to notice His own habits in the matter (Luke 3:21; 6:12; 16, 29; Luke 22:32, 39-46; Luke 23:34-46; Matthew 27:46; John 17:1-26), which for all who accept Him as the revealer of the Father and the final authority in religion immediately dissipate all theoretical objections to the value and efficacy of prayer. Next we have His general teaching on the subject in parables (Luke 11:5-9; Luke 18:1-14) and incidental sayings (Matthew 5:44; Matthew 6:5-8; Matthew 7:7-11; 9:38; 17:21; 18:19; 21:22; 24:20; 26:41 and the parallels), which presents prayer, not as a mere energizing of the religious soul that is followed by beneficial spiritual reactions, but as the request of a child to a father (Matthew 6:8; 7:11), subject, indeed, to the father's will (Matthew 7:11; compare Matthew 6:10; 39, 42; 1 John 5:14), but secure always of loving attention and response (Matthew 7:7-11; 21:22). In thus teaching us to approach God as our Father, Jesus raised prayer to its highest plane, making it not less reverent than it was at its best in Old Testament times, while far more intimate and trustful. In the LORD'S PRAYER (which see). He summed up His ordinary teaching on the subject in a concrete example which serves as a model and breviary of prayer (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4). But according to the Fourth Gospel, this was not His final word upon the subject. On the night of the betrayal, and in full view of His death and resurrection and ascension to God's right hand, He told His disciples that prayer was henceforth to be addressed to the Father in the name of the Son, and that prayer thus offered was sure to be granted (John 16:23-24, 26). The differentia of Christian prayer thus consists in its being offered in the name of Christ; while the secret of its success lies on the one hand in the new access to the Father which Christ has secured for His people (John 17:19; compare Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 10:19-22), and on the other in the fact that prayer offered in the name of Christ will be prayer in harmony with the Father's will (John 15:7; compare 1 John 3:22 f; 1 John 5:13 f).

In the Acts and Epistles we see the apostolic church giving effect to Christ's teaching on prayer. It was in a praying atmosphere that the church was born (Acts 1:14; compare Acts 2:1); and throughout its early history prayer continued to be its vital breath and native air (Acts 2:42; 3:1; 4, 6 and passim). The Epistles abound in references to prayer. Those of Paul in particular contain frequent allusions to his own personal practice in the matter (Romans 1:9; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 1:2, etc.), and many exhortations to his readers to cultivate the praying habit (Romans 12:12; Ephesians 6:18; Philippians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:17, etc.). But the new and characteristic thing about Christian prayer as it meets us now is its connection with the Spirit. It has become a spiritual gift (1 Corinthians 14:14-16); and even those who have not this gift in the exceptional charismatic sense may "pray in the Spirit" whenever they come to the throne of grace (Ephesians 6:18; Jude 1:20). The gift of the Spirit, promised by Christ (John 14:16 ff, etc.), has raised prayer to its highest power by securing for it a divine cooperation (Romans 8:15, 26; Galatians 4:6). Thus Christian prayer in its full New Testament meaning is prayer addressed to God as Father, in the name of Christ as Mediator, and through the enabling grace of the indwelling Spirit.

See PRAYERS OF CHRIST.

J. C. Lambert

Prayer of Habakkuk

Prayer of Habakkuk - See HABAKKUK; BETH-HORON,THE BATTLE OF .

Prayer of Joseph

Prayer of Joseph - See JOSEPH, PRAYER OF.

Prayer of Manasses

Prayer of Manasses - See MANASSES,THE PRAYER OF .

Prayer, Hours of

Prayer, Hours of - See HOURS OF PRAYER.

Prayer, Lord's

Prayer, Lord's - See LORD'S PRAYER, THE.

Prayers of Christ

Prayers of Christ - prarz:

1. The Lord's Prayer

2. Christ's Doctrine of Prayer: Sacredness, Importunity, Conditions

3. Prayers Offered by Christ

(1) The High-priestly Prayer

(2) The Prayer in Gethsemane

(3) The Prayers on the Cross

(4) Prayer after the Resurrection

(5) General Conclusions

In the history and doctrine of prayer, nothing is more important than the light shed upon the subject by the prayers of Jesus. These are to be studied in connection with His teaching concerning prayer found in the model of the Lord's Prayer, and general statements and hints to His disciples.

1. The Lord's Prayer: This model of prayer is given in two forms (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4). The differences of form show that exactness of similarity in words is not essential. The prayer includes adoration, supplication for the Kingdom, for personal needs, for forgiveness, for deliverance from temptation and the ascription of glory. It is at once individual and universal; it sets the recognition of divine things first, and yet clearly asserts the ethical and social relations of life.

See LORD'S PRAYER, THE.

2. Christ's Doctrine of Prayer: Sacredness, Importunity, Conditions:

That men should pray is taken for granted (Matthew 6:5). Its sacredness is involved in the command for privacy (Matthew 6:6); its importunity (Luke 11:5-9; Luke 18:1-8); its necessary conditions of humility, absence of self righteousness (Luke 18:9-14), of display and repetition (Matthew 6:7); necessity of faith and a forgiving spirit (Mark 11:24-26); of agreement in social prayer (Matthew 18:19); submission to the will of Christ, "in my name" (John 14:13).

3. Prayers Offered by Christ: In Matthew 11:25-26 the King James Version, Christ thanks God: "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." This language shows the essence of prayer to be not the mere expression of need and request for what is required, but resort to God. The prayer gives us insight into the deeper experience of the Son with the Father, and His perfect submission to the Father's will, with thanksgiving even for what might seem inexplicable. It thus illustrates the truth that the highest form of prayer is found in the serenity of the soul.

Matthew 14:23 narrates the retirement of the Lord to a "mountain apart to pray." No word of what the prayer was is given, but the record is suggestive. Following a day of severe toil and probably excitement, Jesus betakes Himself to prayer. The reality, the true humanity of the Christ, are here revealed. The former prayer may almost be regarded as that of the Son of God addressed to the Father in the sublime communion of the Godhead. This passage emphatically is a prayer-scene of the Son of Man. The association of this incident of prayer in Christ's life with the miracle of walking on the sea (an example of miracle in the person of the Lord Himself, and not performed on another) opens up an interesting question of the relation of the supernatural and the natural. Here perhaps lies an explanation of the true significance of the miraculous. The communion of the Lord with a supreme Father had filled the physical nature of Jesus with spiritual forces which extended the power of the spirit over the material world beyond the limits by which man is bound in his normal and sinful condition (see Lange, Commentary on Mt; Matthew 15:36; compare Matthew 14:19). Christ's recognition of God as the Giver of food, in thanks at the meal, or "asking a blessing," should be noted as an example which in modern times is largely ignored or followed as a mere formality. But it is significant; it expresses that intense and all-compelling sense of the divine which ever dwelt in Him; of which prayer is an expression, and which is evoked so naturally and becomingly at a social meal. In Matthew 17:21, our Lord's reference to prayer as a necessary condition of miraculous power, in the light of Mark 7:34, where "looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him (the deaf man), Ephphatha," may imply His own prayer in connection with the exercise of miraculous energy. This is apparently indicated in John 11:41-42, although, as above, it is the expression of the intimate relation between Christ and the Father, which is the essence of prayer, and in which relation He ever exercised the fullest power of God Himself. Matthew 19:13 records that little children were brought to Him that He should put His hands on them and pray. That He prayed is not related, but Matthew 19:15 relates that He laid His hands on them and, presumably, with the imposition, prayed. The scene is most suggestive, in the light of our Lord's words. In Matthew 19:14 and in Matthew 26:26 Our Lord blesses the bread or gives thanks at the institution of the Supper, and has set the mode of celebration universally adopted, even giving the term Eucharist ("giving of thanks") to the service.

(1) The High-priestly Prayer. This prayer (John 17:1-26) is the special prayer of the Lord, and may be regarded as the sole example furnished by the evangelists of our Lord's method of prayer. The thanksgiving in Matthew 11:25 is the only other instance of any extent in the report of the prayers of Jesus, but even that is brief compared to what is here furnished. The fullness of this prayer clearly shows that it was uttered in the hearing of the disciples. Their relation to it is remarkable. Auditors, they yet could not share in it. At the same time, it was a profound revelation to them both of the relation of the Master to God, and the character of the work which He had come to perform, and the part which they were to take in it. John gives us no hint as to the place in which it was spoken; Matthew 14:31 indicates a departure from the upper room. But apparently the prayer was offered where the discourses of John 15:1-27 and John 16:1-33 were delivered. It has been suggested by Westcott that some spot in the temple courts was the scene of John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33 and John 17:1-26. It has been generally supposed that the ornament of the Golden Vine would naturally suggest the figure of the Vine and Branches which our Lord employs. John 18:1 shows that the prayer was offered before the Lord and His disciples had passed over the brook Kidron. The determination of the exact spot is certainly impossible, except the probability that the words were spoken in the vicinity of the temple.

The first part of the prayer (John 17:1-5) is an expression of profound communion between the Son and the Father, and the prayer that the Father should glorify the Son, but with the supreme end of the Father's own glory. The absolutely unique character of Christ's relation to God is the calm assertion of John 17:4. Its consciousness of completeness in the work which He had received from God, impossible for the children of men, marks the supreme nature of the Son of God.

In the second part of the prayer (John 17:6-19), our Lord prays for His disciples, to whom He has revealed Himself and His relation to God (John 17:7-8). He prays that they may be kept by the Father, and for their unity. Their separation from the world is declared (John 17:14), and our Lord prays that they may be kept from the evil that is in the world, which is alien from them as it is from Him.

In the third portion of the prayer Christ's relation to His ultimate followers is referred to. Their unity is sought, not an external unity, but the deep, spiritual unity found by the indwelling of Christ in them and God in Christ. The prayer closes by the declaration that Christ's knowledge of the Father is revealed to His people, and the end and crown of all is to be the indwelling of God's love in man by the dwelling of Christ in him.

This prayer is unique, not merely among the prayers of our Lord, but also among the prayers of humanity. While it is distinctly a petition, it is at the same time a communion. In one or two places our Lord expresses His will, thus setting Himself upon a level with God. The fact of this prayer of triumph in which every petition is virtually a declaration of the absolute certainty of its realization, immediately preceding the prayer of Gethsemane, is both difficult and suggestive. The anomaly is a powerful argument for the historic reality. The explanation of these contrasted moods is to be found in the depth of our Lord's nature, and especially in the complete consistency of His dual nature with the spheres to which each nature belongs. He is most divine; He is most human. In the fullness of the reach of the prayer and its calm confidence, the believer may find a ceaseless and inexhaustible source of comfort and encouragement. Attention might be called to the remarkable forecast of the history and experience of the church which the prayer furnishes.

(2) The Prayer in Gethsemane. This is recorded by the three Synoptics (Matthew 26:36-44; Mark 14:22-40; Luke 22:39-46), and is probably referred to in Hebrews 5:7. Brief though the prayer is, it exhibits most clearly recognition of God's infinite power, a clear object sought by the prayer, and perfect submission to God's will. All the elements of prayer, as it can be offered by man, are here except the prayer for forgiveness. It is to be noted that the prayer was three times repeated. This is not to be regarded as inconsistent with our Lord's prohibition of repetition. It was vain repetition which was forbidden. The intensity of the prayer is expressed by its threefold utterance (compare Paul's prayer in regard to the thorn in 2 Corinthians 12:8).

(3) The Prayers on the Cross. In Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34, Christ uses the prayer of Psalms 22:1. In the moment of complete desolation, the Sufferer claimed His unbroken relationship with God. This is the victory of the atoning sacrifice. Luke 23:34 records the prayer of intercession for those who crucified Him; in Luke 23:46 is the calm committal of His spirit to the Father. Prayer here again assumes its highest form in the expression of recognition and trust. Thus the three prayers on the cross not only reveal the intimate relation of our Lord to the Father, but they also illustrate prayer such as man may offer. They represent supplication, intercession, communion. Prayer thus expresses our relation to God, to others, to ourselves; our trust, our love, our need. In all things He was made like unto His brethren, except without sin (see POINTS). His prayers on the cross illustrate His high-priestly office. It rises at that intense crisis to its supreme manifestation and activity.

(4) Prayer after the Resurrection. It is to be observed that after His resurrection there is no record of any prayer, offered by Christ. In the supper at Emmaus He "blessed" the bread (Luke 24:30); and the ascension took place in the midst of blessing (Luke 24:51), suggestive of the course of the church as ever beneath the benediction of the Lord, to be ended only at the final consummation. The act of eating the fish and honeycomb (Luke 24:43) seems to have been unaccompanied by any act of specifically religious form. Mark, with characteristic regard to details, records Christ's "looking up to heaven" (Mark 6:41; 7:34); John 11:41 refers to a similar act, and adds the Lord's words of thanksgiving that God had heard Him (see also John 17:1). The gesture was usual in association with Christ's prayers; it is appropriate and suggestive. Luke narrates that Christ prayed at His baptism (Luke 3:21); that He spent a night in prayer before choosing the Twelve (Luke 6:12-13); that the transfiguration was preceded by prayer (Luke 9:29); and records the prayer in the garden (Luke 22:41-45). The third evangelist thus in addition to the notes of our Lord's prayers in retirement, which the other evangelists record, adds these instances of the special relation of prayer to events of critical importance.

(5) General Conclusions. The following conclusions as to prayer may be drawn from the records of Christ' prayers: (1) Prayer is the highest exercise of man's spiritual nature. (2) It is natural to the soul even in perfect accord with God. (3) It is not only the expression of need, the supply of which is sought of God, but by the example of Christ it is the highest expression of trust, submission and union with God. (4) It is to be used both in solitude and in society; it is personal and intercessory. (5) It may be accompanied by the plea of Christ's name, and for Christ's sake. These are the laws which should direct it; that is to say, it should be based upon the merit and the intercession of Christ, and should be addressed to God under the limitations of the Kingdom of the Lord and His purposes for good, both for the interest of the suppliant and others, under the conditions of the interest of the whole Kingdom.

L. D. Bevan

Preacher; Preaching

Preacher; Preaching - prech'-er, prech'-ing (qoheleth, "preacher" (Ecclesiastes 1:1), basar, "to bring or tell good tidings" (Psalms 40:9; Isaiah 61:1), qara', "to call," "proclaim" (Nehemiah 6:7; Jonah 3:2), qeri'ah, "cry," "preaching" (Jonah 3:2); kerux, "crier," "herald" (1 Timothy 2:7), kerusso, "to cry or proclaim as a herald" (Matthew 3:1; Romans 10:14), euaggellizo, "to announce good news" (Matthew 11:5)):

1. Definition

2. The Preacher's Limitations

3. A Man with a Message

4. Preaching a Necessary Agency

5. Biblical Terms and Their Meanings

6. The Hebrew Prophets

7. Christ as a Preacher

8. The Apostles as Preachers

9. Fundamental Postulates

(1) Preach the Word

(2) "We Are Ambassadors"

1. Definition: In the New Testament sense a preacher is a man who has the inner call from the Holy Spirit and the external call from the church the witnessing body of Christ on earth, and has been duly set apart as an accredited and qualified teacher of the Christian religion. His vocation is that of addressing the popular mind and heart on religious truth, as that truth is set forth in the sacred Scripture, for the spiritual profit of the hearer as its end. The preacher, recognized as such by the church, speaks as a personal witness of God's saving truth, explaining it and applying it as the circumstances of the people and the time may require. The gravity and importance of this vocation, as set forth in the sacred Scriptures and amply illustrated in the history of the church, surpass those of any other calling among men. Luther said, "The Devil does not mind the written word but he is put to flight whenever it is preached aloud."

2. The Preacher's Limitations: The preacher, in the sense indicated above, is with all other Christians a sharer in the freedom that is in Christ. But as a recognized teacher and leader of the church, he is not an unattached and entire unrestricted teacher. He is not to speak as his own, but as the mouthpiece of the church whose apprehension of the gospel he has voluntarily confessed. The faith of the church is, by his own assent, his faith, and her doctrine is his doctrine. He is not expected to give his own, as distinct from or opposed to the faith of the church in whose name he has been set apart to proclaim the gospel. Both the personal and the representative or official are united in him and his preaching.

3. A Man with a Message: His work is always to be related to the Old Testament and New Testament. His sermon is under the creed of his church as the creed is under the word. The preacher is a man with a message, and the preacher who has no message of the particular kind indicated above is in no true sense a preacher. It has been well expressed in one of the valuable Yale series of lectures on the subject, "Every living preacher must receive his communication direct from God, and the constant purpose of his life must be to receive it uncorrupted and to deliver it without addition or subtraction." When he presents the message of his divinely-appointed ambassadorship in its integrity, he speaks with that peculiar kind of "authority" which has been pronounced "the first and indispensable requisite" in giving a message from God. He manifests thereby a "high celestial dogmatism," and "human weakness becomes immortal strength." The true preacher preaches from a divine impulsion. He says with Paul, "Necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:16; compare Jeremiah 20:9). He says with Peter, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). The message of the preacher is greater than the man, because it is from God. It largely makes the man who preaches it in its fullness and power. Whatever be his own gifts or whatever the alleged gift conferred in the laying on of hands, without the sense of the message he is not chosen of God to proclaim His word. Destitute of that, he does not have the sustaining impulse of his vocation to enlist his entire personality in his work and give him mastery over the minds and hearts of men.

4. Preaching a Necessary Agency: No agency of religion is older than preaching. It is as old as the Bible itself (2 Peter 2:5). It is a necessary adjunct of a religion that is communicated to man by means of an objective and authoritative revelation, such as we have in the sacred Scriptures. It is an entirely natural agency of the forms of religion revealed in the Old Testament and New Testament. It is strictly in harmony with those ideas that obtain in both testaments regarding the method of propagating the faith, set forth through the agency of holy men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That faith is disseminated by means of teaching through argument, explanation, motive and exhortation. The agency for the spread of a religion of persuasion must be preaching.

5. Biblical Terms and Their Meanings: In the Biblical usage of the terms which have reference to the subject, preaching means the proclamation of religious truth. It is that continuous and public testimony which the church is always giving, through discourses by men set apart for such work, to her own living faith as that faith is rooted in and sustained by the written word of God. In this sense "to call," "proclaim," "cry aloud" are used frequently of the prophetic message under the various aspects of denunciation, as in Jonah 1:2; of the relation of the divine, as in Jeremiah 11:6, and of Messianic promise, as in Isaiah 61:1. The term for "preaching" is also used to designate a political propagandism set forth by the prophet (Nehemiah 6:7). In two passages (Psalms 68:11, "publish"; Isaiah 61:1) another word for preaching means "to declare good news." In the case of Jonah's preaching at Nineveh, the word used to designate what it was means strictly "proclamation" and corresponds to the New Testament word used to define our Lord's "proclamation" as a herald of the advent of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 4:17), which in its initial stages particularly was closely associated with the preaching of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-2).

6. The Hebrew Prophets: Thus, while preaching belongs especially to Christianity, it has well-defined antecedents in the Old Testament. Under both the old and the new dispensations the subject takes the church for granted and utters the testimony, not simply of a solitary believer, but of a divinely-founded society, whether it be of Jews or Christians. The older books in the Canon have in them the beginnings and some of the features of the preacher's office and of the high function of preaching. In them we find a special class of men set apart and separated unto that particular work, as we find in the Christian church, from its beginnings, the same divinely instituted office. The Hebrew prophet had a message direct from God, which frequently came with supernatural knowledge in the power of prediction. The mission of the prophet, however, was simply or chiefly to forecast the future, but to declare a present message from the Lord to the people. The prophet of the Old Testament was the forerunner in office and the prototype of the ambassador of Christ. With the development of the synagogue as the center of Hebrew worship, application as well as interpretation of the Law became essential.

Moses, the most commanding figure in Hebrew history, was a prophet, and no messages in the Old Testament are more imbued with power, sublimity and pathos than those uttered by the great lawgiver. He became the guide Israel, not so much by his rod as by the word he delivered to the people. There are numerous indications that after Moses there was a continuous class of religious teachers whose work it was to instruct men and inspire the people, as is indicated in the cases of Joshua, in the history of Deborah and Barak, and in the days of solemn assembly which are inconceivable without men who spoke and other men who listened. In the time of Samuel there was a distinct advance made in the work of the prophets, and the prophetic office had become a fixed institution. There were schools of the prophets at Bethel, Jericho and Gilgal, the very seats of heathen idolatry. Under the Old Testament dispensation the whole course of progress was toward presenting divine truth in its simplicity and power, by bringing it to bear upon the popular mind and heart. One of the marks of the new era beginning with John the Baptist was a revival of prophetic preaching (Matthew 11:9), which again resumed its old character and meaning.

See PROPHECY,PROPHETS .

7. Christ as a Preacher: The words meaning "to proclaim as a herald" and "preaching," are frequent in the New Testament. The mission of our Lord was essentially one of proclaiming good tidings concerning the Kingdom of God (Matthew 4:17). He at once, on His entrance upon His ministry, gave to preaching a spiritual depth and practical range which it never had before. At that time preaching had manifestly become a fixed part of the synagogue worship, and was made one of the chief instruments in the spread of the gospel. our Lord constantly taught in the synagogue (Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:21; John 6:59). He thus read and interpreted and applied the Law and the Prophets (Mark 1:39; Luke 4:16). Christ's testimony about Himself was that He came "to bear witness to the truth." The spoken word became His great power in His life and ministry. Throughout His life Jesus was above all things a preacher of the truths of His kingdom. Telling men what He was in Himself, what in His relation to man and his salvation and what to God the Father, formed a large part of His public work.

8. The Apostles as Preachers: The preaching of the apostles was essentially prophetic in character, and bore testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus and His early return to judgment (Acts 2:24, 32, 36; 1 Corinthians 15:15). The sermons of the apostles which are reported with much fullness are those of Peter on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47), his address in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10:1-48), and the counsels of James to the brethren at Jerusalem, as to what ordinances should be imposed on Gentile Christians. In the early church preachers were first of all witnesses to what Jesus had said and done, and to the significance to be attached to the great facts of the redemptive history. With the spread of the gospel and the passing of time, this office was taken up by others, especially such as were endued with "the word of wisdom" and "of knowledge" (1 Corinthians 12:8).

9. Fundamental Postulates: Upon the basis of what is taught in the word of God there are two fundamentally important postulates concerning preaching and the preacher.

(1) Preach the Word. The first note of preaching is that it be the word of God (2 Timothy 4:2). Out of the Bible must the life of every generation of Christians be fed. To Holy Scripture, therefore, ought the pulpit to abide faithful, for out of its treasures the preacher fulfils his double office of edifying believers and subjugating the world to Christ. There must always be an organic connection between the word in the text and the sermon.

(2) "We Are Ambassadors."

The work of preaching is the fulfillment of a divinely instituted ambassadorship (2 Corinthians 5:20). The gospel is put into the hands of men for a distinct purpose, and is to be administered in accordance with the plan of its author. The preacher is in a very distinct sense a trustee. "But even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God who proveth our hearts" (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Those who have accepted the responsibility imposed upon them by this divine commission are enjoined to exercise their office so as to warrant the approbation of Him who has appointed them to a specific work. The homiletic practice of taking theme of every sermon from a passage of Holy Writ has been an almost invariable rule in the history of the church. It is the business of the preacher to present the truth embodied in the text in its integrity. In the exercise of his divinely-appointed ambassadorship he is to administer God's word revealed to Christian faith, not human opinions or speculations.

David H. Bauslin

Precept

Precept - pre'-sept: A commandment, an authoritative rule for action; in the Scriptures generally a divine injunction in which man's obligation is set forth (Latin praeceptum, from praecipere, "to instruct").

Four words are so rendered in the King James Version: (1) mitswah, very frequently (168 times) translated "commandment," but 4 times "precept" (in the Revised Version (British and American) only Jeremiah 35:18; Daniel 9:5); (2) from the same root is tsaw, or tsaw (Isaiah 28:10, 13); (3) piqqudhim, only in the Psalms (21 times in Psalms 119:1-176, e.g. verses 4,15,27; also the Revised Version (British and American) Psalms 19:8; 103:18; 111:7); (4) in the New Testament, entole, generally in the King James Version translated "commandment" (68 times), but twice "precept" (Mark 10:5; Hebrews 9:19; in both cases the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "commandment").

See COMMANDMENT.

D. Miall Edwards

Precious

Precious - presh'-us (stands for 17 different words, chief of which are yaqar; timios): (1) Generally in the literal sense, "of great price," "costly," "expensive," of material things (e.g. Proverbs 1:13; Jeremiah 20:5; Mark 14:3 the King James Version), especially of precious stones (2 Samuel 12:30; 2 Chronicles 3:6; 1 Corinthians 3:12 the King James Version, etc.). (2) Sometimes "of great moral (non-material) value." "Precious in the sight of Yahweh is the death of his saints" (Psalms 116:15); "his precious and exceeding great promises" (2 Peter 1:4); compare Psalms 139:17; 2 Peter 1:1. The literal and the moral senses are both involved in the expression, "knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, .... but with precious blood" (1 Peter 1:18-19). "Preciousness" (time) occurs in 1 Peter 2:7 the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version, for the King James Version "precious."

D. Miall Edwards

Precious Stones

Precious Stones - See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Precipitation

Precipitation - pre-sip-i-ta'-shun.

See PUNISHMENTS,III , (5).

Predestination

Predestination - pre-des-ti-na'-shun (prothesis, prognosis proorismos):

1. Predestination as a Biblical Question

2. Its Fundamental Importance

3. The Nature of Predestination

4. The Doctrine in Scripture

5. Historic Rise and Development of the Doctrine

6. The Doctrine in the Middle Ages

7. Predestination in the Reformed Theology

8. Predestination in Lutheranism

9. The Arminian View

10. Wesleyanism on Predestination

11. Present Needs and Values of the Doctrine

LITERATURE

1. Predestination as a Biblical Question: Predestination can be, and has sometimes been, regarded as a philosophical question rather than a Biblical one. It is with predestination as a Biblical question, however, that we are here mainly concerned. It is possible to urge, and it has been urged, that the philosophical question--whether all that occurs is foreordained--is not discussed and decided by Scripture. Theology, starting from God in its interpretation of all things, has arrived at universal foreordination by a species of deductive reasoning. But we must not argue the matter from any abstract principles, but deal with the actual facts as set forth in Scripture and as found, inductively, in the experience of man.

2. Its Fundamental Importance: It must first be asserted, however, in view of much loose modern thinking, that predestination is a category of religious thought of fundamental importance. No category of religious thought could go deeper, for it reaches down to the Infinite Will in relation to the universe of finite wills, and lays stress on will as the core of reality. The philosophy of our time may be said to have received, from the time of Schopenhauer, an impact toward will-emphasis, alike in respect of will in the universe and in man. But the relation of the Absolute Will to the universe, and to mankind, is precisely that with which we are concerned in predestination.

3. Nature of Predestination: Predestination is that aspect of foreordination Whereby the salvation of the believer is taken to he effected in accordance with the will of God, who has called and elected him, in Christ, unto life eternal. The divine plan of salvation must certainly be conceived under this aspect of individual reference. To understand and set forth the nature, and ethically justifiable character, of such a foreordaining to life eternal, is our purpose. For doctrine has need to be purged of the historic inconsistencies, and fatal illogicalities, with which, in its older forms of presentation, it was often infected. This, especially, in order that the doctrine may appear as grounded in reason and righteousness, not in arbitrariness and almighty caprice.

4. The Doctrine in Scripture: To begin with, it must be said that there seems to be no evading the doctrine of an election by grace, as found both in the letter and the spirit of Scripture. The idea of predestination is set forth, with great power and clearness, in Romans 8:29-30, and with its elements or parts articulated in natural and striking form. The idea recurs in Ephesians 1:1-23, where it is finely said (Ephesians 1:4-5) that God hath chosen us in Christ "before the foundation of the world," having predestinated or "foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ"; and where it is said, further, that our salvation imports "the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure" (Ephesians 1:9), which He purposed in Christ. This "eternal purpose" to save men through Christ is again referred to in Ephesians 3:11. This helpful mode of viewing predestination as in Christ, and never outside Him, had a place in religious thought at the Reformation time, as the famous "Formula of Concord," to be referred to below, shows. The predestined certainty of God's gracious work in Christ was not meant to perplex men, but to encourage and reassure all who trust in His grace. In Romans 9:14-25, the absolute sovereignty of God is put in a form whereby election is made to originate in the divine will apart from all human merit, whether actual or foreseen. But from this assertion of God's free supremacy we can derive no concrete theodicy, or do more than infer that God is just and wise in His exercise of free grace, even when His doings are most perplexing to us.

5. Historic Rise and Development of the Doctrine: The needful thing is to understand, so far as may be, the nature of the cooperation that takes place between the divine and the human factors or elements, which latter factors include natural capacity, disposition and development, working under grace. It must be carefully observed that nothing in Scripture points to any personal and inexorable predestination to reprobation, in any sense corresponding to the personal election to salvation just spoken of. A non-election there may be, of course, but not in any sense that annuls full personal responsibility for coming short of life everlasting. The appeal of Scripture from first to last is to men as free. Calvin's strange way of putting the matter was, "Man therefore falls, God's Providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault." This idea of reprobation was first introduced by Gottschalk, a monk of the 9th century, long after the predestination doctrine had received its first full and positive exposition by Augustine. Augustine, following upon the indecision shown by the fathers in the first three centuries of the church, made the doctrine of a special predestination his foundation for special grace, in opposition to Pelagius. Augustine gave new prominence in his theory to the absolute will of God: he made divine grace the only ground of man's salvation; it was to him the irresistible power working faith within the heart, and bringing freedom as its result. It was to him God's absolute predestination that determined who were believers. But Augustine held predestination as an inference from his conception of the Fall and of grace, rather than as a metaphysical principle.

6. The Doctrine in the Middle Ages: In the Middle Ages, Anselm, Peter Lombard, and Aquinas, followed the Augustinian views only to a certain extent. Aquinas admits that predestination implies a relation to grace, but holds that grace is not of the essence of predestination. Predestination is, to Aquinas, a part of Providence, and it presupposes election in the order of reason. Though divine goodness in general be without election, Aquinas thinks the communication of a particular good cannot be without election. Predestination has, for him, its foundation in the goodness of God, which is its reason. Aquinas thinks predestination most surely takes effect, but not as from necessity; the effect takes place under the working of contingency. From such views we are recalled to the idea of a rigorous predestination, by Thomas Bradwardine and John Wycliff, in pre-Reformation times. We are thus brought up to the decretal system--so called from Calvin's making predestination consist of the eternal decree of God--which became, in its metaphysical principle, the fundamental position of the whole Reformed theology after the Reformation.

7. Predestination in the Reformed Theology: The theology of the Reformed church adopted the Calvinistic doctrine of the decree of predestination and election. Calvin, however, simply carried the Augustinian theory to its logical and necessary conclusion, and he was the first to adopt the doctrine as the cardinal point or primordial principle of a theological system. Zwingli, it must be remembered, was, even before Calvin, of consistent deterministic leanings, as part of his large speculative views, which were not without a tendency to universalism. Salvation was, to Calvin, the execution of a divine decree, which was supposed to fix the extent and conditions of such salvation.

(1) Calvin's Definition. Reprobation was, for Calvin, involved in election, and divine foreknowledge and foreordination were taken to be identical. Calvin's mode of defining predestination was as the eternal decree of God, by which He has decided with Himself what is to become of each and every individual. For all, he maintains, are not created in like condition; but eternal life ordained for some, eternal condemnation for others. Calvin confesses that this is a "horrible decree," and it is not surprising to find competent theologians in our time denying such a form of predestinarianism any place in the teachings of Paul, who never speaks of reprobation.

(2) Theology Advanced by Calvin. It is generally overlooked, however, that theological advance registered by Calvin is to be seen by study of the views of the Middle Ages, and on to the Reformation, not by viewing Calvinism in our post-Reformation lights. It was love--"the fatherly love of God," as he terms it--the efficiency of saving love--which Calvin insisted upon, above all, in his teaching about God. But Calvin also heightened men's ideas as to the certitude of personal salvation. It is but fair to Calvin to remember--for superficial acquaintance with his teachings is far from rare--that he, in the strongest manner, maintained divine sovereignty to be that of divine wisdom, righteousness, and love, and expressly rejected the notion of absolute power as, in this connection, a heathenish idea. The Calvinistic doctrine was not absolute, but mediated in Christ, and conditioned upon faith.

8. Predestination in Lutheranism: Luther and the Lutheran church at first shared the doctrine of predestination and election, Luther in his treatment of free will reproducing the Augustinian form of the doctrine in a strict manner. The predestination of Luther and Melanchthon proceeded, not from their conception of God, but rather from the doctrine of sin and grace. Melanchthon was less disposed than Luther to press the doctrine of absolute predestination, and, in his "synergistic" tendencies, laid increasing stress on human freedom, until he at length rejected the doctrine of absolute predestination. He was blamed by strict Lutheranism for yielding too much to Pelagianism. But the Lutheran "Formula of Concord," prepared in 1577, was not a very logical and consistent presentation of the case, for, opposed at points to Augustinianism, it fell back, in the end, on election in the Augustinian spirit. Or, to put the matter in another form, the "Formula of Concord" may be said to have held with Augustinianism, but to have differed by maintaining a Universal call along witha particular election, and it rejected the decree of reprobation. Later Lutheranism adopted a moderate form of doctrine, wherein predestination was often identified with prescience. But Lutheranism ought not, in strictness, to be identified, as is sometimes done, with the Arminian theory. The Lutheran doctrine of predestination was further developed by Schleiermacher, who emphasized the efficiency of grace, while adopting its universality in the Lutheran sense.

9. The Arminian View: Arminianism, in its earliest assertion, maintained simply universal grace and conditional election. But in the five articles it formulated its opposition to Calvinism, although Arminius does not appear to have been more than moderately Calvinistic, as we would account it. Arminius gave grace supreme place, and made it, when welcome, pass into saving grace. He made election depend on faith, which latter is the condition of universal grace. Arminianism rejects the so-called common grace of the predestination theory, and its effectual grace for the elect, for, in the Arminian view, saving grace can in no case be missed save by resistance or neglect. Arminianism holds the awakened human will to cooperate with divine grace, in such wise that it rests with the human will whether the divine grace is really accepted or rejected. It is the claim of Arminianism to do more justice than Calvinism to faith and repentance, as conditions of personal salvation, and precedent thereto. The Arminian standpoint admits the foreknowledge of God, but denies foreordination, though it must seem difficult to reduce the foreknowledge of God to such a bare knowledge of the future. But it is, of course, freely to be granted that foreknowledge in God, simply as knowledge, does not carry any causal energy or efficiency with it. But it may still be doubted whether the prescience of God can be nothing more fruitful and creative than such a position implies, and whether its relation to predestination may not be a more necessary one. The theory seems to fail of giving satisfactory account of the divine activity in its relation to human activity, in the sphere of grace. The shortcoming of Arminianism lies in its failing also to do justice to the spirit of Scripture with its emphatic assertion of the doctrine of God as the one absolute will, which, in its expression, is the sole originative power of the universe.

Preeminence

Preeminence - pre-em'-i-nens: Superiority, especially in noble or excellent qualities. The word stands for: (1) mothar, "what is over and above," "excellence"; "Man hath no preeminence above the beasts" (Ecclesiastes 3:19); (2) proteuo, "to be first"; "That in all things he (= Christ) might have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18); (3) ho philoproteuon, is translated "who loveth to have the preeminence," literally "who loveth to be first" (of Diotrephes, 3 John 1:9).

Prefer

Prefer - pre-fur': Does not always have the general meaning "to choose before another." In Psalms 137:6, it does have this sense and the two versions agree; in Esther 2:9, the Revised Version (British and American) has "removed" where the King James Version has "preferred"; in Daniel 6:3, "distinguished" takes its place; in John 1:15, 30, "become" is substituted for "preferred"; in John 1:27, "preferred" drops out entirely; in Romans 12:10, the versions agree.

Preparation

Preparation - prep-a-ra'-shun: The concordances indicate that the word "preparation" occurs only twice in the Old Testament, once in 1 Chronicles 22:5, where it is used in the ordinary sense "to make preparation," and once in Nahum 2:3, "in the day of his preparation," both of them translating the same Hebrew root and requiring no special elucidation. In Ephesians 6:15 the apostle speaks of the equipment of the Christian as including the "feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace," which means, according to Thayer, "with the promptitude and alacrity which the gospel produces."

The word occurs with technical significance ("the Preparation") in the gospel narratives of the crucifixion, translating the Greek paraskeue (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42). It is used as a technical term indicating the day of the preparation for the Sabbath, that is, the evening of Friday. This is its use in Josephus, Ant, XVI, vi, 2, and presumably in the Synoptics. Later its use seems to have been extended to denote regularly the 6th day (Friday) of each week. So in the Didache, viii and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, vii.

The addition of the phrase tou pascha, "of the passover," in John 19:14, and of the phrase "for the day of that sabbath was a high day," in John 19:31, seems to indicate that the author of the Fourth Gospel regarded the Passover as occurring on the Sabbath in the year of the crucifixion. This is clearly the natural interpretation of the words of John's Gospel, and if it were not for the seeming contradiction to the narrative of the Synoptics it is very doubtful whether any other interpretation would ever have been put upon them. This question is discussed in the articles on the date of the crucifixion and the Lord's Supper, and it will be necessary only to allude to it here.

It is possible that the phrase the "Preparation of the passover" in John 19:14 may mean it was the preparation day (Friday) of the Passover week (see Andrews, Life of our Lord, 451 ff; and most recently Zahn, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 1908, 637 ff). This method of harmonizing seems to the present writer to be forced, and it therefore seems wiser to give to the words of John 19:14 their natural interpretation, and to maintain that, according to the author of the Fourth Gospel, the Passover had not been celebrated at the time of the crucifixion. There seems to be reason to believe that the ordinary view that the Lord's Supper was instituted in connection with the Passover, based upon the narrative in Mark (John 14:12 ff), does not have the unanimous support of the Synoptic Gospels.

LITERATURE.

In addition to references in the body of the article, the commentaries, especially Plummer, Cambridge Bible, "St. John," Appendix A; Allen, ICC, "St. Matthew," 270-74; Godet, Commentary on the New Testament; Gospel of John, English translation, New York, 1886, II, 378, 379; and the significant articles on the interpretation of Luke 22:15-16 by Burkitt and Brooke, Journal of Theological Studies, IX, 569 ff, and by Box, ib, X, 106.

Walter R. Betteridge

Presbyter; Presbytery

Presbyter; Presbytery - prez'-bi-ter, pres'-bi-ter, prez'-bi-ter-i, pres'-bi-ter-i (presbuteros, presbuterion):

1. Words Used in the New Testament: This latter word occurs in the New Testament once (1 Timothy 4:14), so rendered in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American). But the original Greek occurs also in Luke 22:66, in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "the assembly of the elders," in the King James Version simply "the elders"; and in Acts 22:5, translated in English Versions of the Bible "the estate of the elders"; in both of which occurrences the word might more accurately be translated "the presbytery," just as it is in 1 Timothy 4:14. Besides these three occurrences of the neuter singular presbuterion, the masculine plural presbuteroi, always translated "elders," is often used to indicate the same organization or court as the former, being applied earlier in New Testament history to the Jewish Sanhedrin (Matthew 27:1; 28:12; Luke 9:22; Acts 4:5, 8), and later in the development of the church to its governing body, either in general (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22 f), or locally (Acts 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5, etc.). It is sometimes used of the body, or succession, of religious teachers and leaders of the nation's past (Matthew 15:2; Hebrews 11:2). The word "presbyter" has been contracted by later ecclesiastical usage into the title "priest," although in the New Testament they are by no means identical, but on the contrary are often explicitly distinguished (Mark 14:43; Acts 23:14).

2. Based on the Synagogue Plan: The local synagogue of the Jewish church was under the care and control of a body of representative men called "the elders" (Luke 7:3). Naturally the Christian church, beginning at Jerusalem and formed on the lines of the synagogue, took over the eldership into its own organization (Acts 11:30; 15:2; 1 Peter 5:1, etc.); so also in all the cities in which the missionary activities of the apostles made church organization necessary, the local synagogues readily suggested and supplied a feasible plan for such organization (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). The mother-church at Jerusalem, formed after the pattern of the synagogue, might well have offered to the churches formed elsewhere under apostolic preaching the only conceivable plan. We do not know from the New Testament passages how these elders were selected; we must infer that they were elected by the membership of the churches, as under the synagogue plan; they were then installed into their office by apostles (Acts 14:23), or by apostolic helpers (Titus 1:5), or by "the presbytery" (1 Timothy 4:14), or by both together (2 Timothy 1:6; compare 1 Timothy 4:14). So early as the Pauline letters the office of presbyter seems already to have borne the distinction of two functions: teaching and ruling (1 Timothy 5:17; compare Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; 1 Peter 5:2).

3. Principle Found in the New Testament: In the New Testament history and epistles it does not appear that the various churches of a district were already organized into an ecclesiastical body known as "the presbytery," having some basis of representation from the constituent churches. But the absence of such mention is far from being final proof that such district organizations did not exist; little dependence can be placed on mere negative arguments. Moreover, the council of apostles and elders in Jerusalem, to which Paul and Barnabas appealed (Acts 15:1-41), is positive evidence of the principle of representation and central authority. The various district organizations would quickly follow as administrative and judicial needs demanded; such development came early in the growth of the church, so early that it is unmistakably present in the post-apostolic age.

In Revelation the 24 elders occupy a conspicuous place in the ideal church (Revelation 4:4, 10; 5:6, etc.), sitting for those they represent, as an exalted presbytery, close to the throne of the Eternal One. "The four and twenty elders occupying thrones (not seats) around the throne are to be regarded as representatives of the glorified church; and the number, twice twelve, seems to be obtained by combining the number of the patriarchs of the Old Testament with that of the apostles of the New Testament" (Milligan on Revelation 4:4 in the Expositor's Bible).

4. In the Presbyterian Church: Presbytery is the court, or representative body, in the Presbyterian Church next above the Session of the local church. The Session is composed of the ruling elders, elected by the membership of a particular church, with the minister as moderator or presiding officer. The Presbytery is composed of all the ordained ministers, or teaching elders, and one ruling elder from the Session of each church in a given district or community. To it now, as in New Testament times (1 Timothy 4:14), is committed the power of ordination; as also of installation and removal of ministers. It has supervision of the affairs which are general to the churches in its jurisdiction, and the power of review in all matters concerning the local churches (see Form of Government, Presbyterian Church in U.S.A., chapter x). The Presbytery elects the representatives composing the General Assembly, which is the highest court of the Presbyterian Church.

5. In Architecture: In ecclesiastical architecture the presbytery is that part of the church structure which is set apart for the clergy, usually the space between altar and apse; sometimes used of the whole choir space, but ordinarily the word is more restricted in its meaning.

See further, BISHOP; CHURCH; ELDER; GOVERNMENT.

Edward Mack

Presence

Presence - prez'-ens: In the Old Testament nearly always the rendition of panim, "face" (Genesis 3:8; Exodus 33:14 f; Psalms 95:2; Isaiah 63:9, etc.); occasionally of `ayin, "eye" (Genesis 23:11; Deuteronomy 25:9; Jeremiah 28:1, 11, etc.); and in 1 Kings 8:22; Proverbs 14:7, "the presence of" represents the preposition neghedh, "before"; compare also Aramaic qodham, in Daniel 2:27 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "before"). In Greek, "presence" has an exact equivalent in parousia, but this word is rendered "presence" only in 2 Corinthians 10:10; Philippians 2:12; the Revised Version (British and American); Philippians 1:26 (the King James Version "coming"). Elsewhere parousia is rendered "coming," but always with "presence" in the margin. Otherwise in the New Testament "presence" represents no particular word but is introduced where it seems to suit the context (compare e.g. Acts 3:13 the King James Version and Acts 3:19).

See PAROUSIA.

Burton Scott Easton

Present

Present - prez'-ent.

See GIFT.

Presently

Presently - prez'-ent-li: The strict meaning is of course "at the present moment," "instantly," and the modern force "after a short interval" is due simply to the procrastinating habits of mankind; hence, the Revised Version (British and American) modifications of the King James Version use of the word into "immediately" (Matthew 21:19), "even now" (Matthew 26:53), and "forthwith" (Philippians 2:23). In Proverbs 12:16, the uncertainty of the meaning (margin "openly," Hebrew "in the day") has led to the retention of the King James Version word.

President

President - prez'-i-dent (carakh): Used only in Daniel 6:2-7. Probably a Persian derivative from sar, "head," and the Aramaic equivalent for Hebrew shoter. The meaning is self-evident and refers to the appointment of Daniel by Darius to be one of the three princes who had rule over the satraps of the empire.

Press

Press - pres: As a verb is used in the Revised Version (British and American) as a translation of no less than 13 Greek and Hebrew words (rather more in the King James Version). All the Revised Version (British and American) uses are modern. In the King James Version may be noted Wisdom of Solomon 17:11, "pressed with conscience" (the Revised Version (British and American) "pressed hard by"); 2 Maccabees 14:9, "pressed on every side" (the Revised Version (British and American) "surrounded by foes"); Acts 18:5, "pressed in the spirit" (the Revised Version (British and American) "constrained by"). As a noun, the King James Version uses "press" in Mark 2:4 for ochlos, "crowd" (so the Revised Version (British and American)). For wine press see VINE; WINE.

Pressfat

Pressfat - pres'-fat (Haggai 2:16 in the King James Version, the English Revised Version "winefat," the American Standard Revised Version "winevat").

See WINE.

Presume; Presumptuous; Presumptuously

Presume; Presumptuous; Presumptuously - pre-zum', pre-zump'-tu-us, pre-zump'-tu-us-li: "To presume" ("to take or go beforehand") is to speak or act without warrant or proudly. In the Old Testament the words are for the most part the translation of zudh, and zidh, "to boil up" (as water), and derivatives; hence, to act proudly, to speak unauthorizedly, etc. (Deuteronomy 18:20, 22, of the prophet; Exodus 21:14; Deuteronomy 1:43; Deuteronomy 17:12-13; Psalms 19:13, "presumptuous sins" (zedh, "proud"); compare Psalms 86:14; 119:21, etc.; Proverbs 21:24, etc.). Other words are male', "to fill," "to be full" (Esther 7:5, "presume"); `aphal, "to lift oneself up" (Numbers 14:44); beyadh ramah, "with a high hand" (Numbers 15:30, the Revised Version (British and American) "with a high hand"); in 2 Peter 2:10 tolmetes, "bold," "daring," is translated "presumptuous," the Revised Version (British and American) "daring"; in 2 Maccabees 3:24; 5:15 we have katatolmao; thrasus, is rendered "presumption" in 2 Maccabees 5:18, the Revised Version (British and American) "daring deed."

W. L. Walker

Prevent

Prevent - pre-vent' (qadham; prophthano, phthano): "Prevent" occurs in the King James Version in the literal but obsolete sense of "to come or go before," "to anticipate," not in the sense of "to hinder." It is the translation of qadham, "to be sharp," "to be in front," "to be beforehand" (2 Samuel 22:6, 19, the Revised Version (British and American) "came upon" Job 3:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "receive"; Job 30:27, "are come upon"; Job 41:11, "first given"; Psalms 18:5, 18, "came upon"; Psalms 21:3, the American Standard Revised Version "meetest"; Psalms 59:10, the American Standard Revised Version "meet"; Psalms 79:8, the American Standard Revised Version "meet"; Psalms 88:13, "come before"; Psalms 119:147-148, the American Standard Revised Version "anticipated"; Isaiah 21:14, "did meet"; Amos 9:10, the American Standard Revised Version "meet"). In the New Testament prophthano, with same meaning, is translated "prevent" (Matthew 17:25, "Jesus prevented him," the Revised Version (British and American) "spake first to him"); phthano (1 Thessalonians 4:15, "shall not prevent," the Revised Version (British and American) "shall in no wise precede"). "Prevent" in the above sense occurs in Wisdom of Solomon 6:13, the Revised Version (British and American) "forestalleth" (phthano); 16:28, "we must prevent the sun to give thee thanks," the Revised Version (British and American) "rise before."

W. L. Walker

Prey

Prey - pra (baz, Tereph, shalal): "Prey" is frequent in the Old Testament, chiefly as the translation of baz, "spoil," "plunder" (Numbers 14:3, 11; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 10:6, etc.); of Tereph, "prey of wild beasts," "torn thing" (Genesis 49:9; Numbers 23:24; Job 4:11, etc.); of malqoah, "a taking" (Numbers 31:11, etc.; Isaiah 49:24-25); of shalal, "spoil" or "booty" (Judges 5:30 twice; Judges 8:24-25; Isaiah 10:2, etc.). Maher-shalal-chash-baz (the Revised Version margin "The spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth") was the symbolical name given to a son of Isaiah (Isaiah 8:1, 3). "Prey" does not occur in the New Testament, but is found in the Apoc: 1 Esdras 8:77, "for our sins .... were given up .... for a prey" (pronome); Judith 9:4; 16:5; 1 Maccabees 7:47; Ecclesiasticus 27:10 (thera); Judith 5:24 (katabroma).

In the Revised Version (British and American) shalal is generally translated "spoil" (Judges 5:30; Judges 8:24-25; Isaiah 10:2, etc.), while, conversely, "prey" (noun and verb) is occasionally substituted for "spoil," "booty" (Numbers 31:32, ere).

See BOOTY; SPOIL.

W. L. Walker

Price

Price - pris: Represents various words in the Old Testament; time, is the usual Greek word for "price" in the New Testament. "Of great price" is polutimos, in Matthew 13:46, and poluteles, in 1 Peter 3:4. The verb occurs in Zechariah 11:13 the King James Version and the English Revised Version as "prised." The spelling "prized" in the American Standard Revised Version and some editions of the King James Version is due to a confusion with "prize." For "price of a dog" (Deuteronomy 23:18 the King James Version) see DOG.

Prick

Prick - prik: As a noun (= any slender pointed thing, a thorn, a sting) it translates two words: (1) sekh, a "thorn" or "prickle." Only in Numbers 33:55, "those that ye let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes," i.e. "shall be a source of painful trouble to you." (2) kentron "an iron goad" for urging on oxen and other beasts of burden: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (the King James Version of Acts 9:5, where the Revised Version (British and American) omits the whole phrase, following the best manuscripts, including Codices Sinaiticus, A, B, C, E; the King James Version of Acts 26:14, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "goad," margin "Greek: `goads' "), i.e. to offer vain and perilous resistance. See GOAD. As a verb (= "to pierce with something sharply pointed," "to sting"), it occurs once in its literal sense: "a pricking brier" (Ezekiel 28:24); and twice in a figurative sense: "I was pricked in my heart" (Psalms 73:21); "They were pricked in their heart" (Acts 2:37, katanusso, Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) compungo; compare English word "compunction").

D. Miall Edwards

Priest

Priest - prest (kohen, "priest," "prince," "minister"; hiereus archiereus; for hiereus megas, of Hebrews 10:21, see Thayer's Lexicon, under the word hiereus:

I. NATURE OF THE PRIESTLY OFFICE

1. Implies Divine Choice

2. Implies Representation

3. Implies Offering Sacrifice

4. Implies Intercession

II. THE TWO GREAT PRIESTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, MELCHIZEDEK AND AARON

III. PRIESTLY FUNCTIONS AND CHARACTER

1. A Strictly Religious Order

2. Priestism Denied

3. The High Priest's Qualifications

4. Symbolism of Aaron's Rod

IV. CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS (Exodus 29; Leviticus 8)

1. Symbolism of Consecration

2. Type and Archetype

LITERATURE

A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar, and who acts as mediator between men and God. In the New Testament the term is applied to priests of the Gentiles (Acts 14:13), to those of the Jews (Matthew 8:4), to Christ (Hebrews 5:5-6), and to Christians (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6). The office of priest in Israel was of supreme importance and of high rank. The high priest stood next the monarch in influence and dignity. Aaron, the head of the priestly order, was closely associated with the great lawgiver, Moses, and shared with him in the government and guidance of the nation. It was in virtue of the priestly functions that the chosen people were brought into near relations with God and kept therein. Through the ministrations of the priesthood the people of Israel were instructed in the doctrine of sin and its expiation, in forgiveness and worship. In short, the priest was the indispensable source of religious knowledge for the people, and the channel through which spiritual life was communicated.

I. Nature of the Priestly Office. 1. Implies Divine Choice: The Scriptures furnish information touching this point. To them we at once turn. Priesthood implies choice. Not only was the office of divine institution, but the priest himself was divinely-appointed thereto. "For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God. .... And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron" (Hebrews 5:1, 4). The priest was not elected by the people, much less was he self-appointed. Divine selection severed him from those for whom he was to act. Even our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, came not into the world unsent. He received His commission and His authority from the fountain of all sovereignty. At the opening of His earthly ministry He said, "He anointed me. .... He hath sent me" (Luke 4:18). He came bearing heavenly credentials.

2. Implies Representation: It implies the principle of representation. The institution of the office was God's gracious provision for a people at a distance from Him, who needed one to appear in the divine presence in their behalf. The high priest was to act for men in things pertaining to God, "to make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17). He was the mediator who ministered for the guilty. "The high priest represented the whole people. All Israelites were reckoned as being in him. The prerogative held by him belonged to the whole of them (Exodus 19:6), but on this account it was transferred to him because it was impossible that all Israelites should keep themselves holy as became the priests of Yahweh" (Vitringa). That the high priest did represent the whole congregation appears, first, from his bearing the tribal names on his shoulders in the onyx stones, and, second, in the tribal names engraved in the twelve gems of the breastplate. The divine explanation of this double representation of Israel in the dress of the high priest is, he "shall bear their names before Yahweh upon his two shoulders for a memorial" (Exodus 28:12, 19). Moreover, his committing heinous sin involved the people in his guilt: "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people" (Leviticus 4:3). The Septuagint reads, "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to make the people sin." The anointed priest, of course, is the high priest. When he sinned the people sinned. His official action was reckoned as their action. The whole nation shared in the trespass of their representative. The converse appears to be just as true. What he did in his official capacity, as prescribed by the Lord, was reckoned as done by the whole congregation: "Every high priest .... is appointed for men" (Hebrews 5:1).

3. Implies Offering Sacrifice: It implies the offering of sacrifice. Nothing is clearer in Scripture than this priestly function. It was the chief duty of a priest to reconcile men to God by making atonement for their sins; and this he effected by means of sacrifice, blood-shedding (Hebrews 5:1; 8:3). He would be no priest who should have nothing to offer. It was the high priest who carried the blood of the sin offering into the Most Holy Place and who sprinkled it seven times on and before the mercy-seat, thus symbolically covering the sins of the people from the eyes of the Lord who dwelt between the cherubim (Psalms 80:1). It was he also who marked the same blood on the horns of the altar of burnt offering in the Court of the Tabernacle, and on those of the golden altar, that the red sign of propitiation might thus be lifted up in the sight of Yahweh, the righteous Judge and Redeemer.

4. Implies Intercession: It implies intercession. In the priestly ministry of Aaron and his sons this function is not so expressly set forth as are some of their other duties, but it is certainly included. For intercession is grounded in atonement. There can be no effective advocacy on behalf of the guilty until their guilt is righteously expiated. The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy-seat served to cover the guilt from the face of God, and at the same time it was an appeal to Him to pardon and accept His people. So we read that after Aaron had sprinkled the blood he came forth from the sanctuary and blessed Israel (Leviticus 9:22-24; Numbers 6:22-27).

II. The Two Great Priests of the Old Testament, Melchizedek and Aaron:

These were Melchizedek and Aaron. No others that ever bore the name or discharged the office rank with these, save, of course, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom they were distinguished types. Of the two, Melchizedek was the greater. There are two reasons why they are to be considered chiefs: first, because they are first in their respective orders. Melchizedek was not only the head of his order, but he had no successor. The office began and terminated with him (Hebrews 7:3). The ordinary priests and the Levites depended for their official existence on Aaron. Apart from him they would not be priests. Second, the priesthood of Christ was typified by both. The office is summed up and completed in Him. They were called and consecrated that they might be prophecies of Him who was to come and in whom all priesthood and offering and intercession would find its ample fulfillment. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the priesthood of both these men is combined and consummated in Christ. But let it be noted that while He is of the order of Melchizedek He exercises the office after the pattern of Aaron. He perfects all that Aaron did typically, because He is the true and the real Priest, while Aaron is but a figure.

III. Priestly Functions and Character. 1. A Strictly Religious Order: These are minutely prescribed in the Law. #In the institution of the office the Lord's words to Moses were, "Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office" (Exodus 28:1 the King James Version). Their duties were strictly religious. They had no political power conferred upon them. Their services, their dependent position, and the way in which they were sustained, i.e. by the free gifts of the people, precluded them from exercising any undue influence in the affairs of the nation. It is true that in process of time the high office degenerated, and became a thing of barter and sale in the hands of unscrupulous and corrupt men, but as originally appointed the priesthood in Israel was not a caste, nor a hierarchy, nor a political factor, but a divinely-appointed medium of communication between God and the people.

2. Priestism Denied: The Hebrew priests in no wise interfered with the conscience of men. The Hebrew worshipper of his own free will laid his hand on the head of his sacrifice, and confessed his sins to God alone. His conscience was quite free and untrammeled.

3. The High Priest's Qualifications: There were certain duties which were peculiar to the high priest. He alone could wear the "garments for glory and for beauty." To him alone it pertained to enter the Most Holy Place and to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering on the mercy-seat. To him alone it pertained to represent the congregation before the Lord as mediator, and to receive the divine communications. He was to be ceremonially pure and holy. He must be physically perfect. Any defect or deformity disqualified a member of the priestly family from performing the duties of the office (Leviticus 21:17-21). The Law spoke with the utmost precision as to the domestic relations of the high priest. He could marry neither a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor one polluted, nor a harlot; only a virgin of his own people, a Hebrew of pure extraction, could become his wife (Leviticus 21:14-15). Nor was he to come in contact with death. He must not rend his clothes, nor defile himself, even for his father or his mother (Leviticus 21:10-11). His sons might defile themselves for their kin, but the high priest must not. For he was the representative of life. Death did not exist for him, in so far as he was a priest. God is the Ever-Living, the Life-Giving; and His priest, who had "the crown of the anointing oil of his God upon him," had to do with life alone.

4. Symbolism of Aaron's Rod: Adolph Saphir believes there is deep significance in the miracle of Aaron's rod that budded and bare almonds (Numbers 17:1-13). It was a visible sign of the legitimacy of Aaron's priesthood and a confirmation of it, and a symbol of its vitality and fruitfulness. The twelve rods of the tribes were dead sticks of wood, and remained dead; Aaron's alone had life and produced blossoms and fruit. It was the emblem of his office which correlated itself with life, and had nothing to do with death.

IV. Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (Exodus 29:1-46; Leviticus 8:1-36).

The process of the consecration is minutely described and is worthy of a more detailed and careful study than can here be given it. Only the more prominent features are noticed.

(1) Both the high priest and his sons were together washed with water (Exodus 29:4). But when this was done, the high priest parted company with his sons. (2) Next, Aaron was arrayed in the holy and beautiful garments, with the breastplate over his heart, and the holy crown on his head, the mitre, or turban, with its golden plate bearing the significant inscription, "Holy to Yahweh." This was Aaron's investiture of the high office. (3) He was then anointed with the precious oil. It is noteworthy that Moses poured the oil on his head. When he anointed the tabernacle and its furniture he sprinkled the oil, but in Aaron's case there was a profusion, an abundance in the anointing (Psalms 133:2). (4) After the anointing of the high priest the appointed sacrifices were offered (Exodus 29:10 ff). Up to this point in the ceremony Aaron was the principal figure, the sons having no part save in the bathing. But after the offerings had been made the sons became prominent participants in the ceremonies, sharing equally with the high priest therein.

(5) The blood of the offering was applied to the person of father and sons alike (Exodus 29:20-21). On the tip of the right ear, on the thumb of the right hand, and on the great toe of the right foot was the consecrating blood-mark set.

1. Symbolism of Consecration: The significance of this action should not escape the reader. The whole person and career of the priest were thus brought under power of the blood. He had a blood-stained ear that he might hear and obey the divine injunctions, that he might understand the word of Yahweh and interpret it to the people. His will was brought into subjection to the will of His Lord that he might be a faithful minister in things pertaining to God. He had a blood-stained hand that he might execute, rightly and efficiently, the services of the sanctuary and the duties of his great office. He had likewise a blood-stained foot that he might walk in the statutes and commandments of the Lord blameless, and tread the courts of the Lord's house as the obedient servant of the Most High. Sacrificial blood, the blood of atonement, is here, as everywhere else, the foundation for saints and sinners, for priests and ministers alike, in all their relations with God.

2. Type and Archetype: The priests of Israel were but dim shadows, obscure sketches and drafts of the one Great Priest of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Without drawing out at length the parallelism between the type and the archetype, we may sum up in a few brief sentences the perfection found in the priestly character of Christ: (1) Christ as Priest is appointed of God (Hebrews 5:5). (2) He is consecrated with an oath (Hebrews 7:20-22). (3) He is sinless (Hebrews 7:26). (4) His priesthood is unchangeable (Hebrews 7:23-24). (5) His offering is perfect and final (Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:12). (6) His intercession is all-prevailing (Hebrews 7:25). (7) As God and man in one Person He is a perfect Mediator (Hebrews 1:1-14; Hebrews 2:1-18).

See CHRIST, OFFICES OF, sec. V.

LITERATURE.

Smith, DB; HDB; P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, II; Soltau, Exposition of the Tabernacle; the Priestly Garments and the Priesthood; Martin, Atonement; A.B. Davidson, Hebrews; Moorehead, Mosaic Institutions.

William G. Moorehead

Priest, Christ As

Priest, Christ As - See CHRIST, OFFICES OF.

Priest, High

Priest, High - (ha-kohen, ho hiereus; ha-kohen ha-mashiach, ho hiereus ho christos; ha-kohen ha-gadhol, ho hiereus ho megas; kohen ha-ro'sh, ho hiereus hegoumenos; New Testament archiereus):

I. INSTITUTION OF THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD

1. The Family

2. The Consecration

3. The Dress

4. The Duties of High-Priesthood

5. Special Regulations

6. The Emoluments

7. Importance of the Office

II. HISTORY OF THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD IN ISRAEL

1. In the Old Testament

2. In the New Testament

LITERATURE

I. Institution of the High-Priesthood. Temples with an elaborate ritual, a priesthood and a high priest were familiar to Moses. For a millennium or two before his time these had flourished in Egypt. Each temple had its priest or priests, the larger temples and centers having a high priest. For centuries the high priest of Amon at Thebes stood next to the king in power and influence. Many other high-priesthoods of less importance existed. Moses' father-in-law was priest of Midian, doubtless the chief or high priest. In founding a nation and establishing an ecclesiastical system, nothing would be more natural and proper for him than to institute a priestly system with a high priest at the head. The records give a fairly full account of the institution of the high-priesthood.

1. The Family: Aaron, the brother of Moses, was chosen first to fill the office. He was called "the priest" (ha-kohen) (Exodus 31:10). As the office was to be hereditary and to be preserved in perpetuity in the family of Aaron (Exodus 29:9, 29), he is succeeded by his son Eleazar (Numbers 20:28; Deuteronomy 10:6), and he in turn by his son Phinehas (Numbers 25:11). In his time the succession was fixed (Numbers 25:12-13). In Leviticus 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22 he is called "the anointed priest." Three times in the Pentateuch he is spoken of as "great priest" or "high priest" (Leviticus 21:10; Numbers 35:25, 28). The first of these passages identifies him with the anointed priest.

2. The Consecration: The ceremonies by which he was installed in his office are recorded in Exodus 29:29 ff. Seven days of special solemnities were spent. The first consecration was by Moses; it is not said who performed the others. There was special washing and anointing with oil (Psalms 133:2). Each new high priest must wear the holy garments, as well as be specially anointed (Leviticus 21:10). Every day a bullock for a sin offering must be offered for atonement; the altar also must be cleansed, atoned for, and anointed, the high priest offering a sacrifice or minchah for himself (Leviticus 6:24 ff).

3. The Dress: Besides the regularly prescribed dress of the priests, the high priest must wear the robe of the ephod, the ephod, the breastplate and the mitre or head-dress (Leviticus 8:7-9). The robe of the ephod seems to have been a sleeveless tunic, made of blue, fringed with alternate bells and pomegranates (Exodus 28:31-35; Exodus 39:22-26). The ephod seemed to be a variegated dress of the four colors of the sanctuary, blue, purple, scarlet and fine linen interwoven with gold (Exodus 28:6-8; Exodus 39:2-5). This distinguishing ephod of the high priest was fastened at the shoulders by two clasps of shoham stone, upon each of which was engraved the names of six tribes of Israel (Exodus 28:9-14; Exodus 39:6-7). Over the ephod and upon his breast he wore the breastplate, a four-cornered choshen suspended by little chains. Set in this in four rows were twelve precious stones, having engraved upon them the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. This breastplate must have contained a pocket of some kind inside, for in it were deposited the Urim and Thummim, which seemed to be tangible objects of some kind (Exodus 28:15-30; Exodus 39:8-21). The mitre or head-dress was of fine linen, the plate of the crown of pure gold, and inscribed upon it the words, "Holy to Yahweh" (Exodus 28:36-38; Exodus 39:30-31). When entering the Holy of Holies he must be dressed wholly in linen, but in his ordinary duties in the dress of the priests; only when acting as high priest he must wear his special robes.

See PRIEST.

4. The Duties of the High-Priesthood: In addition to his regular duties as a priest, the high priest was to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:3, 15, 33-34). He must also officiate at the ceremony of the two goats, when one is sent into the wilderness to Azazel, and the other slain to make atonement for the sanctuary (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:8-10). He alone could make atonement for the sins of the people, the priests and his own house (Leviticus 4:3 ff; Leviticus 9:8 ff; Leviticus 16:6; Numbers 15:25). He must offer the regular meal offering (Leviticus 6:14-15). He must share with the priests in the caring for the lamp that burned continually (Exodus 27:21), He must assist in arranging the shewbread (Exodus 25:30). When he carried the breastplate with the names of the tribes inscribed thereon he acted as mediator between Israel and God (Exodus 28:29). He alone could consult the Urim and Thummim before Yahweh, and according to his decision Israel must obey (Numbers 27:21).

5. Special Regulations: An office so important required certain special regulations. He must be free from every bodily defect (Leviticus 21:16-23). He must marry only a virgin of Israel, not a widow, nor a divorced woman, nor a profane one (Leviticus 21:14). He must not observe the external signs of mourning for any person, and not leave the sanctuary when news came of the death of even a father or mother (Leviticus 21:10-12). He must not defile himself by contact with any dead body, even father or mother (Leviticus 21:11); and is forbidden to let his hair grow long or rend his clothes as a sign of mourning (Leviticus 21:10). If he should bring guilt upon the people, he must present a special offering (Leviticus 4:3 ff). Sins affecting the priesthood in general must be expiated by the other priests as well as himself (Numbers 18:1). He must eat nothing that died of itself or was torn by beasts (Leviticus 22:8). He must wash his feet and hands when he went to the tabernacle of the congregation and when he came near to the altar to minister (Exodus 30:19-21). At first Aaron was to burn incense on the golden altar every morning when he dressed the lamps and every evening when he lighted them (Exodus 27:21), but in later times the common priests performed this duty. He must abstain from holy things during his uncleanness (Leviticus 22:1-3), or if he should become leprous (Leviticus 22:4, 7). He was to eat the people's meat offering with the inferior priests in the holy place (Leviticus 6:16). He must assist in judging the leprosy in the human body and garments (Leviticus 13:2-59), and in adjudicating legal questions (Deuteronomy 17:12). When there was no divinely-inspired leader, the high priest was the chief ruler till the time of David and again after the captivity.

See PRIEST; PRIESTHOOD.

6. The Emoluments: The emoluments were not much greater than those of the priests in general. He received no more inheritance among the tribes than any other Levite, but he and his family were maintained upon certain fees, dues and perquisites which they enjoyed from the common fund. In Numbers 18:28 the priests were to receive a tithe of the tithe paid in to the Levites. Josephus says this was a common fund (Ant., IV, iv, 4), but the high priest was probably charged with the duty of distributing it. In general the family of the high priest was well-to-do, and in the later period became very wealthy. The high priest and his family were among the richest people of the land in the time of Christ, making enormous profits out of the sacrifices and temple business.

7. Importance of the Office: The importance of the high priest's office was manifest from the first. The high priest Eleazar is named in the first rank with Joshua, the prince of the tribes and successor of Moses (Numbers 34:17 f; Joshua 14:1). He with others officiated in the distribution of the spoils of the Midianites (Numbers 31:21, 26). His sins were regarded as belonging to the people (Leviticus 4:3, 12). He acted with Moses in important matters (Numbers 26:1; 31:29). The whole congregation must go or come according to his word (Numbers 27:20 ff). His death was a national event, for then the manslayer was free to leave the City of Refuge (Numbers 35:25, 28). He had no secular authority, but was regarded generally as the leading religious authority. Later, he became also the leading secular as well as religious authority.

II. History of the High-Priesthood in Israel. 1. In the Old Testament: In general the present writer accepts the historical records of the Old Testament as true and rejects the critical views of a fictitious or falsified history. Such views have only subjective reasons to support them and are based upon a naturalistic evolutionary view of the development of Israel's religion. As Moses was the founder of the high-priesthood in Israel he anticipated a perpetuation of the office throughout the history (Deuteronomy 26:3). The high priest appears frequently. Eleazar officiated with Joshua in the division of the land among the twelve tribes (Joshua 14:1). The law of the manslayer shows that he was an important personage in the life of Israel (Joshua 20:6). He seemed to have the power to distribute the offices of the priests to those whom he would, and poor priests would appeal to him for positions (1 Samuel 2:36). The office seems to have remained in the family of Eleazar until the days of Eli, when, because of the wickedness of his sons, the family was destroyed and the position passed into the family of Ithamar (1 Samuel 2:31-36). A descendant of that family officiated at Nob in the times of Saul, whose name was Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:2; 22:11). His son, Abiathar, escaped from the slaughter, and later seems to have succeeded his father and to have been chief priest throughout David's reign (1 Samuel 22:20-23; 23:9; 30:7). Zadok seems to have had almost equal privilege (2 Samuel 8:17; 1 Chronicles 18:16; 24:6 almost certainly by copyist's error, transpose Abiathar and Ahimelech; Mark 2:26 may be based on this reading. See ABIATHAR, etc.). Because he joined the party of Adonijah rather than that of Solomon, Abiathar was deposed and banished to Anathoth, where he spent the rest of his days (1 Kings 2:26-27). Zadok was put in his place (1 Kings 2:35). He seems to have been a descendant of Eleazar. Under Jehoshaphat, Amariah was high priest (2 Chronicles 19:11) and was the leading authority in all religious matters. In the time of Athaliah, during the minority of Joash and almost his entire reign Jehoiada was high priest and chief adviser. He seems to have been the most influential man in the kingdom for more than half a century (2 Kings 11:4 ff; 2 Kings 11:2-16; 2 Chronicles 24:1-27 passim). Azariah officiated in the days of Uzziah and Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 26:20; 31:10); Urijah in the reign of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:10-16), and the latter priest seems to have been a friend of Isaiah (Isaiah 8:2). Hilkiah held the office in the days of Josiah when the Book of the Law was discovered (2 Kings 22:4 f; 2 Kings 23:4; 2 Chronicles 34:9); Zephaniah in the time of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29:25 f); Seraiah in the days of Zedekiah, who was put to death at Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:18 f; Jeremiah 52:24). At the time, mention is made of a priest of the second rank (2 Kings 23:4; 25:18) and Zephaniah fills that office (Jeremiah 52:24). It is doubtful whether this is the same Zephaniah mentioned in Jeremiah 29:25. This "second priest" was doubtless a deputy, appointed to take the high priest's place in case anything should prevent his performing the duties of the office. Lists of high priests are given in 1 Chronicles 6:1-15, 50-53. The first of these gives the line from Levi to Jehozadak who was carried away in the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar. The second traces the line from Aaron to Ahimaaz, and is identical so far with the first list.

There could have been no place for the functions of the high priest during the captivity, but the family line was preserved and Joshua the son of Jehozadak was among those who first returned (Ezra 3:2). From this time the high priest becomes more prominent. The monarchy is gone, the civil authority is in the hands of the Persians, the Jews are no longer independent, and hence, the chief power tends to center in the high-priesthood. Joshua appears to stand equal with Zerubbabel (Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2, 4; Zechariah 3:1, 8; 4:14; Zechariah 6:11-13).

He is distinctly known as high priest (ha-kohen ha-gadhol). He takes a leading part in establishing the ecclesiastico-civil system, particularly the building of the temple. In the vision of Zechariah (Zechariah 3:1-5) Satan accuses the high priest who is here the representative proper of the nation. The consummation of the Messianic age cannot be completed without the cooperation of the high priest who is crowned with Zerubbabel, and sits with him on the throne (Zechariah 6:13). The prophet also describes Joshua and his friends as "men of the sign," alluding to the coming Messiah under whom the sin of the land was to be taken away in one day (Zechariah 3:9 f). The promise is made to Joshua that if he will walk in Yahweh's ways and keep His house, he shall judge Yahweh's house, i.e. Israel, keep His court and have a place to walk among those who stand before Yahweh (Zechariah 3:7). He is anointed equally with the prince of the royal line, for the two sons of oil (Zechariah 4:14) almost certainly refer to the royal Zerubbabel and priestly Joshua who are to be joint inspirers of Israel in rebuilding the temple.

This exaltation of the high priest is very different from the state of things pictured by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40:1-49 through Ezekiel 42:1-20). In that picture no place is left for a high priest; the prince seemed to be the chief personage in the ecclesiastical system. Ezekiel's vision was ideal, the actual restoration was very different, and the institutions and conditions of the past were carried out rather than the visions of the prophet. In the time of Nehemiah, Eliashib was high priest (Nehemiah 3:1, 20). For abusing his office by using a temple chamber in the interests of his family he was reprimanded (Nehemiah 13:4-9). The list of high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua is given in Nehemiah 12:10. According to Josephus (Ant., XI, viii, 5) Jaddua was priest at the time of Alexander the Great (332 BC), but it is practically certain that it was Jaddua's grandson, Simon, who was then priest (see W.J. Beecher, Reasonable Biblical Criticism, chapter xviii). Thus is preserved the unbroken line from Aaron to Jaddua, the office still being hereditary. No essential change can be found since the days of Ezra. The Book of Chronicles, compiled some time during this period, uses the three names, ha-kohen, ha-kohen ha-ro'sh, ha-kohen ha-gadhol. The word naghidh ("prince") is also used, and he is called "the ruler of the house of God" (1 Chronicles 9:11). This seems to imply considerable power invested in him. Usually the Chronicler in both books of Chronicles and Nehemiah uses the term "the priest."

The line of Eleazar doubtless continued until the time of the Maccabees, when a decided change took place. The Syrian Antiochus deposed Onias III and put his brother Jason in his place (174 BC), who was soon displaced by Menelaus. About 153 BC Jonathan the Hasmonean was appointed by King Alexander, and thus the high-priesthood passed to the priestly family of Joiarib (1 Maccabees 10:18-21). Whether the family of Joiarib was a branch of the Zadokites or not cannot be determined. After the appointment of Jonathan, the office became hereditary in the Hasmonean line, and continued thus until the time of Herod the Great. The latter set up and deposed high priests at his pleasure. The Romans did the same, and changed so frequently that the position became almost an annual appointment. Though many changes were thus made, the high priest was always chosen from certain priestly families. From this group of deposed priests arose a class known as "chief priests." The anointing prescribed in the law of Moses was not always carried out in later times, and in fact was generally omitted. The Mishna speaks of high priests who were installed in office simply by clothing them with their special robes (Schurer, II, i, p. 217, note 24).

2. In the New Testament: In New Testament times the high priest was the chief civil and ecclesiastical dignitary among the Jews. He was chairman of the Sanhedrin, and head of the political relations with the Roman government. It is not clear just how far he participated in the ceremonies of the temple. No doubt he alone entered the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement, and also offered the daily offerings during that week. What other part he took in the work was according to his pleasure. Josephus says that he officiated at the Sabbath, the New Moon and yearly festivals. The daily minchah (Leviticus 6:12 ff) which he was required to offer was not always offered by the high priest in person, but he was required to defray the expense of it. This was a duty which, according to Ezekiel's vision, was to be performed by the prince. The Jews had many contentions with the Romans as to who should keep the garments of the high priest. When Jerusalem fell into the hands of the Romans, the robe of state also fell into their hands.

In the time of Christ, Annas and Caiaphas were high priests (Luke 3:2), though, as appears later in the Gospel, Caiaphas alone acted as such. Annas had probably been deposed, yet retained much of his influence among the priestly families. For particulars see ANNAS; CAIAPHAS; JESUS CHRIST. These two were also the chief conspirators against Jesus. As president of the council Caiaphas deliberately advised them to put Jesus to death to save the nation (John 11:51). He was also chairman of the council which tried and condemned Jesus (Matthew 26:57-58, 63, 65; Mark 14:53, 60-61, 63; Luke 22:54; John 18:12-14, 19, 24, 28). They were also leaders in the persecution of the apostles and disciples after Pentecost (Acts 4:6; 17, 21); Saul sought letters from the high priest to Damascus to give him authority to bring any Christians he might find there bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:2). He presided at the council which tried Paul (Acts 22:5; 23:4).

See PAUL,THE APOSTLE .

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the doctrine of the priesthood of Jesus is fully and carefully elaborated. Jesus is here called the great High Priest, as well as priest. The opening words of the Epistle contain the essential thought: "when he had made purification of sins" (1:3). The title of high priest is first introduced in 2:17, "a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God"; also in 3:1, "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." Having thus fairly introduced his great theme, the writer strikes the keynote of his great argument: "Having then a great high priest," etc. (4:14,15). From 4:14 to 7:28 the argument deals with the high-priestly work of Jesus. His qualifications are not only those which distinguish all priesthood, but they are also unique. He is named after the order of Melchizedek. The general qualifications are: (1) He is appointed by God to His office (5:1). (2) He is well fitted for the office by His experiences and participation in human temptations (5:2-6; 2:18). (3) He undergoes a divine preparation (5:8,9). The special qualifications of His priesthood are: It is after the order of Melchiezedek (5:10). This is an eternal one (6:20); royal or kingly (7:1-3); independent of birth or family (7:3); it is timeless (7:8); superior to that of Levi (7:4-10); new and different from that of Aaron (7:11,12). It is also indissoluble (7:16); immutable (7:21); inviolable (7:24). Thus, with all these general and special qualifications, He is completely fitted for His work (7:26). That work consists in offering up Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the people (7:27); entering within the veil as a forerunner (6:20); presenting the sacrificial blood in heaven itself (8:3; 9:7,24); thus obtaining eternal redemption (9:12); ratifying the new covenant (9:15-22). The result of this high-priestly work is a cleansing from all sin (9:23); a possibility of full consecration to God and His service (10:10); an ultimate perfection (10:14); and full access to the throne of grace (10:21,22).

See CHRIST, OFFICES OF; PRIEST; PRIESTHOOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

LITERATURE.

Articles on the priesthood in general, with references to the high priest in HDB, HCG, EB, Jew Encyclopedia, Kitto, Smith, Fallows, Schaff-Herzog, etc.; no article on "High Priest" only. For the history, Breasted, History of Egypt; Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, i, 207-99; Josephus, Ant, XV, XVIII, XX. For works on the priesthood from the radical viewpoint, see Graf, S.I. Curtiss, Jost, Graetz, Kautzsch, Budde, Baentsch, Benzinger, Buchler, Meyer, Wellhausen. For a more moderate position see Baudissin, Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthums untersucht. For a more conservative position see A. Van Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce levitique dans la loi et dans l'histoire des Hebreux. On the high-priesthood subsequent to the return from Babylon, see B. Pick, Lutheran Church Review, 1898, I, 127-41; II, 370-74; III, 555-56; IV, 655-64; and the commentaries on the passages cited.

James Josiah Reeve

Priesthood

Priesthood - prest'-hood:

1. Priesthood Is an Office

2. In the Old Testament

3. Hereditary Priesthood

4. In the New Testament

5. Conclusions

LITERATURE

All worship is based on priesthood, for the priestly office is an essential part of salvation. Christianity itself has its glorious Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is through His one supreme offering that we are brought into saved relations with God and enjoy fellowship with Him. The priesthood of Christ and its mighty effects in sacrifice and intercession on behalf of the people of God are the chief and fundamental theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

1. Priesthood an Office: Priesthood is a real office, definite and specific. It is needful to insist on this fact, for the noble word "priest" has been misappropriated and misapplied, so that its intrinsic import has been impaired. There is a certain literary slang indulged in by some who talk of the "priests of science," "priests of art," and similar absurdities. The idea of priesthood, if priesthood is to have any definite meaning, can have no place in literature or science or art or in anything of the kind. For it belongs to the realm of grace, presupposing as it does sin and the divine purpose to remove it. Hugh Martin writes that he "would as soon think of transferring the language of geometry and of algebra to botany and talk of the hypothenuse of a flower and the square root of a tree, or the differential coefficient of a convolvulus, as to speak of the priesthood of nature or letters." Priesthood is an office, embracing very specific duties and functions.

2. In the Old Testament: Priesthood in some form appears to have existed from the earliest times, even from the beginning of the history of our race. In patriarchal times the office was held and its duties were discharged by those who occupied some sort of headship, and particularly by the father or the chief of the family and of the tribe. Thus, Noah in his capacity of priest and in behalf of his household "builded an altar unto Yahweh, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar" (Genesis 8:20). Abraham offered the ram "for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son" (Genesis 22:13). In like manner Job offered burnt offerings for his children, and likewise by divine direction for the three "comforters" when the great trial had passed (Job 1:5; 42:8). In these and the like instances there was priestly action no less certainly than in that of Aaron or of any regularly appointed priest in Israel. Melchizedek was "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18). Isaac "builded an altar there and called upon the name of Yahweh" (Genesis 26:25), as did Jacob (Genesis 33:20). In these cases priestly acts were performed by the patriarchs in their capacity as fathers of the family or heads of clans. From the beginning, priesthood with its acts of expiation and of worship was thus recognized as a divinely-instituted office. But in pre-Mosaic times there was no special class of priests recognized.

3. Hereditary Priesthood: Regular priestly succession in a single family was established by Moses (Exodus 28:1-3). From this point of time onward the priesthood in Israel was confined to the family of Aaron. No hereditary priesthood seems to have prevailed in patriarchal times. According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Melchizedek, a priest of the highest rank, had neither predecessor nor successor in his great office. By divine direction Moses designated the Aaronic family as the priestly family in Israel, and he prescribed the garments they should wear, the sacrifices they should offer both for themselves and for the congregation, their maintenance, their domestic relations, and their conduct toward their fellow Hebrews.

In the appointment of the priesthood there is no trace of Egyptian influence. Yet we know that Joseph married the daughter of the priest of On (Genesis 41:50). But this fact had no bearing on the selection of Israel's priestly family. The Aaronic priesthood had nothing in common with that of Egypt; it claimed to be of divine origin, and its duties, functions and powers in no way contradict the claim. The witness of an Egyptian archaeologist (Dr. M.G. Kyle) may be here introduced touching one essential element in the duties of the priestly office, namely, sacrifice: "The entire absence from the offerings of old Egyptian religion of any of the great Pentateuchal ideas of sacrifice, substitution, atonement, dedication, fellowship, and indeed of almost every essential idea of real sacrifice, as clearly established by recent very exhaustive examination of the offering scenes, makes for the element of revelation in the Mosaic system by delimiting the field of rationalistic speculation on the Egyptian side. Egypt gave nothing to that system, for it had nothing to give." As much may be said respecting the priesthood; Israel took little or nothing of its powers and functions from Egyptian sources.

Although the office was limited to the Aaronic family, nevertheless in certain exigencies and emergencies others beside the regular priest offered sacrifices to the Lord and were accepted by Him. Thus did Gideon in a time of great straits in Israel (Judges 6:24, 26); thus the men of Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:14-15); the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 7:9); David (2 Samuel 6:13, 17); Elijah (1 Kings 18:23, 32-38), etc. The chosen people appear to have felt free to offer sacrifices and to engage in priestly functions when occasion required, until the central sanctuary was established on Mt. Moriah. When the Temple was built and dedicated, priestly action was confined to Jerusalem and to the regular priestly household. When Pharisaism, with its rigid legalism, with its intolerable burdens, became dominant, all liberty of worship and spontaneous service largely disappeared. The religious life of Israel stiffened into a dreadful monotony.

4. In the New Testament: All priesthood reaches its climax in that of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is because of the perfection of His priesthood that the office as represented by Melchizedek and Aaron was effective, and fulfilled the end for which it was appointed. The one answers to the other as type and antitype, as prediction and fulfillment. Christ's priesthood is opened to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:14-18; 4:14-16; 5:1-10; 7:9,10,18). Two fundamental truths touching His priesthood are made very prominent in the Epistle to the Hebrews. These are its order and its duties. By the order is meant the rank or grade of the Priest, and by the duties the various functions of His ministry. Christ's order as Priest is that of Melchizedek, not at all that of Aaron; Hebrews 7:1-28 makes this fact perfectly clear. Like Melchizedek, and infinitely above Melchizedek, He is Priest, having no predecessor in the great office, and no successor; herein He stands absolutely alone, peerless and perfect forever. He executes the duties or functions of it after the pattern of Aaron, as Hebrews 9:1-28 clearly exhibits. These two priesthoods, Melchizedek's and Aaron's, are gloriously accomplished in the person and Work of Jesus Christ.

The point is raised and discussed with some keenness in our day, Did Christ execute the office of priest during His sojourn on earth, or does He exercise the office only in heaven? A full discussion of this interesting subject would be inappropriate. However, let it be noted (1) that the Lord Jesus was appointed a Priest no less certainly than was Aaron (Hebrews 5:4-5). In the words, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," there appears to be a reference both to His incarnation (Luke 1:32; Hebrews 1:5) and also to His resurrection (Acts 13:33). In Hebrews 2:17 we are told that it "behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." The assumption of human nature was needful that He might be such a priest. John the Baptist saw this truth, and said, "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

There was certainly priestly action in His death. Twice we are told that He "offered up himself" (Hebrews 7:27), "For this he did once for all, when he offered up himself." This strong term, "offered," is sacrificial and points to His death as an offering made for the sins of the people. His own action in it must not be overlooked; it was He Himself who presented the offering; He was not, therefore, a struggling victim, a martyr, who could not escape the doom that came upon Him--nay, He voluntarily offered Himself.

In Hebrews 9:14 we find these significant words: "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" It was as Priest that He made this stupendous offering, and this He did when still on earth. He was at once both sacrifice and priest. Never was He more active than when He offered Himself to God.

It is worthwhile to remind ourselves that the words employed in Scripture to express the act of His dying are never used to denote the death of a creature, a man. Matthew has, He "yielded up (dismissed), his spirit" (Matthew 27:50). John has, He "gave up his spirit" (John 19:30); Mark 15:37 and Luke 23:46 both have the same words: He "gave up the ghost." He died, not because He was mortal as we are, nor because He could not deliver Himself, but because He gave Himself for our sins that we might be forgiven and saved (John 10:17-18). The voluntariness of His offering is the very essence of His priestly atonement.

See CHRIST, OFFICES OF, V; PRIESTHOOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

5. Conclusions: Priesthood springs out of the deepest need of the human soul. Men universally feel that somehow they have offended the Power to whom they are responsible, to whom they must give account of their deeds. They long to appease their offended Lord, and they believe that one who is authorized and qualified to act in their behalf may secure for them the abrogation of penalty and the pardon they seek. Hence, priesthood connects itself most closely with sin, with guilt and its removal. The heart craves the intervention and intercession on their behalf of one who has liberty of access to God, and whose ministry is acceptable. In short, the priest is the representative of the sinner in things pertaining to God. He is the mediator whose office it is to meet and satisfy the claims of God upon those for whom he acts, and who secures the pardon and the favor which the offender must have, if he is to enjoy fellowship with God. And this, and more than this, we have in our Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.

LITERATURE.

P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, II; Soltau, Exposition of the Tabernacle, the Priestly Garments and the Priesthood; Martin, Atonement; Moorehead, Mosaic Institutions, article "Priest."

William G. Moorehead

Priesthood in the New Testament

Priesthood in the New Testament - 1. The Jewish Priesthood

2. The Priesthood and High-Priesthood of Jesus Christ

3. The Priesthood of Believers

1. The Jewish Priesthood: In the New Testament hierateuma (1 Peter 2:5, 9), "priesthood," is not found with reference to the Jewish priesthood, but hiereus, and archiereus, "high priest," frequently occur. As until the fall of Jerusalem the activities of the priests were carried on in careful accordance with the prescriptions of the Old Testament, there naturally is nothing new or striking in the numerous New Testament references to their work. Perhaps the information of the greatest interest is found in Luke 1:5-9 to the effect that Zacharias was of the course of Abijah, the Luke 8:11-56th of the Luke 24:1-53 courses into which the priests were divided (compare 1 Chronicles 24:7-18), and that in these courses the priests divided their work by lot. In the Gospels the archiereis are mentioned oftener than are the hiereis, the power of the priesthood seeming to have been absorbed by a sort of priestly aristocracy. As under the political pressure of that time the office of high priest could seldom be retained until the death of the holder, there might even be several living at the same time who had for a longer or shorter time held this office which made a man the head of the nation, not only ritually, but also politically, since the high priest was ex officio presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. Not only would these ex-high priests naturally retain the title belonging to their former dignity, but probably the name had come to include as well other members of the same families or of families of equal position, so that it seems that "chief priests" is a more exact translation of archiereis than high priests. In the singular, however, the reference of archiereus is usually, if not invariably, to the individual who at the time given was holding the unique office of high priest. The word hiereus is of course employed in its ordinary signification on the rare occasions when reference is made in the New Testament to corresponding ministers of other religions, as to the priest of Zeus (Acts 14:13) and also to Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:1).

2. The Priesthood and High-Priesthood of Jesus Christ:

Only in Hebrews is the activity of Jesus set forth as priestly and high-priestly, but in this Epistle great emphasis is laid on these aspects of His work. Interpreters seldom distinguish between these two aspects of His work, and it is plain that sometimes at least the author himself made no effort sharply to distinguish them. But certain considerations make it probable that they were not really confused or combined in the mind of the author himself. For example, it is to be noted that the priesthood of Jesus is declared to be after the order of Melchizedek, and consequently radically unlike that of the Levitical priests. On the other hand, the Aaronic high-priesthood is regarded as having been analogous to that of Jesus, so that in spite of its inferiority, comparison is frequently made with it. It is readily seen that the work of the high priest, both because of his entry into the Most Holy Place and because he bore the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment for a memorial before Yahweh continually, far more suitably than that of the ordinary priests typified the atoning and intercessory work of Jesus (Exodus 28:12, 15).

Attempting then to treat separately the priestly and high-priestly functions of Jesus, we note that most of what is said of the priestly functions is involved in the declaration that He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and this thought is handled in Hebrews 7:1-28 in such a way as to make plain the superiority of a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, and thus to confirm the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, the great theme of the book. Historically, the blessing bestowed upon Abraham and the reception of tithes from him prove the superiority of Melchizedek to Levi, and still more to the priestly descendants of Levi (Hebrews 7:4-10). Further, Jesus became priest not on the ground of a "carnal commandment," i.e. in an order based on descent and inheritance, but by "the power of an endless life" (Hebrews 7:16), of which fact Melchizedek reminds us, since Scripture is silent alike as to his birth and his death. Again, unlike the Levitical priests, Christ is inducted into His office by the oath of God (Hebrews 7:20-21; compare Psalms 110:4). Finally, while the priests of the Levitical line were hindered from permanence in office by their death, Jesus holds His priesthood untransmitted and untransmissible (Psalms 7:17, 14). This discussion of the priesthood of Christ "after the order of Melchizedek" occupies almost all of Hebrews 7:1-28, but at Hebrews 7:26 His high-priesthood is suddenly introduced, and after that point, while His work is more than once contrasted with that of the temple priests (Hebrews 8:4-5; 9:6; 10:11 f), no further reference is in any way made to Melchizedek.

After having twice merely given the title of high priest to Jesus (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1), the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews at Hebrews 4:14 begins a statement of the resemblance between Jesus and the Jewish high priest, such "as was Aaron," finding the resemblance to reside (1) in His divine appointment to His work (5:4,5), (2) in His experience of suffering (5:7,8; compare 4:15; 5:2), and (3) in His saving work suggested by the sacrificial activity of the ordinary high priest (5:9), which, however, it far transcends in value and effect. But (4) later the work of the high priest and that of Jesus are contrasted as to place where done, the high priest going into the second tabernacle, i.e. the Holy of Holies (9:7), while Christ passes through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, "heaven itself" (9:11,24). A similar contrast is (5) drawn between the sacrifices respectively offered, the ancient sacrifices being the blood of goats and calves (9:12), Christ's being "himself" (9:14), "his own blood" (9:12), "the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God" (9:14). The author also accepts and urges without argument or even explanation (6) the truly sacrificial character of this self-immolation of Jesus. Nor is this fact nullified by the emphasis which once is laid on doing God's will in an antithesis copied from the Ps (10:5-9; compare Psalms 40:6 ff), for here the contrast drawn is not between sacrifice on one side and obedience on the other, but rather between the sacrifice of animals dying involuntarily and wholly unconscious of the sacrificial significance of their death, and the offering of Himself on the part of Jesus in intelligent purpose to carry out the will of God, by which will the body of Jesus Christ is the only acceptable offering (Hebrews 10:10). Further the author urges (7) the actual effectiveness of Christ's work, his argument being that it would already have been repeatedly performed if this single offering had not been sufficient for all time, "once for all" (Hebrews 7:27; 9:26). Finally is asserted (8) the intercessory work of Christ, which, though not explained, seems to be a figurative presentation of his idea that men are blessed because Christ died, i.e. that this was an indispensable condition of God's manifestation of His merciful love, and that the grace consequent on the death of Christ does not merely grow out of a fact, but that the divine love and providence for believers are exercised, neither automatically or impersonally, but in virtue of a constant personal sympathy for varying temptations and needs, a sympathy intensified by the earthly experience, temptation, suffering of Him who had been and is, not only the Divine Son, but also the Son of Man. Thus, the salvation of the believer is certain and complete, and the priestly and high-priestly work of Jesus reaches its consummation.

3. The Priesthood of Believers: The priesthood of believers is an idea which finds formal expression less frequently in the New Testament than has been the case in Protestant theology. But it does not follow that there has been a corresponding divergence from the thought of the apostles. It only shows that a thought which according to apostolic conception was one of the invariable privileges of every Christian, and which found, if not constant, yet sufficiently clear expression in this figurative fashion, has come, in consequence of errors which have developed, to receive in the controversies of later centuries stronger emphasis than it did at first. It may well be noted first that this conception of the priesthood of believers, standing by itself, is in no way related to the various priestly activities which are also figuratively attributed to them. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who does not speak of the priesthood of believers, knowing no Christian priesthood but that of Jesus Himself, yet calls "praise," "to do good and to communicate," sacrifices (13:15,16). So Paul bids the Romans present their bodies "a living sacrifice" (Romans 12:1), and Peter calls Christians "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices" (1 Peter 2:5). But this figurative usage is entirely distinct from the subject of the present paragraph. Also the conception of the Christian priesthood never in the New Testament attaches itself merely to the ministry of the Christian church, whatever may be held as to its orders or tasks. In no sense has the church or any church an official priesthood. Nor is it any part of the New Testament conception of the priesthood of believers that any individual should act in any respect for any other. Though the intercessory supplication of believers in behalf of other persons has of late often been represented as a priestly act, as being, indeed, that activity which is essential to any real priesthood of believers, the New Testament thought is quite different, and is to be thus conceived: In ancient times it was held that men in general could not have direct access to God, that any approach to Him must be mediated by some member of the class of priests, who alone could approach God, and who must accordingly be employed by other men to represent them before Him. This whole conception vanishes in the light of Christianity. By virtue of their relation to Christ all believers have direct approach to God, and consequently, as this right of approach was formerly a priestly privilege, priesthood may now be predicated of every Christian. That none needs another to intervene between his soul and God; that none can thus intervene for another; that every soul may and must stand for itself in personal relation with God--such are the simple elements of the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. (Consult treatises on New Testament theology, and commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews.)

David Foster Estes

Priests and Levites

Priests and Levites - (kohen, "priest"; nothing is definitely known as to the origin of the word; Lewi, "Levite," on which see LEVI):

I. DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE HISTORY

1. The Old View

2. The Graf-Wellhausen View

3. Mediating Views

4. An Alternative View

II. THE DATA OF THE PRIESTLY CODE (P) IN THE PENTATEUCH

1. The Levites

2. Aaron and His Sons

III. THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PENTATEUCH

IV. FROM MOSES TO MALACHI

1. The Sources Other than Ezekiel

(1) The Custody of the Ark

(2) On Its Return from the Philistines

(3) In Abinadab's House

2. Ezekiel

V. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, CHRONICLES

1. Estimates of the Chronicler

2. His Data

VI. LEGAL PROVISIONS

LITERATURE

In some Minaean inscriptions found at El-`Ola, dating back about 1200-800 BC (Hommel in Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 719), certain "priests and priestesses of the god Wadd are designated by the term lawi, feminine lawi`at" (op. cit., 749). It is not known whether this is due to Israelite influence.

I. Different Views of the History. 1. The Old View: There are great divergences of opinion among modern writers as to the true course of history and the dating of the different documents. It will therefore be best to sketch these views in rough outline, and then give the evidence of the various authorities, together with the reasons that in each case arise naturally from the consideration of that evidence.

The old belief was that the whole of the Pentateuchal laws were the work of Moses, that the account of the subsequent history given in the Books of Chronicles was correct, that Ezekiel's vision, if taken literally, could not be reconciled with the other known facts and was inexplicable, and that in the case of all other discrepancies harmonistic explanations should be adopted.

2. The Graf-Wellhausen View: The modern critical school have traversed every one of these doctrines. The Chronicler is declared to be in constant and irreconcilable conflict with the older authorities, harmonistic explanations are uniformly rejected, the Pentateuch is denied to Moses and split up into a variety of sources of different ages, and Ezekiel gains a place of honor as representing a stage in a continuous and normal development. The subject is thus inextricably linked with the Pentateuchal problem, and reference must be made to the article PENTATEUCH for an explanation of the supposed documents and a consideration of the analysis with its nomenclature. On the other hand the present article and the article SANCTUARY (which see) explain and discuss the most widely held theory of the historical development into which the history of the supposed Pentateuchal sources has been fitted.

The dominant theory is that of Wellhausen. According to this, "Levite" was originally a term denoting professional skill, and the early Levites were not members of the tribe of Levi, but professional priests. Anybody could sacrifice. "For a simple altar no priest was required, but only for a house which contained a sacred image; this demanded watching and attendance" (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 130). The whole Levitical Law was unknown and the distinction between priests and Levites unheard of. There were a few great sanctuaries and one influential priesthood, that of Shiloh (afterward at Nob). With the monarchy the priesthood became more important. The royal priests at Jerusalem grew in consequence and influence until they overshadowed all the others. Deuteronomy recognized the equal priestly right of all Levites, and Josiah's reformation placed the sons of Zadok, who were the priests of Jerusalem and not descendants of Aaron, in a position of decisive superiority. Then Ezek drew a new and previously unknown distinction between "the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok" who are "keepers of the charge of the altar," and the other Levites who were made "keepers of the charge of the house" as a punishment for having ministered in the high places. The Priestly Code takes up this distinction and represents it as being of Mosaic origin, making of the sons of Zadok "sons of Aaron." "In this way arose as an illegal consequence of Josiah's reformation, the distinction between priests and Levites. With Ezekiel this distinction is still an innovation requiring justification and sanction; with the Priestly Code it is a `statute forever,' although even yet not absolutely undisputed, as appears from the priestly version of the story of Korah's company. For all Judaism subsequent to Ezra, and so for Christian tradition, the Priestly Code in this matter also has been authoritative. Instead of the Deuteronomic formula `the priests the Levites,' we henceforward have `the priests and the Levites,' particularly in Chronicles" (op. cit., 147). From that time onward the priests and Levites are two sharply distinguished classes. It is an essential part of this theory that the Chronicler meant his work to be taken as literal history, correctly representing the true meaning of the completed law.

See CRITICISM.

3. Mediating Views: There have been various attempts to construct less thoroughgoing theories on the same data. As a rule, these views accept in some form the documentary theory of the Pentateuch and seek to modify the Wellhausen theory in two directions, either by attributing earlier dates to one or more of the Pentateuchal documents--especially to the Priestly Code--or else by assigning more weight to some of the statements of Chronicles (interpreted literally). Sometimes both these tendencies are combined. None of these views has met with any great measure of success in the attempt to make headway against the dominant Wellhausen theory, and it will be seen later that all alike make shipwreck on certain portions of the evidence.

4. An Alternative View: The independent investigations on which the present article is based have led the writer to a view that diverges in important particulars from any of these, and it is necessary to state it briefly before proceeding to the evidence. In one respect it differs from all the rival schemes, not merely in result, but also in method, for it takes account of versional evidence as to the state of the texts. Subject to this it accepts the Mosaic authenticity of all the Pentateuchal legislation and the clear and consentient testimony of the Law and the Prophets (i.e. of the two earlier and more authoritative portions of the Hebrew Canon), while regarding Chronicles as representing a later interpretation, not merely of the history, but also of the legal provisions. In outline the story of the priesthood is then as follows: Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as the priests of the desert tabernacle. He purified the rest of the tribe of Levi as a body of sacred porters for the period of wanderings, but in the legislation of Numbers he made no provision whatever for their performing any duties after the sanctuary obtained a permanent location. At the same time he gave a body of priestly teaching requiring for its administration in settled conditions a numerous and scattered body of priests, such as the house of Aaron alone could not have provided immediately after the entry into Canaan. To meet this, Deuteronomy--the last legislative work of Moses--contains provisions enlarging the rights and duties of the Levites and conferring on them a priestly position. The earlier distinction was thus largely obliterated, though the high-priestly dignity remained in the house of Aaron till the time of Solomon, when it was transferred from the house of Eli to that of Zadok, who, according to Ezekiel's testimony, was a Levite (but see below,IV , 1). So matters remained till the exile, when Ezekiel put forward a scheme which together with many ideal elements proposed reforms to insure the better application of the Mosaic principle of the distinction between holy and profane to greatly altered circumstances. Taking his inspiration from the wilderness legislation, he instituted a fresh division in the tribe of Levi, giving to the sons of Zadok a position similar to that once held by the sons of Aaron, and degrading all other Levites from the priesthood conferred on them by Dt to a lower rank. The duties now assigned to this class of "keepers of the charge of the house" were never even contemplated by Moses, but Ezekiel applies to them the old phrases of the Pentateuch which he invests with a new significance. As a result of his influence, the distinction between priests and Levites makes its appearance in post-exilic times, though it had been unknown to all the writers of the second division of the Hebrew Canon. At the same time a meaning was read into the provisions of the Law which their original author could not have contemplated, and it was this interpretation which is presented (at any rate to some extent) in Chronicles, and has given us the current tradition. Many of the Chronicler's statements are, however, not meant to be taken literally, and could not have been so taken by his original public.

II. The Data of the Priestly Code (P) in the Pentateuch.

1. The Levites: To arrive at an objective conclusion it is necessary, in the first instance, to examine the facts without such bias as any view put forward by any other author, ancient or modern, sacred or profane, might impart. Every legislator is entitled to be judged on his own language, and where he has, so to speak, made his own dictionary, we are compelled to read his meaning into the terms used. The very first of the material references to the Levites drives this truth home. "But appoint thou the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all the furniture thereof" (Numbers 1:50). It is necessary to consider whether such expressions are to be read in a wide or a narrow sense. We learn from Numbers 18:3 that death would be the result of a Levite's touching any of these vessels, and it therefore appears that these words are meant to be construed narrowly. "They shall bear the tabernacle, and all the furniture thereof; and they shall minister unto it," are the next words (Numbers 1:50); but yet we read later of the Kohathites who were to bear it that "they shall not touch the sanctuary, lest they die" (Numbers 4:15). This shows that the service in question is strictly limited to a service of porterage after the articles have been wrapped up by Aaron and his sons. By no possibility could it include such a task as cleaning the vessels. It is then further directed that the Levites are to take down and set up the dwelling and camp round about it. All these are desert services and desert services only. Then we read that "the Levites shall keep the charge of the tabernacle (dwelling) of the testimony. This concludes the first material passage (Numbers 1:50-53). The other passages of Nu only amplify these directions; they never change them. But some phrases are used which must be more particularly considered.

(1) Technical Phrases. We hear that the Levites are "to serve the service of the tent of meeting," and this looks as if it might refer to some general duties, but the context and the kindred passages always forbid this interpretation. Numbers 7:5 ff is an admirable instance. Six wagons are there assigned to the Levites for this service, two to the Gershonites and four to the Merarites. "But unto the sons of Kohath he gave none, because the service of the sanctuary belonged unto them; they bare it upon their shoulders." Here service is transport and nothing else. Again we read of the charge of the Levites in the tent of meeting, e.g. Numbers 4:25 f. If we look to see what this was, we find that it consisted of transporting portions of the tent that had been packed up. The "in" of English Versions of the Bible does not represent the meaning of the Hebrew fairly; for the context makes it clear that the legislator means "in respect to." "But they shall not go in to see the sanctuary even for a moment, lest they die" (Numbers 4:20). In English idiom we cannot speak of the transport of portions of a dismantled tent as service in that tent. One other expression requires notice, the phrase "keep the charge" which is distinguished in Numbers 8:26 from "doing service." The exact meaning cannot be determined. It appears to denote something kindred to service, but of a less exacting nature, perhaps the camping round the tent and the guardianship of the articles on the march. We shall see hereafter by comparison with other books that inP it does not bear the same meaning as elsewhere.

(2) Other Legal Provisions. The Levites were to act under the orders of Aaron and his sons, who were to assign to each man his individual functions (Numbers 3:1-51; Numbers 4:1-49, etc.). They were to undergo a special rite of purification (Numbers 8:1-26), but not of consecration. They were taken in place of the firstborn (Numbers 3:1-51). The age for beginning service is given in Numbers 4:1-49 as Numbers 30:1-16 years, but in Numbers 8:24 as Numbers 25:1-18 years, if the text is sound. The age for ceasing to serve was 50. In many passages the versions suggest that a good many phrases are textually doubtful, and it is probable that when a critical text of the Pentateuch is formed on scientific principles, a good many superfluous expressions will be found not to be original; but there is no reason to suppose that any real difference in the meaning of the passages would be revealed by such a text.

The story of Korah is easily misunderstood. It appears from Numbers 16:3 that his real object was to put himself on an equality with Moses and Aaron, and this is the "priesthood" referred to in Numbers 16:10. Numbers 18:1-32 reinforces the earlier passages. It is noteworthy as showing that in the conception of the legislator the Levites were not to come near the vessels or the altar (Numbers 18:3). The penalty is death for both Levites and priests.

(3) Contrast with Ezekiel and Chronicles. The impression as to the meaning of P which may be gathered from an examination of its statements is powerfully reinforced when they are tested by reference to Ezekiel and Chronicles, Ezekiel 44:9-14 seems to demand of the Levites some service as gatekeepers, the slaying of burnt offering and sacrifice for the people and a keeping of "the charge of the house, for all the service thereof," which in the light of Ezekiel 44:7 f appears to mean in his terminology, not a service of transport, but an entry into the house and the performance of certain duties there. The Priestly Code (P), on the contrary, knows nothing of gatekeepers, regards the slaying of the burnt offering and sacrifice as the duty of the individual sacrificant (Leviticus 1:1-17; Leviticus 3:1-17), and--if, as Wellhausen thinks, it refers to the temple--it would have visited with death a Levite who was present in the places in which Ezekiel requires him to minister. Similarly with the Chronicler. For instance, he the Levites being `for the service of the .... in the courts and over the chambers, and over the cleansing of every holy thing' (1 Chronicles 23:28), but P knows nothing of any chambers, would not have allowed the Levites to touch (much less clean) many of the holy things, and regarded service simply as porterage. In 1 Chronicles 23:31 the Levites are to offer burnt offerings on certain occasions; in P their approach to the altar would have meant death both to themselves and the priests (Numbers 18:3). Other instances will be found in PS, 238 f.

(4) What the Foregoing Proves. In view of these facts it is impossible to hold that the Levites in P represent a projection of the Levites of the second temple or any post-Mosaic age into the desert period. To P they are a body of sacred porters. The temple of course could not be carried about, and it cannot be held that in this respect the legislation mirrors later circumstances. "Secondly, the net result of such a scheme would be to create a body of Levites for use during the period of wanderings and never thereafter. As soon as the desert age was over the whole tribe would find their occupation gone. How can we conceive that any legislator deliberately sat down and invented such a scheme centuries after the epoch to which it relates, well knowing that in so far as his scheme purported to be a narrative of events it was fictitious from beginning to end, and in so far as it might be regarded as a legislation applicable to his own or any future day, there was not a line in it that could conceivably be put into practice? If any theorist can be conceived as acting in this way, how are we to suppose that his work would meet with acceptance? .... Thirdly, P neither embodies the views of Ezekiel nor finds an accurate reflection in Chronicles. The facts are such as to enable us to say definitely that P is not in line with them. It is impossible to assume that he appointed the death penalty for certain acts if performed by Levites because he really wished the Levites to perform those acts" (PS, 241 f).

2. Aaron and His Sons: Priests and Levites also speaks of Aaron the priest and the sons of Aaron the priest. It is doubtful whether the expression "the sons of Aaron the priests," which occurs frequently in the Massoretic Text, is ever original; the Massoretic expression is nowhere supported by all the authorities. "The phrase `Aaron the high priest' is entirely unknown to Priests and Levites. Where the high priest's name is given the only qualifying apposition possible in his usage is `the priest.' " Aaron and his sons, unlike the Levites, were consecrated, not merely purified.

At this point two features only of the legislation need be noticed: the inadequacy of the staff to post-conquest conditions and the signs of date. For example, the leprosy laws (Leviticus 13:1-59 f) postulate the presence of priests to inspect and isolate the patient. "Remembering that on the critical theory P assumes the capital at Jerusalem as self-evident, we must ask how such provisions were to work after the conquest. During the desert period nothing could have been simpler, but what was to happen when the Israelites dwelt all over Canaan from Beersheba to Dan?" (PS, 246). The difficulty is immensely increased if we postulate an exilic or post-exilic date, when the Jewish center of gravity was in Babylonia and there were large colonies in Egypt and elsewhere. And "What are we to say when we read of leprous garments (Leviticus 13:47 ff)? Was a man to make the pilgrimage from Babylonia to Jerusalem to consult a priest about a doubtful garment? And what about the leper's offerings in Leviticus 14:1-57? Could they conceivably have been meant to apply to such circumstances?" (PS, 247). The case is no better with the law of leprous houses, which is expressed to apply to the post-conquest period (Leviticus 4:33-35). The notification to the priest and his inspections require a priesthood scattered all over the country, i.e. a body far more numerous than the house of Aaron at the date of the conquest. Such instances could easily be multiplied from the legislation; one more only will be cited on account of its importance to the history of the priesthood. According to Leviticus, the individual sacrificant is to kill the victims and flay the burnt offerings. How could such procedure be applied to such sacrifices as those of Solomon (1 Kings 8:63)? With the growth of luxury the sacrifices would necessarily become too large for such a ritual, and the wealthy would grow in refinement and object to performing such tasks personally. This suggests the reason for later abuses and for the modifications of Ezekiel and the representations of the Chronicler.

Result of the Evidence.

Thus, the evidence of P is unfavorable alike to the Wellhausen and the mediating views. The indications of date are consistently Mosaic, and it seems impossible to fit the laws into the framework of any other age without reading them in a sense that the legislator can be shown not to have contemplated. On the other hand P is a torso. It provides a large body of Levites who would have nothing to do after the conquest, and a corpus of legislation that could not have been administered in settled conditions by the house of Aaron alone.

III. The Other Portions of the Pentateuch. In Exodus 19:22, 24 we read of priests, but a note has come down to us that in the first of those verses Aquila had "elders," not "priests," and this appears to be the correct reading in both places, as is shown by the prominence of the elders in the early part of the chapter. In Hebrew the words differ by only two letters. It is said by Wellhausen that in Exodus 33:7-11 (E) Joshua has charge of the ark. This rests on a mistranslation of Exodus 33:7, which should be rendered (correcting English Versions of the Bible), `And Moses used to take a (or the) tent and pitch it for himself without the camp.' It is inconceivable that Moses should have taken the tent of the ark and removed it to a distance from the camp for his private use, leaving the ark bared and unguarded. Moreover, if he had done so, Joshua could not have been in charge of the ark, seeing that he was in this tent while the ark (ex hypothesi) remained in the camp. Nor had the ark yet been constructed. Nor was Joshua in fact a priest or the guardian of the ark in E: (1) in the Book of Joshua E knows of priests who carry the ark and are quite distinct from Joshua (3 ff); (2) in Deuteronomy 31:14 (E) Joshua is not resident in the tent of meeting; (3) in E, Aaron and Eleazar are priests (Deuteronomy 10:6), and the Levitical priesthood is the only one recognized (Deuteronomy 33:10); (4) there is no hint anywhere of Joshua's discharging any priestly duty whatsoever. The whole case rests on his presence in the tent in Exodus 33:7-11, and, as shown in the article PENTATEUCH (which see), this passage should stand after Exodus 13:22.

Then it is said that in Exodus 4:14; Judges 17:7, "Levite" denotes profession, not ancestry. In the latter passage the youth whom Micah made a priest was of Levitical descent, being the grandson of Moses (Judges 17:13), and the case rests on the phrase, "of the family of Judah." Neither of the Septuagintal translations had this text (Field, Hexapla, at the place), which therefore cannot be supported, since it cannot be suggested that Moses belonged to the tribe of Judah. As to Exodus 4:14, the phrase "Aaron thy brother the Levite" is merely an adaptation of the more usual, "Aaron, son of Amram, the Levite," rendered necessary by the fact that his brother Moses is the person addressed. The Wellhausen theory here is shown to be untenable in PS, 250 and Revelation 3, XI, 418.

Exodus 32:26-29 foreshadows the sacred character of Levi, and Deuteronomy 10:6 (E) knows the hereditary Aaronic priesthood. In D the most important passage is Deuteronomy 18:6-8. In 18:7 three Septuagintal manuscripts omit the words "the Levites," and if this be a gloss, the whole historic sense of the passage is changed. It now contains an enactment that any Levite coming to the religious capital may minister there "as all his brethren do, who stand there," etc., i.e. like the descendants of Aaron. "The Levites" will then be the explanation of a glossator who was imbued with the latest post-exilic ideas, and thought that "his brethren" must mean those of his fellow-Levites who were not descended from Aaron. The passage is supplemented by 21:5, giving to the Levites judicial rights, and 24:8 assigning to them the duty of teaching the leprosy regulations. Together with 33:10 (E), `they shall teach thy judgments to Jacob and thy law to Israel: they shall put incense in thy nostrils and whole burnt-offering on thine altar,' these passages complete the provisions of P in giving to the Levites an occupation in place of their transport duties, and providing the necessary staff for administering the legislation when the Israelites were no longer massed together in a single camp, but scattered over the country. We shall see in the next section that this view of the meaning of the Law was taken by every writer of the second part of the Canon who touches on the subject. Everywhere we are confronted with the legitimacy of a Levitical priesthood; nowhere is there any mention of an exclusive Aaronic right. Smaller points which cannot be discussed here are examined in PS. It only remains to notice that these provisions fully explain the frequent Deuteronomic locution, "the priests the Levites." One other remark must be made. Though it is not expressly stated, we may assume that consecration would be necessary in the case of any Levite acting on the provisions of Deuteronomy 18:6-8, and was not mentioned because in Hebrew antiquity it went without saying that every priest must be consecrated (compare Judges 17:1-13).

IV. From Moses to Malachi. 1. The Sources Other than Ezekiel: Joshua adds but little to our information. In 18:7 the priesthood is called the inheritance of the Levites, and it is singular that the Wellhausen critics attribute this to a priestly redactor, though such a writer should ex hypothesi have been jealous to withhold the priesthood from the Levites. It is very interesting to find that in Joshua 3:1-17; Joshua 4:1-24, all the different critical documents speak in exactly the same terms of "the priests that bare the ark." The priestly writer ought, on the Wellhausen theory, to have said "the Levites." The expression "the priests the Levites" is found alternating with the expression "the priests." All this points to the construction put upon the provisions of the Law in the preceding section, and finds fresh confirmation in Judges, where we see Micah rejoicing at having a Levite as a priest (Judges 17:13), thus showing that the sacred character of the tribe was recognized in the earliest post-Mosaic times. The lay sacrifices in this and the following books are explained under SANCTUARY; SACRIFICE (which see).

The period of the early kings shows us kings blessing the people (e.g. 2 Samuel 6:18). It is claimed that this is the priestly blessing, but without evidence, and there seems no more reason to see special priestly rights here than in David's blessing his household (2 Samuel 6:20), or the frequent blessings of the Bible (e.g. Genesis passim, especially "in thee will Israel bless," Genesis 48:20), while in 1 Kings 8:55 ff we actually have the words of the blessing delivered on one of those occasions by Solomon, and it is quite unlike the blessing of the priests (Numbers 6:22 ff).

Textual criticism disposes of the supposed priesthood of certain non-Levitical persons. In 2 Samuel 8:18 the Massoretic Text makes David's sons "priests," but this reading was unknown to the Septuagint, Symmachus, and Theodotion (Field, ad. loc.). The Septuagint has "aularches," i.e. chamberlains. That this represents a different Hebrew word is proved by the Septuagintal list of 3 Ki 2:46 (not extant in Hebrew), where we read that Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, was "over the aularchy and over the brick-making." It cannot be suggested that this represents an original Hebrew "over the priesthood and over the brick-making," and accordingly we must concede the existence of some secular court office which was rendered by this Greek phrase. Hitzig and Cheyne conjecture that tsokhenim should be read for kohanim. This word gives the sense required (see Isaiah 22:15) Revised Version margin "steward"). In 2 Samuel 20:26 we read that Ira, ha-ya'iri ("the Jairite"), was a priest, but the Syriac version supported by Lucian and 23:38 reads ha-yattiri ("the Jattirite"). Jattir was a priestly city. In 1 Kings 4:5 Nathan's son is described as `priest friend of the king,' but the Septuagint reads only "friend of the king" (compare especially 1 Chronicles 27:33 f; 2 Samuel 15:32), and at another period Nathan's son held the kindred secular office of king's counselor (the Septuagint 3 Ki 2:46, a fact that is certainly unfavorable to the view that he ever held priestly office). There can therefore be no doubt that the word "priest," kohen has arisen through dittography of the preceding word nathan, Nathan.

Various dealings with the ark and the age of Samuel require notice. As a boy, Samuel himself is given into the service of Eli. It has been argued that he really officiated as a priest, though probably (if the Chronicler's data is rejected) not of the Levitical descent. The answer is to be found in his age. Weaning sometimes took place at as late an age as three, and accordingly, the boy may have been as much as four years old when he was taken to Shiloh (1 Samuel 1:24). His mother used to bring him a little cloak (1 Samuel 2:19) every year, and this notice also shows his extreme youth. In view of this, it cannot be seriously contended that he performed any priestly service. He must have been something like a page, and he performed some duties of a porter, opening the door-valves of the temple at Shiloh (1 Samuel 3:15).

(1) The Custody of the Ark

When the ark was captured by the Philistines, it was in the charge of priests. When David brought it to Jerusalem, it was again placed in priestly custody, but there is an interregnum of some 20 years (1 Samuel 7:2).

It must be remembered that whatever may have happened during this period of great national confusion, the practice of all the rest of history, extending over some 600 or 700 years, is uniform and would far outweigh any irregularities during so short and troubled a period.

(2) On Its Return from the Philistines

The first difficulty arises on 1 Samuel 6:14-15. In the second of these verses the Levites come up after the Beth-shemites have finished, and, in Wellhausen's words, "proceed as if nothing had happened, lift the ark from the now-no-longer-existent cart, and set it upon the stone on which the sacrifice is already burning" (Prolegomena, 128). It is therefore suggest that 6:15 is a gloss. But there is difficulty in 6:14 which tells of the breaking up of the cart, etc., without explaining what happened to the ark. The trouble may be met by a slight transposition, thus: `14a and the cart came into the field, .... and stood there, and there was there a great stone: 15a and the Levites took down the ark, etc. and put them on the great stone: 14b and clave the wood of the cart,' etc., followed by 15b. This makes perfect sense.

(3) In Abinadab's House

The second difficulty is made by 1 Samuel 7:1, where we read that the ark was brought to the house of Abinadab `and Eleazar his son they sanctified to guard' it. Its old abode, the house at Shiloh, had apparently been destroyed (Jeremiah 7:12, 14; 6, 9). There it enjoyed considerable importance, for Poels is unquestionably right in identifying the Gibeah of God (1 Samuel 10:5) with the Gibeah (hill) of the ark. Thus, there was a high place there and a Philistine garrison (compare 1 Samuel 13:3, where Septuagint and Targum have "Gibeah"). There remains the difficulty caused by the guardianship of Eleazar. Poels may be right in reading we'eth bene' El'azar, "and the sons of Eleazar," for we'eth 'El`azar beno, "and Eleazar his son"; but in the entire absence of information, alike as to Eleazar's functions and as to his tribe, nothing definite can be said. The narratives of the slaughter among the Beth-shemites and the fate of Uzzah make it certain that Eleazar's custody of the ark kept him at a respectful distance from it.

When David at the end of this period removed the ark, it was first taken in a cart. This proved fatal to Uzzah, and the ark was deposited in the house of Obededom the Gittite. The text of Samuel knows nothing of any guardianship of the ark by Obed-edom. Probably he took very good care not to go near it in view of Uzzah's fate. Then it was transported to Jerusalem by bearers (2 Samuel 6:13)--presumably of Levitical descent. No further irregularities are urged.

More important is the change of priesthood; 1 Samuel 2:27-36 clearly threatens Eli, whose house had been chosen in Egypt, with a transference of the high-priesthood to another line. Careful comparison with 1 Kings 2:27 makes it certain that the prophecy was fulfilled when Zadok was placed by Solomon in the place of Abiathar. Who was Zadok? According to Chronicles (1 Chronicles 6:8, 53; 24:3; 27:17) he was descended from Aaron through Eleazar, and this is accepted by Orr, Van Hoonacker and many others, who take Chronicles in a literal sense. According to Ezekiel he was a Levite (40:46, etc.). It is noteworthy that throughout the prophetical books we always hear of the Levitical priesthood, not the Aaronic (see especially 1 Kings 12:31; Jeremiah 33:18-22; Malachi 2:1-17), and the "father's house" of 1 Samuel 2:27-36 that was chosen in Egypt could only be the house of

Aaron, not of Ithamar, if the passage is to be taken in its natural sense. On this view Zadok's appointment could only have fulfilled the prophecy if it terminated the Aaronic succession. It would seem therefore that the high-priesthood was transferred to a family of non-Aaronic Levites. For the alternative view see ZADOK.

The prophet's speech in 1 Samuel 2:27-36 is also important for the light it throws on the organization of the priesthood. The high priest has in his gift a number of priestly offices with pecuniary and other emoluments. This postulates a far more advanced hierarchy than that of Priest.

The reference to "the priests and the Levites" in 1 Kings 8:4 was unknown to the Septuagint, but in other passages the Books of Kings show further advances in hierarchical organization. There is not merely the high priest--generally like Aaron in the Priestly Code (P) called "the priest," but sometimes the high priest--but also the second priest (2 Kings 25:18; Jeremiah 52:24; 2 Kings 23:4, according to the Targum), three keepers of the threshold (ubi supra, and 2 Kings 12:10) and "elders of the priests" (2 Kings 19:2; Isaiah 37:2; perhaps also Jeremiah 19:1). See also Jeremiah 20:1 f; Jeremiah 29:26 for priestly organization and jurisdiction in the temple precincts. All this contrasts strikingly with the simplicity of the Pentateuchal organization.

2. Ezekiel: Ezekiel is entirely in line with the other sources for this period, but he seeks to institute certain reforms. He writes, "Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean," etc. (Ezekiel 22:26). If these words have any meaning they signify that he was acquainted with a law which followed the very words of Leviticus 10:1-20 and other passages of the Priestly Code (P), and was intended to reach the people through the teaching of the priests. In Ezekiel 40:1-49 through 48, there is a vision of the future which stands in the closest relation to the Pentateuch. Three views have been held of this. The old view was that Ezekiel could not be reconciled with the Pentateuch at all, and that the difficulties presented were insoluble. Wellhausen and his followers maintain that the prophet is prior to the Priestly Code (P), and here introduces the distinction between priests and Levites for the first time. The third alternative is to hold that Ezekiel was familiar with P and drew from it the inspiration to make a fresh division among the Levites, giving the sons of Zadok a position similar to that occupied by the sons of Aaron in the wilderness period, and reenacting with slight modifications the legislation applicable to the sons of Aaron, this time applying it to the sons of Zadok. The crucial passage is 44:6-16, from which it clearly appears that in Solomon's temple aliens had performed sundry tasks that should have been executed by more holy persons, and that Ezekiel proposes to degrade Levites who are not descended from Zadok to perform such tasks in the future as a punishment for their ministrations to idols in high places. Either of the two latter views would explain the close connection that evidently exists between the concluding chapters of Ezekiel and the Priestly Code (P), and, accordingly, in choosing between them, the reader must consider four main points: (1) Is P shown on the internal evidence to be early or late? Is it desert legislation, or is it accurately reflected in Chronicles? This point has already been discussed in part and is further treated in PENTATEUCH (which see). (2) Is theory of the late composition of P psychologically and morally probable? On this see PENTATEUCH and POT, 292-99. (3) Is it the case that the earlier history attests the existence of institutions of P that are held by Wellhausen and his followers to be late--e.g. more national offerings than the critics allow? On this see EPC 200 ff, and passim; POT, 305-15, and passim;SBL andOP passim, and article PENTATEUCH. (4) Does Ezekiel himself show acquaintance with P (e.g. in 22:26), or not? On this too see SBL , 96;PS , 281 f.

With regard to the non-mention of the high-priesthood and certain other institutions in Ezekiel's vision, the natural explanation is that in the case of these the prophet did not desire to institute any changes. It is to be noted that Ezekiel does not codify and consolidate all existing law. On the contrary, he is rather supplementing and reforming. In his ideal temple the prince is to provide the statutory national offerings (45:17), i.e. those of Numbers 28:1-31; Numbers 29:1-40. Apparently the king had provided these earlier (2 Kings 16:13). But in addition to these there had grown up a "king's offering," and it is probably to this only that Ezekiel 45:22 ff; 46:2-15 relate. In 46:13 Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and some Hebrew manuscripts preserve the reading "he" for "thou."

V. Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. Whatever the course of the earlier history, there is general agreement that in these books a distinction between priests and Levites is established (see e.g. Nehemiah 10:37 f (38 f); 12:1 f). We also find singers and porters (Nehemiah 13:5, etc.), Nethinim and the sons of Solomon's servants (Ezra 7:7, 24; 10:23 f; Nehemiah 10:28 (29); 11:3, etc.). It must not be assumed that these classes were new. The story of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:1-27) gives us the origin of some of these grades, and the non-mention of them in many of the earlier books is easily explained by the character of those books. We know from such passages as Amos 5:23 that there were musical services in far earlier times (compare Nehemiah 12:42).

1. Estimates of the Chronicler: Chronicles presents an account of the earlier history of the priests and Levites that in many respects does not tally with the older sources. Many modern writers think that the author's views of the past were colored by the circumstances of his own day, and that he had a tendency to carry back later conditions to an earlier period. On the other hand it is impossible to deny fairly that he used some sources which have not been preserved to us elsewhere. Again, there is evidence to show that his work was not intended to be taken for history and would not have been so regarded by his contemporaries. Talmudical authorities held some such view as this. The historical value of his work has yet to be appraised in a more critical and impartial spirit than is exhibited in any of the current discussions. For the present purpose it is only possible to notice the effect of some of his statements, if interpreted literally. As there are passages where he has clearly substituted Levites for the less holy personages of the older sources (contrast e.g. 2 Kings 11:4-12 with 2 Chronicles 23:1-11), it may be that Levites have also been substituted by him for other persons in notices of which no other version has survived.

2. His Data: David and Solomon recognized the hierarchy. The former king instituted the musical services (1 Chronicles 6:3 ff; 1 Chronicles 16:4 ff; 1 Chronicles 25:1-31). The Levites were divided into courses (1 Chronicles 23:6) and were rendered liable to service from the age of twenty by his enactment (1 Chronicles 23:27). There were also 24 courses or divisions of priests, 16 of the sons of Eleazar and 8 of the sons of Ithamar (1 Chronicles 23:24). The courses were divided by lot. In Nehemiah 12:1-7 we read of "chiefs of the priests," but these are only 22 in number, while Nehemiah 12:12-21 give us 21 in the time of Joiakim (Nehemiah 12:26). But not much importance can be attached to such lists, as names could easily fall out in transmission. According to 1 Chronicles 9:26 the four chief porters were Levites, and Levites were also over the things baked in pans and the shewbread (9:31 f). This of course is not in accordance with the Law, but is found elsewhere in Chronicles. In 1 Chronicles 23 the Levites from 30 years old and upward number 38,000, of whom 24,000 oversee the work of the house of the Lord, 6,000 were officers and judges, 4,000 were doorkeepers and 4,000 were musicians. David altered the age of beginning service to 20, and an account of their functions is given in 1 Chronicles 23:27-32 (see, further, MUSIC). All these arrangements were confirmed and enforced by Solomon (2 Chronicles 8:14 ff). There is often uncertainty as to whether the Chronicler identifies priests and Levites in particular cases or not, e.g. in 2 Chronicles 30:27, "the priests the Levites" bless the people according to the ordinary text, but many authorities read "the priests and the Levites." Hezekiah appears to have undertaken some reorganization (2 Chronicles 29:1-36 through 2 Chronicles 31:1-21), but the details are not clear. Jehoshaphat established in Jerusalem a court composed partly of Levites and priests (2 Chronicles 19:8-11). Previously he had sent priests and Levites and others to teach the Law in Judah (2 Chronicles 17:1-19). In 2 Chronicles 29:34 it is clearly the duty of the priests to flay burnt offerings (contrast Leviticus 1:1-17). It is impossible to draw any consistent picture from the Chronicler because he gives different data for different periods; it is doubtful whether he meant his statements to be taken as historical, e.g. in 1 Chronicles 25:1-31 we find Levites whose names Giddalti (= "I have magnified"), etc., are really words forming part of a prayer, and it is difficult to believe that either the Chronicler or his public intended this chapter to be interpreted in any but a spiritual sense (see PS , 284-86).

In Ezra 2:40 the number of Levites who returned with Zerubbabel is given as 74, as against 973 priests (Ezra 2:36), 128 singers (2:41), 139 children of the porters (2:42), 392 Nethinim and children of Solomon's servants (2:58), and the figures are the same in Nehemiah 7:1-73, except that there the singers number 148 (Nehemiah 7:44) and the porters 138 (7:45). When Ezra went up, he was at first joined by no Levites (8:15), but subsequently gathered 38 Levites and 220 Nethinim (8:18-20). We get glimpses of the organization in Nehemiah 12:44-47 and Nehemiah 13:10 ff. It appears that in this period genealogies were carefully scrutinized in the case of doubtful claims to priestly descent (Ezra 2:61 ff; Nehemiah 7:63 ff). In Ezra 6:19 ff the Levites are represented as killing the Passover.

Of these books no satisfactory account can be given in the present state of textual criticism and Biblical science generally. Some writers, e.g., hold that the Chronicler had before him a source to which the Levites were entirely unknown, others that he invented freely, others again that he reproduces trustworthy pre-exilic information. The student has only an assortment of theories from which to choose. The bedrock fact is that the statements of these books, if taken in their natural meaning, convey an entirely different impression from the statements of the earlier books construed similarly. Modern research has not yet been seriously addressed to the question whether all the statements were really intended to be interpreted as mere history.

VI. Legal Provisions. Aaron and his sons underwent consecration to fit them for their duties. Exodus 28:1-43 f prescribes their garments and consecration (see DRESS; BREASTPLATE; EPHOD; ROBE; COAT; MITRE; GIRDLE; URIM AND THUMMIM), and the account of the latter may be read in Leviticus 8:1-36 f. In individual sacrifices brought to the religious capital the priests performed the part of the ritual which related to the altar (sprinkling, burning, etc.) (Leviticus 1:1-17 through Leviticus 4:1-35). See SACRIFICE. A principal function was the duty of teaching the people the law of God (Leviticus 10:11; Leviticus 14:54-57; Deuteronomy 24:8; 33:10; compare Ezekiel 44:23; Hosea 4:1-6; Haggai 2:11 ff, and many passages in the Prophets).

The priests were subject to special laws designed to maintain their purity (Leviticus 21:1-24 f; compare Ezekiel 44:1-31). The rules aim at preventing defilement through mourning (save in the case of ordinary priests for a near relation) and at preventing those who were physically unfitted from performing certain functions, and those who were for any reason unclean from approaching the holy things. See further STRANGER AND SOJOURNER. They performed several semi-judicial functions (Numbers 5:5 ff,Numbers 11:1-35 ff, etc.; see JUDGE). They also blessed the people (Numbers 6:22; compare Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.).

See BLESSING. On their dues see SACRIFICE; TITHE; FIRSTLING; FIRST-FRUITS; LEVITICAL CITIES; AGRARIAN LAWS; see further CHEMARIM; NETHINIM; SOLOMON'S SERVANTS; SINGERS; DOORKEEPER;SERVING-WOMEN ; JUDGE.

LITERATURE.

Wellhausen, Prolegomena, chapter iv, for the Graf-Wellhausen view; Wiener, Wiener, Pentateuchal Studies, 230-89, for the view taken above; S.I. Curtiss, Levitical Priests, for the conservative view. This writer afterward changed to the critical view. James Orr, POT; A. Van Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce levitique (important); W. Baudissin, article "Priests and Levites" in HDB, IV, for mediating views. The best account in English of the details of the priestly duties is contained in Baudissin's article, where a further bibliography will be found.

Harold M. Wiener

Primogeniture

Primogeniture - pri-mo-jen'-i-tur (bekhorah, from bekhor, "firstborn," from bakhar, "to act early"; prototokia):

1. Recognition of Doctrine: The right of the firstborn to inherit the headship of the family, carrying with it certain property rights and usually such titles as those of the high-priesthood or kingship. The writings of the Hebrews take for granted the recognition of a doctrine of primogeniture from the earliest times. In the most ancient genealogies a distinction is drawn between the firstborn and the other son (Genesis 10:15; 22:21; 25:13; 35:23; 36:15). In the bestowal of parental blessings in patriarchal times great importance was attached to preferring the firstborn (Genesis 25:31; 27:29; 48:13; 49:3). The feud between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 27:1 through Genesis 28:21) grew out of the stealing of the firstborn's blessing by the younger brother. Joseph was displeased when, in his blessing, Jacob seemed to prefer Ephraim to Manasseh, his firstborn (Genesis 48:18). The father in such cases seems to have had the right to transfer the birthright from one son to another, from the days of Abraham in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, through those of Jacob in the matter of Reuben and Joseph and in the matter of Ephraim and Manasseh, down to the days of David in the selection of a successor to the kingship. Nevertheless, the Mosaic code, which declared (rather than enacted) the law of primogeniture, prohibited the abuse of this parental privilege in the case of a younger son by a favorite wife (Deuteronomy 21:16 f).

2. The Double Portion: The manner of acknowledging the firstborn incidentally referred to in Dt is "by giving him a double portion of all that he hath" (Deuteronomy 21:17), that is to say, double the share of each of the other brothers. Jewish tradition (Bekho. 46a, 47b, 51a, 51b; Babha' Bathra' 122a, 122b, 123a, 124a, 142b) accepts and elaborates on this right of the firstborn son. Thus, it applies only to the firstborn and not the eldest surviving son; it does not apply to daughters; it has reference only to the paternal estate, and not to the inheritance left by a mother or other relative, nor to improvements or accessions made to an estate after the death of the father.

3. Reasons for the Custom: The object of the doctrine may be that the eldest son might be enabled to preside over the affairs of family with proper dignity, or that he might assume additional responsibilities, such as the support of unmarried sisters. Hence, one's birthright could be waived or sold (Genesis 25:31, 34). On the other hand it may be based in the ultimate analysis on the primitive feeling of favoritism for the firstborn reflected in the disappointment of Jacob, when he speaks of Reuben as his firstborn, his might, and the beginning of his strength (re'shith 'on, Genesis 49:3; compare Deuteronomy 21:17). This theory would be in accord with the right of the parent to transfer the right to a younger son. The suggestion of favoritism conveyed by the Hebrew bekhor is manifested in its figurative use: of Israel (Exodus 4:22), of Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9), of one dearly beloved (Zechariah 12:10); (compare figurative usage in the New Testament: Romans 8:29; Hebrews 12:23; 1:6; Revelation 1:5).

4. The Firstborn in Ancient Society; Sacrifice and Redemption:

Light is thrown on the attitude of the ancient world toward the firstborn, and hence, on the history of primogeniture, by the language used in connection with the plague of the firstborn: "from the first-born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the first-born of the maidservant that is behind the mill" or "the captive that was in the dungeon." Apparently no more dreadful catastrophe for all classes of society could be thought of than this slaying of the firstborn (Exodus 11:5; 12:29). The misguided fervor of the ancient Semites who offered their firstborn as the thing most dearly beloved as a sacrifice to their gods must be considered in this light, whether it appears among the Moabites, the Phoenicians or the Hebrews themselves (Jeremiah 32:35; Ezekiel 20:26, 31; 2 Chronicles 28:3). It is difficult to predicate a connection between the basis of the doctrine of primogeniture and that of the Redemption of the First-born, other than that both are ultimately based on the importance of a firstborn son and the fondness of his parents for him. It is interesting to note, however, that the tradition of redemption and the law of primogeniture are kept so distinct that, while the latter has reference only to the firstborn of a father, the former has reference only to the firstborn of a mother (Bekho, viii. l, 46a; compare peTer rechem, "whatsoever openeth the womb," Exodus 13:2). In a polygamous society such as that presupposed in Deuteronomy 21:1-23 it is natural to suppose that the distinction between paternal and maternal primogeniture would be clearly before the minds of the people.

See BIRTHRIGHT; FIRSTBORN.

Nathan Isaacs

Prince

Prince - prins: This word occurs quite frequently in our English Bible, mostly in the Old Testament. While it is never used to denote royal parentage (compare 1 Chronicles 29:24), it often indicates actual royal or ruling power, together with royal dignity and authority. As a rule, the name is given to human beings; in a few instances it is applied to God and Christ, the angels and the devil.

In Matthew 2:6 the word rendered "princes" might be translated "princely cities"; at least, this seems to be implied. Here the term hegemon, "leader," "ruler," "prince," is used, undoubtedly to hint at the fact that Bethlehem was the native city of a great prince. In the other New Testament passages the word archon, "a potentate," "a person in authority," "a magistrate," occurs most frequently (compare Matthew 9:34; 12:24; 20:25 (the Revised Version (British and American) "ruler"); Mark 3:22; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 1 Corinthians 2:6, 8 the King James Version; Ephesians 2:2; Revelation 1:5 (the Revised Version (British and American) "ruler")). In most of these instances the term "prince" refers to the devil.

In Acts 3:15; 5:31, the word archegos, "leader," is employed referring to Christ as the author of life and salvation (compare Hebrews 12:2, where the term archegos is rendered "author" (Revised Version) or "captain" (Revised Version margin)).

The Old Testament contains a number of different words mostly rendered "prince" or "princes" in the English Versions of the Bible.

(1) sar: In Joshua 5:14 the mysterious armed stranger seen by Joshua near Jericho calls himself the "prince of the host of Yahweh": a high military title applied to a superhuman being. In Isaiah 9:6, the name is given to the child representing the future Messiah. The term "Prince of Peace" denotes the eminent position and the peaceful reign of the Messianic king: the highest human title in its most ideal sense. Daniel 8:11: here, again, as in Joshua 5:14, occurs the phrase "prince of the host." In Daniel 8:25 "the prince of princes" refers to God Himself: the highest human title in its absolute sense applied to God. Daniel 10:21: "Michael your prince." Michael the archangel is here called the prince of the Jewish people. He is the princely representative of God's people in the sight of God, a royal title suggesting high power and alliance with God in the great struggle going on between Him and the powers of darkness. Daniel 12:1: here Michael is called "the great prince" who standeth for the children of Israel; supplementing Daniel 10:21. In Daniel 10:13: "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (compare Daniel 10:20, "the prince of Persia," "the prince of Greece"), the expression is used in the same general sense as in Daniel 10:21. Each individual nation is represented as guided by a spiritual being that may or may not be an ally of God in His combat with the devil. In the majority of cases, though, the term sar is applied (a) to men exercising royal or ruling power: Proverbs 8:16: "By me princes (margin "or rulers") rule" Isaiah 32:1: "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in justice." Judicial power is included (compare Exodus 2:14: "Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?" and Psalms 148:11: "princes and all judges of the earth"). In some passages the word sar, having been rendered "prince," stands for "chief"; so Judges 7:25: "They took the two princes of Midian" (compare Judges 8:14; 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 10:3, etc.). (b) To royal officers of a high rank: Genesis 12:15: "the princes of Pharaoh" (compare 2 Kings 24:14: "Jerus and all the princes"; 1 Chronicles 29:24; 2 Chronicles 24:23; Jeremiah 36:21; 52:10; Hosea 5:10, etc.). "Ambassadors" (Jeremiah 36:14); "governors" (1 Kings 20:14: "By the young men (margin "or, servants") of the princes of the provinces"; compare Esther 1:3, 14, "the seven princes"); "the chief of the eunuchs" (Daniel 1:7); a "quartermaster" (Jeremiah 51:59: "Seraiah was chief chamberlain" (margin "or, quartermaster")). The King James Version renders it "a quiet prince," i.e. a prince having rest, instead of procuring rest (sar menuchah, "a sar of rest"). In post-exilic times: Ezra 9:1: "The princes drew near unto me." They were the political leaders of the people (compare Ezra 10:8: "the princes and the elders"; Nehemiah 9:38: "our princes, our Levites, and our priests"; Nehemiah 11:1: "The princes of the people dwelt in Jerus"; Nehemiah 12:31: "the princes of Judah"). Of course, they were all subject to the authority of the Persian kings. (c) To the priesthood: 1 Chronicles 24:5: "princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God" (of Isaiah 43:28). (d) On account of great achievements: 2 Samuel 3:38: "Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?"--an honorary title. Generally speaking, a prince is a wealthy man (compare Job 34:19: "That respecteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor"), and he is a prominent man embodying true, although mortal, manhood (compare Psalms 82:7: "Nevertheless ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes).

(2) nasi': usually derived from nasa', "to lift," hence, "exalted"; otherwise: a "speaker." (a) An honorary title (compare Genesis 23:6: "Thou art a prince of God among us." The distinction is conferred upon Abraham by the children of Heth). (b) A name given to the heads of the Israelite tribes, families and fathers' houses: Numbers 3:24: "the prince of the fathers' house of the Gershonites" (compare Numbers 3:30, 35); Numbers 3:32: "Eleazar .... shall be prince of the princes of the Levites, and have the oversight of them that keep the charge of the sanctuary"; Numbers 4:34: "the princes of the congregation." They seem to be identical with the "rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens" (compare Exodus 18:21; Numbers 16:2). Numbers 7:2: "the princes of Israel, the heads of their fathers' houses .... the princes of the tribes" (compare Numbers 17:2, 6; 34:18; Joshua 22:14; 1 Chronicles 4:38). (c) Equivalent to chief or king: Genesis 17:20: "Twelve princes shall he beget" (compare Genesis 25:16); Genesis 34:2: "Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land"; Numbers 25:18: "Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian" (compare Joshua 13:21); 1 Kings 11:34: "I will make him prince all the days of his life." This was said of Solomon, which shows the term equivalent to king. Of special interest is the use of the word nasi' in Ezekiel. The name is given to the Jewish king (compare 1 Kings 12:10: "This burden concerneth the prince in Jerusalem"). Then, again, it is applied to the future theocratic king (compare 34:24; 37:25, etc., and especially chapters 45; 46). It is also used of foreign potentates and high officers (compare 26:16: "the princes of the sea"; 28:2: "the prince of Tyre"; 30:13: "a prince from the land of Egypt"); 32:29: "Edom, her kings and all her princes"; and, likewise, of high Jewish officers (21:12). (d) A title bestowed upon Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8).

(3) nadhibh: 1 Samuel 2:8: "To make them sit with princes" (compare Psalms 113:8). The original meaning of the term is willing or obliging; then generous ("liberal"; compare Proverbs 19:6: "Many will entreat the favor of the liberal man"; yet, it might safely be rendered here "prince", margin) or noble-minded; a gentleman, a nobleman, a person of rank, a prince. Job 12:21: "He poureth contempt upon princes" (compare Psalms 107:40); Job 21:28: "Where is the house of the prince? And where is the tent wherein the wicked dwelt?" The context here suggests the thought of a wicked prince, a tyrant. Psalms 47:9: "The princes of the peoples are gathered together" (compare Psalms 118:9; 146:3; Proverbs 17:7; 25:7; Song of Solomon 7:1).

(4) naghidh: According to Gesenius, this term denotes originally either a high-minded person (compare the preceding word, nadhibh) or a speaker, a spokesman; then a prince, a king. 1 Samuel 13:14: "Yahweh hath appointed him to be prince over his people" (compare 2 Samuel 5:2: "Thou shalt be prince (the Revised Version margin "leader") over Israel"; 2 Samuel 6:21; 7:8; 1 Kings 1:35; 14:7; 16:2; Job 29:9; 31:37; Psalms 76:12; Proverbs 28:16; Ezekiel 28:2: "prince of Tyre"; Daniel 9:25: "the anointed one, the prince," the King James Version the "Messiah the Prince"; Daniel 9:26: "the prince that shall come" (the Roman emperor?); Daniel 11:22: "the prince of the covenant" (either a high priest or some Egyptian king, Ptolemeus Philometor?).

(5), (6) razon, and rozen, "a high official," "a prince," usually associated with the word "king" or "judge." Proverbs 14:28: "In the multitude of people is the king's glory; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince" (razon); Judges 5:3: "Hear, O ye kings; give ear, O ye princes" (rozenim); Proverbs 8:15: "By me kings reign, and princes (rozenim) decree justice" (compare Proverbs 31:4; Habakkuk 1:10); Isaiah 40:23: "that bringeth princes (rozenim) to nothing; that maketh the judges of the earth as vanity."

(7) nacikh, derived from nacakh, "to install a king" (compare Psalms 2:6); hence, a prince: Joshua 13:21: "the princes of Sihon" (compare Psalms 83:11); Ezekiel 32:30: "the princes of the north"; Micah 5:5: the Revised Version (British and American) "principal men," the Revised Version margin "princes among men"; Daniel 11:8: the Revised Version (British and American) "molten images," the Revised Version margin "princes."

(8) qatsin, "a judge," "a military leader," "a prince"; Daniel 11:18: "A prince (the Revised Version margin "captain") shall cause the reproach .... to cease" (probably a Roman consul; a Roman general?).

(9) shalish: The usual explanation, "one of the three men on a war-chariot" is highly improbable; Gesenius suggests that it is a loan-word, and renders it "hero." Ezekiel 23:15: "All of them princes to look upon" ("picked men," Gesenius).

(10) chashmannim: Psalms 68:31: "Princes shall come out of Egypt." Septuagint renders it presbeis, "ambassadors," Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) legati. But the meaning is uncertain.

Princes, the Seven

Princes, the Seven - prin'-sez, -siz.

See PRINCE, (1), (b).

Princess

Princess - prin'-ses: The Hebrew term is sarah (compare sar, prince, and "Sarah"); it means (1) a queen (Isaiah 49:23, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) both "queen"); (2) the consort of a king contrasted with his concubines (1 Kings 11:3, "He had seven hundred wives. princesses, and three hundred concubines"); (3) the wife of a prince (Esther 1:18: the "princesses of Persia and Media"); (4) it is metaphorically used of the city of Jerusalem (Lamentations 1:1).

Principal

Principal - prin'-si-pal: Appears in the King James Version as a translation of nine Hebrew words (fewer in the Revised Version (British and American)), in one case (Isaiah 28:25) being used quite wrongly and in 2 Kings 25:19 (Jeremiah 52:25); 1 Chronicles 24:31 gives a wrong sense (all corrected in the Revised Version (British and American)). In 1 Kings 4:5, "principal officer" (the American Standard Revised Version "chief minister") is an arbitrary translation of kohen to avoid "priest" (so the English Revised Version; compare 2 Samuel 8:18).

Principality

Principality - prin-si-pal'-i-ti: In the Old Testament the word occurs but once (Jeremiah 13:18, "your principalities shall come down"). Here the King James Version margin "head tires" is properly preferred by the Revised Version (British and American) for mera'ashoth (from ro'sh, "head"), "head-parts."

In the New Testament "principality" occurs for arche, "rule," generally in the plural, referring (a) to men in authority (Titus 3:1, "Put them in mind to be subject (the King James Version; "in subjection," the Revised Version (British and American)) to principalities (the King James Version; "rulers," the Revised Version (British and American)), and powers" (the King James Version; "to authorities," the Revised Version (British and American)); (b) to superhuman agencies, angelic or demonic (Romans 8:38; Ephesians 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 10, 15). Paul was keenly sensible of the dualism of mind and body and of the law in his members warring against the law of his mind (Romans 7:23), and of the temporary victory of the evil, residing in the flesh, over the good of the spirit (Romans 7:14 ff). This dualism was objectified in Zoroastrianism, and among the Babylonians the several heavenly bodies were regarded as ruled by spirits, some good, some evil. The same belief, appropriated by the Jews during the captivity, appears also in Greek thought, as e.g. in Plato and later in the Stoics. The higher spheres, which hold the even tenor of their way, were in general regarded as ruled by good spirits; but in the sublunar sphere, to which the earth belongs, ill-regulated motions prevail, which must be due to evil spirits. The perversities of human conduct, in particular, thwarting, as was thought, the simple, intelligible divine plan, were held to be subject to rebellious powers offering defiance to God. While Paul clearly recognized a hierarchy of such powers (Colossians 1:16, "thrones or dominions or principalities or powers"), it is not certain that he had elaborated a system of eons to serve the purposes of metaphysical theology and ethics, such as appears among the Gnostics, although they evidently believed they were developing his thought. In 1 Corinthians 2:6 he repudiates the wisdom of this world (aion) and of the rulers of this world aion), and declares (Ephesians 6:12) that the Christian has to contend with "the world-rulers of this darkness," and proclaims the triumph of Christ over "the principalities and the powers" in the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 2:15). The same personification of such agencies or powers appears also in another passage, where the rendering of English Versions of the Bible obscures it (Ephesians 1:20-21: "when he raised him (Christ) from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all (read "every") rule (Revised Version; "principality," the King James Version), and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world (aion), but also in that which is to come"). Not the least interesting passage is Ephesians 3:10, where the church is said to be the means of revealing to "the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places" "the manifold wisdom of God." One naturally inquires what was the purpose of this revelation. Was it to effect a redemption and reconciliation of these demonic powers to God? To this question Paul supplies no answer.

See ANGEL; SATAN.

William Arthur Heidel

Principles

Principles - prin'-si-p'-lz: Found twice (Hebrews 5:12; 6:1). The Greek word (stoicheion) is also translated in the King James Version as "elements" and "rudiments." As rendered in He, its meaning is clearly related to the elementary knowledge of Christian truth or doctrine.

See ELEMENTS ; RUDIMENTS.

Print; Printing; Printed

Print; Printing; Printed - print, prin'-ting, prin'-ted: Printing is the art of multiplying records--the "art of writing with many pens" (Jewish Encyclopedia, XII, 295), or wholesale writing.

The art of making original records is writing. This, however, is a slow process. It involves tracing each letter and part of a letter through from beginning to end by the moving point of chisel, pen, or other instrument, and this process must be repeated with every copy. As soon, therefore, as occasion arose for frequently repeating the record, many ways were devised to save the labor of forming each symbol separately. All these ways involve making a character or a series of characters on a single surface and transferring as a whole to another surface. Neither "pressure," as some say, nor "ink," as others, is essential to the process, for printing from a photographic negative takes no pressure, and printing for the blind takes no ink. Any process which transfers a whole surface is printing.

The earliest use of printing seems to have been for painting the face or body with ownership, tribal, trophy, or ceremonial marks for worship, war, mourning, etc. This paint might be temporary or pricked in by the tattoo process. Tattooing itself is rather a writing than a printing process, but may be either, according as the color is laid on by drawing or by the "pintadera." The "pintadera" or "stamp used to impress patterns upon the skin" is best known from the Mexican and South American examples, but in recent years it has been found in deposits all over the Mediterranean region (North Italy, Austria, Hungary, Mycenae, Crete, Egypt) and in Borneo at least. Many of these specimens are from the Neolithic or Copper age. Both in South America and in Neolithic Liguria, some of these stamps were cylindrical and "were used like a printer's roller" (Mosso, The Dawn of Mediterranean Civilization, 254-61, with many illustrations, and Frobenius, Childhood of Man, figure 31, "Dayak block for painting the body").

The injunction of Leviticus 19:28, which is translated "print," is commonly, and probably rightly, in view of the Hebrew word, supposed to refer to the permanent marks of tattooing which may or may not have been made by this printing process. Job 13:27 the King James Version, which speaks of printing upon the heels or soles of the feet, has been quite changed in the Revised Version (British and American), and, if the idea is one of printing at all, it refers rather to branding than stamping with color.

The use of the inkhorn in setting the mark upon the forehead (Ezekiel 9:3-4, 6) certainly points to marking with color rather than branding. See INK-HORN. This may, of course, have been drawing rather than printing, but, on the other hand, the sealing of the servants of God on their foreheads (Revelation 7:4; 9:4) necessarily means printing rather than drawing, and probably printing rather than branding, for the use of the seal with color had long been common. The marks of the beast upon the forehead and upon the hand in Revelation 13:1-18; Revelation 14:1-20; Revelation 15:1-8; Revelation 16:1-21; Revelation 19:1-21 and Revelation 20:1-15, more likely refer to branding, as the Greek word points more or less in this direction, while the stigmata of Galatians 6:17 may also point to branding. Branding was at all events also a common method of printing characters on the flesh in Biblical times (Isaiah 3:24; perhaps Exodus 21:25; a branding on the forehead, Code of Hammurabi section 127; branding of a slave sections 226, 227). The reference in John 20:25 is, of course, to the clearly visible marks or scars left by the nails in the hands.

See MARK.

The use of seals is a true printing process, whether they are used with color, as they were both in Crete and Egypt almost from the beginning of history, or impressed on clay, wax, or other plastic substances. Mention of seals is frequent in the Bible (see SEAL). A new interest has been given to this aspect of the matter by the sealings discovered in Ahab's palace and other excavations throughout Palestine, which are forming one of the most useful classes of modern inscriptions.

Both stamp and seal were used throughout the Middle Ages, the latter abundantly, and the stamp at least occasionally, for stamping the capital letters in Biblical and other manuscripts, as well as for various other purposes.

Modern printing begins with the carving of whole pages and books on blocks of wood (xylography), or metal plates for printing (chalcography). This method was quite early practiced by the Chinese, and began to be common in Europe in the early 15th century, most of the books printed by it having to do with Biblical topics (Biblia pauperum, etc.).

It was only with the invention of movable type about the middle of the 15th century that the multiplying of books by writing began to come to an end. The printing with movable type is also closely associated with Biblical study, the Gutenberg Psalter and the Gutenberg Bible standing with most for the very beginning of modern printing.

For the printed editions of the Hebrew and Greek originals, and the various versions, see articles onTEXTUAL CRITICISM and allied topics in this encyclopedia, with their literature. The article on "Typography" in Jewish Encyclopedia is of unusual excellence, and the general literature of printing given in Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition), at the end of the first part of the article on "Typography," is full and good. Compare also Book in this encyclopedia and its literature, especially Hortzschansky, supplementing the bibliography of Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition).

E. C. Richardson

Prisca; Priscilla

Prisca; Priscilla - pris'-ka, pri-sil'-a.

See AQUILA.

Prison Garments

Prison Garments - See preceding article.

Prison, Spirits in

Prison, Spirits in - The phrase occurs in the much-disputed passage, 1 Peter 3:18-20, where the apostle, exhorting Christians to endurance under suffering for well-doing, says: "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." It is plain that in this context "the spirits in prison" (tois en phulake pneumasin) denote the generation who were disobedient in the days of Noah, while the words "spirits" and "in prison" refer to their present disembodied condition in a place of judgment in the unseen world (compare 2 Peter 2:4-9). The crucial point in the passage lies in what is said of Christ's preaching to these spirits in prison. The interpretation which strikes one most naturally is that Christ, put to death in the flesh, and made alive again in the spirit, went in this spiritual (disembodied) state, and preached to these spirits, who once had been disobedient, but are viewed as now possibly receptive of His message This is the idea of the passage taken by the majority of modern exegetes, and it finds support in what is said in 1 Peter 4:6, "For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." On this basis is now often reared a mass of doctrine or conjecture respecting "second probation," "restoration," etc.--in part going back to patristic times--for which the passage, even so taken, affords a very narrow foundation (see on this view, Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison; Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine,IV , 130-32; E. White, Life in Christ, chapter xxii). It must be admitted, however, that, on closer examination, the above plausible explanation is compassed with many difficulties. A preaching of Christ in Hades is referred to in no other passage of Scripture, while Peter appears to be speaking to his readers of something with which they are familiar; it seems strange that these antediluvians should be singled out as the sole objects of this preaching in the spiritual world; the word "made alive" does not exegetically refer to a disembodied state, but to the resurrection of Christ in the body, etc. Another line of interpretation is therefore preferred by many, who take the words "in which also he went," to refer, not to a disembodied manifestation, but to the historical preaching to the antediluvian generation through Noah while they yet lived. In favor of this view is the fact that the apostle in 1 Peter 1:11 regards the earlier prophetic preaching as a testifying of "the Spirit of Christ," that God's long-suffering with Noah's generation is described in Genesis 6:5, which Peter has doubtless in his mind, as a striving of God's Spirit, and that in 2 Peter 2:5 there is another allusion to these events, and Noah is described as "a preacher of righteousness." The passage, 1 Peter 4:6, may have the more general meaning that Christians who have died are at no disadvantage in the judgment as compared with those who shall be alive at the Parousia (compare 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18). (For an exposition of this view, with a full account of the interpretations and literature on the subject, compare Salmond's Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 4th edition, 364-87.)

James Orr

Prison; Prisoner

Prison; Prisoner - priz'-n, priz'-'-n-er, priz'-ner (there are various Hebrew words which are rendered "prison" in the King James Version, among them:

1. Hebrew Words: (1) cohar, "round house," "fortress" (8 times in Genesis), (2) kele' "restraint," "confinement" (12 times: in historic books, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with "house"), (3) maTTarah, "guard," "sentry" (13 times in Jeremiah and Nehemiah), (4) mahaphekheth, "distorting," i.e. stocks or pillory (4 times), (5) 'ecur, "bond," "fetters" (Ecclesiastes 4:14; Jeremiah 37:15); "ward" in the King James Version is usually the rendering for mishmar):

2. In Early Times: The earliest occurrence of the word "prison" in the King James Version is found in the narrative of Joseph's life in Egypt (the Jahwist). The term used, namely, cohar, means perhaps "round house" or "tower." It seems probable that among the Hebrews there were no special buildings erected as "jails" in the premonarchical period, and perhaps not before the post-exilic period, when the adoption of the civic institutions and customs of surrounding nations prevailed. In Egypt and Assyria, on the contrary, there were probably public buildings corresponding to our modern jails. Among the Hebrews, rooms in connection with the royal palace or the residence of prominent court officials would be used for the purpose.

3. Joseph in Egypt: According to one narrative (Jahwist) in Genesis the prison in which Joseph was confined had a "keeper," while according to another narrative (the Elohist) the offending members of the royal household, namely, the royal butler and the royal baker, were placed "in ward" with the "captain of the guard" in charge, i.e. in some part of the royal palace. This is still more probable if, instead of "captain of the guard," we should translate "chief of the cooks" i.e. superintendent of the royal kitchen.

4. Causes of Imprisonment: It was often necessary to restrict the liberty of individuals who for various causes were a menace to those in authority, without inflicting any corporal punishment, e.g. Joseph's brethren were kept "in ward" three days (Genesis 42:19); Shimei was forbidden to pass beyond the boundary of Jerusalem (1 Kings 2:36); the person who was caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath was put "in ward" pending his trial (Numbers 15:34). In the monarchical period, prophets who criticized the throne were put in prison, e.g. Micaiah by Ahab (1 Kings 22:27), Hanani by Asa (2 Chronicles 16:10). Hoshea, after his abortive effort to institute an alliance with So or Seve, king of Egypt, was shut up in prison by Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:4); compare also 2 Kings 25:27 (Jehoiachin in Babylon); Jeremiah 52:11 (Zedekiah in Babylon).

5. Under the Monarchy: The Book of Jeremiah throws considerable light on the prison system of Jerusalem in the later monarchical period. The prophet was put "in the stocks that were in the upper gate of Benjamin, which was in the house of Yahweh" (20:2). Mere imprisonment was not adequate punishment for the prophet's announcement of Judah's doom; it was necessary to have recourse to the pillory. During the siege of Jerusalem Jeremiah was confined in the "court of the guard, which was in the king of Judah's house" (32:2, etc.). The "court of the guard" was evidently the quarters of the sentry who guarded the royal palace. According to the narrative of Jeremiah 37:1-21, the prophet was arrested on a charge of treachery and put in prison "in the house of Jonathan the scribe" (Jeremiah 37:15). This verse does not necessarily mean that a private house was used as a prison. The words are capable of another interpretation, namely, that a building known as the "house of Jonathan the scribe" had been taken over by the authorities and converted into a jail. We read in the following verse that the house had a "dungeon" (literally, "house of the pit") and "cabins" or "cells."

6. The Treatment of Prisoners: The data are not sufficient to enable us to give any detailed description of the treatment of prisoners. This treatment varied according to the character of the offense which led to incarceration. Samson during the period of his imprisonment was compelled to do hard labor (Judges 16:21). Grinding was the occupation of women, and marked the depth of Samson's humiliation. Dangerous persons were subjected to various kinds of physical mutilation, e.g. Samson was deprived of his sight. This was a common practice in Assyria (2 Kings 25:7). The thumbs and great toes of Adonibezek were cut off to render him incapable of further resistance (Judges 1:6).

Various forms of torture were in vogue. Hanani the seer was put into the pillory by Asa (for "in a prison house" we should render "in the stocks"; see the Revised Version margin). In Jeremiah 29:26 for "prison," we should render "stocks" (so the Revised Version (British and American)) or "pillory," and for "stocks," "collar" (as in the Revised Version margin). the King James Version renders a different Hebrew word by "stocks" in Job (Jeremiah 13:27; 33:11). There was a special prison diet (1 Kings 22:27), as well as a prison garb (2 Kings 25:29).

7. Other Hebrew Words: There are other Hebrew words rendered "prison" (sometimes incorrectly) in the King James Version. In Psalms 142:7, the word which is translated "prison" means a "place of execution," and is derived from a root which denotes, for instance, the isolation of the leper (Leviticus 13:5; compare Isaiah 24:22; 42:7). In Isaiah 53:8 "oppression" not "prison" is the correct translation while in Isaiah 61:1 the Hebrew denotes "opening of the eyes," rather than "opening of the prison." Prisoners are promised "light after darkness, gleam after gloom."

8. In the New Testament: In the New Testament "prison" generally occurs for the Greek word phulake, which corresponds to the Hebrew word mishmar, referred to above (Matthew 5:25; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:20; Acts 5:19; 1 Peter 3:19). In Revelation 18:2, the King James Version renders this word by two different words, namely, "hold" and "cage"; the Revised Version (British and American) employs "hold" in each case (the Revised Version margin "prison"). In one passage "ward" is the rendering in the King James Version (Acts 12:10). In connection with the imprisonment of John the term used is desmoterion, "place of bonds" or "fetters" (Matthew 11:2); the same word is used in the case of Peter and John (Acts 5:21, 23), and of Paul and Silas (Acts 16:26). But the more common term is also found in these narratives. In Acts 12:17 "prison" renders a Greek word which means "dwelling." In Acts 5:18 the King James Version, "prison" is the rendering for another Greek word, namely, teresis, "watching" or "ward" (the Revised Version (British and American) "ward"). In Acts 4:3, the King James Version employs "hold" as the rendering for the same word. This would correspond to the modern "police station" or "lockup."

Privy; Privily

Privy; Privily - priv'-i, priv'-i-li: These words are obsolete in modern English and are replaced by "secret," "secretly," rather than by the cognates "private," "privately." the Revised Version (British and American) usually has not altered the King James Version's use of the word, but in Psalms 11:2 has substituted "in darkness" and in Judges 9:31 uses "craftily," margin "in Tormah" (see TORMAH). In Ezekiel 21:14, the King James Version "entereth into their privy chambers," "privy" is a gloss, omitted in the Revised Version (British and American). "To be privy to a thing" (1 Kings 2:44; Acts 5:2) is simply "to know" it; in Wisdom of Solomon 8:4, the Revised Version (British and American) has changed the phrase into "be initiated into."

Prize

Prize - priz: Two Greek words are so rendered in English Versions of the Bible: (1) brabeion, the award to the victor in the Greek games, consisting of a garland of bay, olive, or pine; so called because it was given by the brabeus, the adjudicator who assigned the prize at the games (Vulgate bravium, from which may be derived the English "brave" = originally gaily dressed, handsome). Used literally in 1 Corinthians 9:24, and figuratively of the heavenly reward for Christian character in Philippians 3:14. (2) harpagmos, in the English Revised Version of Philippians 2:6, "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." The termination -uos, -mos, would lead us to expect the active sense: "an act of grasping," "plundering" (the King James Version "robbery"), which would imply that Christ did not deem it an act of usurpation to claim equality with God, for such equality was His inherent right. But the context demands a reference "not to the right which He claimed, but to the dignity which He renounced" (Lightfoot); hence, the majority of modern expositors take the word in a passive sense (= harpagma): "a thing to be seized, prized, retained at all costs as a booty" (the English Revised Version "a prize," the American Standard Revised Version "a thing to be grasped"), implying that Christ did not regard equality with God as a thing to be clutched greedily, but waived His rights (see Lightfoot on Philippians 2:6). The verb "to prize" occurs only in Zechariah 11:13.

See GRASP; HUMILIATION OF CHRIST; KENOSIS.

D. Miall Edwards

Probation, Second

Probation, Second - pro-ba'-shun, sek'-und.

See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Prochorus

Prochorus - prok'-o-rus (Prochoros) : One of "the seven" chosen by the Christian community in Jerusalem to superintend the dispensing of charity to the widows and other poor (Acts 6:5). The name is Greek, and he may have been a Hellenist. According to tradition he became bishop of Nicomedia and died a martyr at Antioch.

Proconsul

Proconsul - pro-kon'-sul (anthupatos (Acts 13:7; 18:12); the King James Version deputy).

See PROVINCE.

Procurator

Procurator - prok'-u-ra-ter (epitropos): This word signified in a general sense a steward or bailiff of a private estate, or a financial agent with power of attorney, and the development of the special usage of the word to denote an imperial functionary or official is characteristic of the origin of many departments of administration under the Roman Empire which sprang from the emperor's household. At the time of Augustus, when the domestic quality of these offices had not been entirely lost, the procurators were mostly imperial freedmen. But after the systematic organization of the administration in the 2nd century, the title of procurator was reserved for functionaries of the equestrian class. In fact, the term is so intimately connected with the sphere of official activity of the Roman knights that the expressions "procuratorial career" and "equestrian career" are used synonymously (compare Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bib auf Diocletian, 410-65).

During the last century of the Republic, the class of knights (equites) embraced in general all citizens of wealth who were not magistrates or members of the senate. The Roscian Law (67 BC) established 400,000 sesterces (about $18,000 (in 1915), or 3,600 British pounds (in 1915)) as the minimum census rating for membership in this class. The gold ring, tunic with narrow purple border, and privilege of sitting in the first 14 rows at theater were the tokens of knighthood. Augustus added to these the public horse which was conferred henceforth by the emperor and recalled the original military significance of the order. From the time of Augustus the first three decuriae of jurors (judices), each containing 1,000 persons, were filled with knights.

Under the Republic the influence of the equestrian class was chiefly exerted in the financial transactions of the companies which farmed the variable revenues. The importance of the publicani was greatly reduced under the Empire, but the emperors recompensed the knights for this loss of opportunity by entrusting them with a great variety of administrative functions. Military service as prefect or tribune was the preliminary step in the official equestrian career. The highest positions held by members of the equestrian class were called prefectures, and included the prefecture of the guard, of Egypt, of the grain-supply, of the watchmen in Rome, and of the fleet. But between these extremes the title procurator was applied generally to the functionaries whose positions were of imperial origin.

The administration of the fiscus or imperial treasury at Rome and of the finances in the imperial provinces, as well as the collection of fiscal revenues in the senatorial provinces, was in the hands of procurators. They occupied many positions which, on account of their intimate relationship with the person of the monarch, could be safely entrusted only to those whose limited prestige precluded inordinate ambition (Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte Roms 7th edition, Part I, 132-43). Finally, several provinces, where the conditions were unfavorable to the introduction of the ordinary administrative system and Roman public law, were governed as imperial domains by officials of the equestrian class as the emperor's representatives. In Egypt the title prefect (praefectus) was employed permanently as the appellation of the viceroy, and while the same term may have been used originally to denote the governors of this class generally, when their military outweighed their civil functions, yet the designation procurator became at an early date the term of common usage to designate them (Hirschfeld, 382).

Mauretania, Rhaetia, Noricum, Thrace, Cappadocia, Judea and some smaller districts were all, for a time at least, governed by procurators (Tacitus, History i.11; Dio Cassius lvii.17).

The question concerning the original title of the Roman governors of Judea has arisen because the New Testament employs the word hegemon (Matthew 27:2, 11, 14-15, 21, 27; 28:14; Luke 3:1; 20:20; Acts 23:24; 24:1; 26:30), which corresponds with the Latin term, praeses, which might be considered synonymous with either procurator or praefectus (Hirschfeld, 384). There is no inscriptional evidence to establish the nomenclature of the rulers of Palestine before the time of Vespasian, and Hirschfeld is of the opinion that a certain passage in Tacitus (Ann. xv.44) where Pilate is called procurator is not sufficient proof in view of this writer's carelessness in details of this sort. Josephus (Ant., XX, i, 2), however, employs epitropos (procurator) for the time of Claudius, and it is convenient to follow common usage and assume that this title was current from the first.

It was evidently the intention of Augustus that membership in the equestrian class should be a necessary qualification for the procurators who were appointed to govern provinces. But Claudius appointed a freedman, Antonius Felix, brother of the famous minister of finance, Pallas, as procurator of Judea (Suetonius, Claudius xxviii; Tacitus, History v.9). This remained, however, an isolated instance in the annals of Palestine (Hirschfeld, 380), and it is probable, moreover, that Felix was raised to equestrian rank before the governorship was conferred upon him.

The following list of the procurators of Judea is based on Marquardt (Romische Staatsverwaltung, I, 409, 412) and Schurer (Geschichte des judischen Volkes(4), I, 485-585):

Coponius (6 AD to circa 10 AD)

M. Ambibulus (circa 10-13)

Annius Rufus (circa 13-15)

Valerius Gratus (circa 15-26)

Pontius Pilatus (26-35)

Marcellus (probably 35-38)

Maryllus (38-44)

C. Cuspins Fadus (44-46)

Tiberius Alexander (46-48)

Ventidius Cumanus (48-52)

M. Antonius Felix (52-60 or 61)

NOTE.--Marquardt gives his name as Claudius Felix, supposing that he was a freedman of Claudius and therefore took his nomen (Suetonius, Claudius xxviii; Victor, epitome iv, 8); but there is stronger evidence in support of the belief that Felix was a freedman of Antonia, Claudius' mother, like his brother Pallas (Tacitus, Annals xii.54; Josephus, Ant, XVII1, vi, 4; XX, vii, 1, 2; XX, viii, 9; BJ, II, xii, 8), and accordingly had received the praenomen and nomen of Antonia's father (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, vi, 6).

Portius Festus (61)

Albinus (62-64)

Gessius Florus (65-66)

See, further, GOVERNOR.

George H. Allen

Profane

Profane - pro-fan' (verb chalal, adjective chalal, chol; bebeloo, bebelos): From profanus, "before (i.e. outside) the temple," therefore unholy, polluted, secular, is of frequent occurrence (verb and adjective) in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It occurs as the translation of chol in the King James Version only in Ezek (22:26, the Revised Version (British and American) "common"; 42:20; 44:23; 48:15, the Revised Version (British and American) "for common use"); as the translation of chalal in Leviticus 21:7, 14, the Revised Version margin "polluted"; and Ezekiel 21:25, where, for the King James Version "thou profane wicked prince of Israel," the Revised Version (British and American) has "thou, O deadly wounded wicked one, the prince of Israel." "To profane" (chalal) is seen in Leviticus 18:21; 19:8; Nehemiah 13:17-18; Psalms 89:39; Isaiah 43:28; Ezekiel 22:8, 26, etc. "Profaneness" in Jeremiah 23:15 (chanuppah) is in the American Standard Revised Version "ungodliness." In the New Testament "profane" occurs in the sense of unholy, godless, regardless of God and divine things (1 Timothy 1:9; 4:7; 6:20; 2 Timothy 2:16; Hebrews 12:16), and "to profane," or violate, in Matthew 12:5; Acts 24:6. The verb is frequent in Apocrypha in 1macc (1:43,45,63; 2:34, etc.; also in 2 Maccabees 8:2; 10:5; compare 2 Esdras 15:8; Judith 4:3, 12; 1 Maccabees 1:48; 2 Maccabees 4:13). In numerous cases the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "profane" for other words and phrases in the King James Version, as for "to prostitute" (Leviticus 19:29), "an hypocrite" (Isaiah 9:17), "pollute" (Numbers 18:32; Ezekiel 7:21), etc.

W. L. Walker

Profess; Profession

Profess; Profession - pro-fes', pro-fesh'-un (naghadh; homologeo, homologia): "Profess" means literally "to own before," hence, to make open or public announcement; it occurs only once in the Old Testament as the translation of naghadh, "to put before," often "to tell," "to show," "to declare" (Deuteronomy 26:3); in the New Testament it is the translation of homologeo, "to speak or say together in common," "to assent," "to confess publicly" (Matthew 7:23, "Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you"; 1 Timothy 6:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "didst confess the good confession"; Titus 1:16, "They profess that they know God"); of epaggellomai, "to announce one's self," "to make profession" (1 Timothy 2:10; 6:21); of phasko, "to say," "to assert" (Romans 1:22). "Profession" is the translation of homologia (2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 3:1, the King James Version "the High Priest of our profession" (of our professed faith); Hebrews 4:14; 10:23; in each instance the Revised Version (British and American) has "confession"). "Profess" occurs in the King James Version of Ecclesiastes 3:22, but the verse is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American); margin "Most authorities omit verse 25."

W. L. Walker

Prognosticators, Monthly

Prognosticators, Monthly - prog-nos'-ti-ka-terz.

See ASTROLOGY, 6.

Prologue

Prologue - pro'-log, prol'-og (prologos, "foreword," "preface," "introduction"): The word occurs in the preface to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and is commonly applied to John 1:1-18.

See ECCLESIASTICUS; JOHN,GOSPEL OF .

Prolong

Prolong - pro-long' ('arakh, mashakh): "Prolong," "prolonged" are the translations of 'arakh, "to stretch," "to make long" (Deuteronomy 4:26, and frequently, "prolong days"; Deuteronomy 4:40, etc.; Job 6:11 the King James Version; Proverbs 28:16; Ecclesiastes 7:15; 8:13; Isaiah 53:10); of mashakh, "to draw out" (Isaiah 13:22; Ezekiel 12:25, 28 the King James Version); of yacaph, "to add," "to increase" (Psalms 61:6; Proverbs 10:27); of naTah, "to stretch out," "to incline to" (Job 15:29, "neither shall he prolong the perfection thereof upon the earth," the American Standard Revised Version "neither shall their possessions be extended on the earth," margin "their produce bend to the earth"; the English Revised Version reverses text and margin); of 'arekhah (Aramaic) (Daniel 7:12, "Yet their lives were prolonged," the King James Version margin "A prolonging in life was given them"). "Prolong" occurs in Ecclesiasticus 29:5, "prolong the time" (parelkuo); 38:14, "prolong life," the Revised Version (British and American) "maintenance of life" (embiosis); 30:22, "prolongeth his days," the Revised Version (British and American) "length of days" (makroemereusis); 37:31, the Revised Version (British and American) "shall prolong" (prostithemi).

W. L. Walker

Promise

Promise - prom'-is (most frequently in the Old Testament dabhar, "speaking," "speech," and dabhar, "to speak" also 'amar, "to say," once in Psalms 77:8, 'omer, "speech"; in the New Testament epaggelia, and the verbs epaggellomai, and compounds): Promise holds an important place in the Scriptures and in the development of the religion that culminated in Christ. The Bible is indeed full of "precious and exceeding great promises" (2 Peter 1:4), although the word "promise" is not always used in connection with them. Of the more outstanding promises of the Old Testament may be mentioned: (1) the proto-evangelium (Genesis 3:15); (2) the promise to Noah no more to curse the ground, etc. (Genesis 8:21-22; Genesis 9:1-17); (3) most influential, the promise to Abraham to make of him a great nation in whom all families of the earth should be blessed, to give to him and his seed the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:2, 7, etc.), often referred to in the Old Testament (Exodus 12:25; Deuteronomy 1:8, 11; 6:3; 9:28, etc.); (4) the promise to David to continue his house on the throne (2 Samuel 7:12-13, 18; 1 Kings 2:24, etc.); (5) the promise of restoration of Israel, of the Messiah, of the new and everlasting kingdom, of the new covenant and outpouring of the Spirit (Isaiah 2:2-5; 4:2; 55:5; 66:13; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 32:37-42; 33:14; Ezekiel 36:22-31; 37:11 f; Ezekiel 39:25 f, etc.). In the New Testament these promises are founded on, and regarded as having their true fulfillment in, Christ and those who are His (2 Corinthians 1:20; Ephesians 3:6). The promise of the Spirit is spoken of by Jesus as "the promise of my Father" (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4), and this was regarded as fulfilled at Pentecost. The promise of a Saviour of the seed of David is regarded as fulfilled in Christ (Acts 13:23, 32, Acts 26:1-32:Acts 6:1-15; Romans 1:2; 4:13; 9:4). Paul argues that the promise to Abraham that he should be "heir of the world," made to him before circumcision, is not confined to Israel, but is open to all who are children of Abraham by faith (Romans 4:13-16; compare Galatians 3:16, 19, 29). In like manner the writer to the Hebrews goes back to the original promises, giving them a spiritual and eternal significance (4:1; 6:17; 11:9, etc.). The New Testament promises include manifold blessings and hopes, among them "life," "eternal life" (1 Timothy 4:8; 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:1; James 1:12), the "kingdom" (James 2:5), Christ's "coming" (2 Peter 3:9, etc.), "new heavens and a new earth" (2 Peter 3:13), etc. For "promise" and "promised" in the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) has frequently other terms, as "word" (Psalms 105:42), "spake," "spoken" (Deuteronomy 10:9; Joshua 9:21; 22:4; 5, 15, etc.), "consented" (Luke 22:6), etc. References to the promises occur repeatedly in the Apocrypha (Baruch 2:34; 2 Maccabees 2:18; Wisdom of Solomon 12:21; compare 2 Esdras 3:15; 5:29).

W. L. Walker

Proper

Proper - prop'-er: For the King James Version "proper" (child), in Hebrews 11:23, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "goodly"; in 1 Chronicles 29:3; 1 Corinthians 7:7, the Revised Version (British and American) "own" is employed, and for the too emphatic "their proper tongue" in Acts 1:19 "their language" is written. But none of the King James Version forms are really obsolete.

Proper Names

Proper Names - See NAMES, PROPER.

Property

Property - prop'-er-ti.

See AGRARIAN LAWS; JUBILEE; POOR; PORTION; PRIMOGENITURE; WEALTH.

Prophecy, Gift of

Prophecy, Gift of - See SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

Prophecy; Prophets, 1

Prophecy; Prophets, 1 - prof'-e-si, prof'-e-si, prof'-ets:

I. THE IDEA OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY

1. The Seer and Speaker of God

2. Prophetical Inspiration

3. Relation to Dreams

4. Freedom of Inspiration

5. Supernatural Visions of the Future

6. The Fulfillment

II. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPHETIC OFFICE

1. Abraham

2. Moses

3. Period of the Judges

4. Schools of Prophets

5. Period of the Kings

6. Literary Prophets, Amos, Hosea

7. Poetical Form of Prophecy

8. Prophets of Judah, Isaiah, and Others Down to Jeremiah

9. During the Exile, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, Daniel

10. After the Exile, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

11. Cessation of Prophecy

12. Prophecy in the New Testament

III. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROPHECY

1. Contents of Prophecy

2. Conception of the Messiah

3. Before the Exile (through Judgment to Deliverance)

4. Analogous Ideas among Heathen Peoples

5. During the Exile (Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah)

6. After the Exile (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)

7. Contemporaneous Character of Prophecy

8. Partial Character of Prophecy

9. Perspective Character of Prophecy

IV. ANALOGOUS PHENOMENA AMONG THE GENTILES

1. Necromancy and Technical Witchcraft

2. The Mantle Art

3. Contents of Extra-Biblical Oracles

LITERATURE

I. The Idea of Biblical Prophecy. 1. The Seer and Speaker of God: According to the uniform teaching of the Bible the prophet is a speaker of or for God. His words are not the production of his own spirit, but come from a higher source. For he is at the same time, also, a seer, who sees things that do not lie in the domain of natural sight, or who hears things which human ears do not ordinarily receive; compare 1 Samuel 9:9, where nabhi', "speaker," and ro'eh, "seer," are used as synonymous terms. Jeremiah 23:16 and Ezekiel 13:2 f are particularly instructive in this regard. In these passages a sharp distinction is made between those persons who only claim to be prophets but who prophesy "out of their own heart," and the true prophets who declare the word which the Lord has spoken to them. In the latter case the contents of the prophecy have not originated in their own reflection or calculation; and just as little is this prophecy the product of their own feelings, fears or hopes, but, as something extraneous to man and independent of him, it has with a divine certainty entered the soul of the prophet. The prophet has seen that which he prophesies, although he need not have seen it in the form of a real vision. He can also "see" words with his inner eyes (Isaiah 2:1, and often). It is only another expression for this when it is frequently said that God has spoken to the prophet. In this case too it is not necessary that there must have been a voice which he could hear phonetically through his natural ear. The main thing is that he must have been able sharply to distinguish the contents of this voice from his own heart, i.e. from his personal consciousness. Only in this way is he capable of speaking to the people in the name of God and able to publish his word as that of Yahweh. In this case he is the speaker of Yahweh (nabhi'), or the mouth of the Lord (compare Ezekiel 7:1 with Ezekiel 4:16). Under these conditions he then regards it as absolute compulsion to speak, just as a person must be filled with fear when he hears a lion roar nearby (Amos 3:8). The words burn in his soul until he utters them (Jeremiah 20:7, 9).

2. Prophetical Inspiration: The divine power, which comes over a human being and compels him to see or to hear things which otherwise would be hidden from him, is called by various terms expressive of inspiration. It is said that the Spirit of God has come over someone (Numbers 24:2); or has fallen upon him (Ezekiel 11:5); or that the hand of Yahweh has come over him and laid hold of him (2 Kings 3:15; Ezekiel 1:3; 14, 22, and often); or that the Holy Spirit has been put on him as a garment, i.e. has been incorporated in him (1 Chronicles 12:18; 2 Chronicles 24:20); or that the Spirit of revelation has permanently descended upon him (Numbers 11:25 f; 2 Kings 2:15; Isaiah 11:2; 61:1); or that God has given this Spirit of His (Numbers 11:29; Isaiah 42:1); or pours Him out upon man (Joel 2:28 f (Hebrews 3:1 f)). But this inspiration is not such that it suppresses the human consciousness of the recipient, so that he would receive the word of God in the state of sleep or trance. But rather the recipient is in possession of his full consciousness, and is able afterward to give a clear account of what happened. Nor is the individuality of the prophet eliminated by this divine inspiration; unconsciously this individuality cooperates in the formal shaping of that which has been seen and heard. In accordance with the natural peculiarity of the prophet and with the contents of the message, the psychological condition of the recipient may be that of intense excitement or of calmness. As a rule the inspiration that takes possession of the prophets is evidenced also by an exalted and poetical language, which assumes a certain rhythmical character, but is not bound to a narrow and mechanical meter. It is, however, also possible that prophetical utterances find their expression in plain prose. The individual peculiarity of the prophet is a prime factor also in the form in which the revelation comes to him. In the one prophet we find a preponderance of visions; another prophet has no visions. But the visions of the future which he sees are given in the forms and the color which have been furnished by his own consciousness. All the more the form in which the prophet gives expression to his word of God is determined by his personal talents and gifts as also by his experiences.

3. Relation to Dreams: In a certain respect the dream can be cited as an analogous phenomenon, in which also the ideas that are slumbering in the soul uninvited put in their appearance without being controlled by consciousness and reason. On the other hand, prophecy differs pecifically from dreams, first, because the genuine prophetical utterance is received when the prophet is clearly conscious, and, secondly, because such an utterance brings with it a much greater degree of certainty and a greater guaranty of its higher origin than is done even by a dream that seems to be prophetical. In Jeremiah 23:25 ff it is declared that these two are entirely dissimilar, and the relation between the two is compared to straw and wheat. The Moslem Arabs also put a much lower estimate on the visionary dream than on the prophetic vision in a waking condition.

4. Freedom of Inspiration: Because this Spirit of God acts with full freedom, He can select His organs at will from among every station, age, or sex. The Spirit is not confined to any priestly class or organization. It indeed was the case at times that a prophet gathered disciples around himself, who could themselves in turn also be seized by his spirit, although the transmission of this spirit was a difficult matter (2 Kings 2:10). Yet genuine prophecies continued to be at all times a free gift of the sovereign God. Amos (2 Kings 7:14 f) appeals expressly to this fact, that he did not himself choose the prophet's calling nor was the pupil of a prophetic school, but that he had been directly called by Yahweh from his daily occupation as a shepherd and workman. In the same way we indeed find prophets who belonged to the priestly order (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others), but equally great is the number of those who certainly did not so belong. Further, age made no difference in the call to the prophetic office. Even in his earliest youth Samuel was called to be a prophet (1 Samuel 3:1 ff), and it did not avail Jeremiah anything when he excused himself because of his youth (Jeremiah 1:6). Then, too, a woman could be seized by this Spirit. From time to time prophetesses appeared, although the female sex is by no means so prominent here as it is in the sorcery of the heathen. See PROPHETESS. As an exceptional case the Spirit of God could lay hold even of a person who inwardly was entirely estranged from Him and could make an utterance through him (compare Saul, 1 Samuel 10:11; 19:24; Balaam, Numbers 23:1-30 f; Caiaphas, John 11:51). As a rule, however, God has selected such prophetic organs for a longer service. These persons are called and dedicated for this purpose by Him through a special act (compare Moses Exodus 3:1 ff; 1 Kings 19:16, 19 ff; Isaiah 6:1-13; Jeremiah 1:1-19; Ezekiel 1:1-28). This moment was decisive for their whole lives and constituted their authorization as far as they themselves and others were concerned. Yet for each prophetic appearance these men receive a special enlightenment. The prophet does not at all times speak in an inspired state; compare Nathan (2 Samuel 7:3 ff), who afterward was compelled to take back a word which he had spoken on his own authority. Characteristic data on the mental state of the prophets in the reception and in the declaration of the divine word are found in Jeremiah 15:16 f; Jeremiah 20:7 ff. Originally Jeremiah felt it as a joy that Yahweh spoke to him (compare Ezekiel 3:3), but then he lost all pleasure in life and would have preferred not to have uttered this word, but he could not do as he desired.

5. Supernatural Visions of the Future: The attempt has often been made to explain prophecy as a natural product of purely human factors. Rationalistic theologians regarded the prophets as enthusiastic teachers of religion and morals, as warm patriots and politicians, to whom they ascribed nothing but a certain ability of guessing the future. But this was no explanation of the facts in the case. The prophets were themselves conscious of this, that they were not the intellectual authors of their higher knowledge. This consciousness is justified by the fact that they were in a condition to make known things which lay beyond their natural horizon and which were contrary to all probability. Those cases are particularly instructive in this respect which beyond a doubt were recorded by the prophets themselves. Ezekiel could indeed, on the basis of moral and religious reflections, reach the conviction that Zedekiah of Jerusalem would not escape his punishment for his political treachery and for his disobedience to the word of Yahweh; but he could never from this source have reached the certainty that this king, as the prophet describes the case in 12:8 ff, was to be taken captive while trying to escape from the besieged city and was then to be blinded and taken to Babylon. Just as little could he in Babylon know the exact day when the siege of Jerusalem began (24:2). If this prophet had learned of these things in a natural way and had afterward clothed them in the form of prophecy, he would have been guilty of a deception, something unthinkable in the case of so conscientious a preacher of morality. But such cases are frequently met with. Jeremiah predicts to Hananiah that he would die during the year (28:16), but it is not only such matters of detail that presuppose an extraordinary vision of the prophet. The whole way also in which Jeremiah predicts the destruction of Jerusalem as inevitable, in direct contrast to the hopes of the Jerusalemites and to the desires of his own heart, shows that he was speaking under divine compulsion, which was more powerful than his own reflections and sympathies. On any other presupposition his conduct would have been reprehensible cowardice. The case of Isaiah is exactly the same. When he gives to Ahaz the word of God as a guaranty that the Syrians and the Ephraimites would not capture Jerusalem (7:4 ff), and when he promises Hezekiah that the Assyrians would not shoot an arrow into the city, but would return without having accomplished their purpose (37:22,33), these things were so much in contradiction to all the probabilities of the course events would take that he would have been a frivolous adventurer had he not received his information from higher sources. Doubtless it was just these predictions which established and upheld the influence of the prophets. Thus in the case of Amos it was his prediction of a great earthquake, which did occur two years later (1:1); in the case of Elijah, the prediction of the long dearth (1 Kings 17:1); in the case of Elisha the undertakings of the enemies (2 Kings 6:12), and in other cases. It is indeed true that the contents of the prophetic discourses are not at all confined to the future. Everything that God has to announce to mankind, revelations concerning His will, admonitions, warnings, He is able to announce through the mouth of the prophet. But His determinations with reference to the future as a rule are connected with prophetical utterances of the latter kind. The prophets are watchmen, guardians of the people, who are to warn the nation, because they see the dangers and the judgments approaching, which must put in their appearance if the divine will is disregarded. The prophets interpret also for the people that which is happening and that which has occurred, e.g. the defeats which they have suffered at the hands of their enemies, or the grasshopper plague (Joel), or a famine. They lay bare the inner reason for external occurrences and explain such events in their connection with the providential government of God. This gives to prophecy a powerful inner unity, notwithstanding the great differences of times and surrounding circumstances. It is prophecy which the Hebrew people must thank for their higher conception of history. This people know of a Highest Author of all things and of a positive end, which all things that transpire must serve. God's plan has for its purpose to bring about the complete supremacy of His will among the children of men.

6. The Fulfillment: In genuine prophecy, according to Biblical conceptions, the fulfillment constitutes an integral part. This is set up by Deuteronomy 18:21 f as a proof of the genuineness of a prophetic utterance. The prophetic word "falls to the ground" (1 Samuel 3:19) if it is not "raised up" (heqim, "fulfil," for which we more rarely find mille', but regularly in the New Testament plerousthai "being fulfilled") by the course of events. It would remain an empty word if it did not attain to its full content through its realization. In fact, in the word spoken by the prophet itself there dwells a divine power, so that at the moment when he speaks the event takes place, even if it is not yet visible to man. This realization is also not infrequently represented symbolically by the prophet in confirmation of his prediction. Thus in a certain sense it is the prophet himself who through his word builds up and pulls down, plants and roots out (Jeremiah 1:10; 25:15 ff). But the fulfillment can be judged by the contemporaries in the sense of Deuteronomy 18:22 only when this fulfillment refers to the near future and when special emphasis is laid on external events. In these cases the prediction of certain events assumes the significance of a "sign" (compare Jeremiah 28:16; Isaiah 8:1 ff; Isaiah 37:30, and elsewhere). In other cases it is only later generations who can judge of the correctness of a prediction or of a threat. In this way in Zechariah 1:6 the fulfillment of a threat is declared, and in the New Testament often the fulfillment of a promise is after a long time pointed out. But it is not the case that a genuine prophecy must be fulfilled like an edict of fate. Such prophecy is not an inevitable decree of fate, but is a word of the living God to mankind, and therefore conditioned ethically, and God can, if repentance has followed, withdraw a threat (Jeremiah 18:2 ff; case of Jonah), or the punishment can be mitigated (1 Kings 21:29). A prediction, too, Yahweh can recall if the people prove unworthy (Jeremiah 18:9 f) . A favorable or an unfavorable prediction can also be postponed, as far as its realization is concerned, to later times, if it belongs to the ultimate counsels of God, as e.g. the final judgment and deliverance on the last day. This counsel also may be realized successively. In this case the prophet already collects into one picture what is realized gradually in a longer historical development. The prophet in general spoke to his hearers in such a way as could be understood by them and could be impressed on them. It is therefore not correct to demand a fulfillment pedantically exact in the form of the historical garb of the prophecy. The main thing is that the divine thought contained in the prophecy be entirely and completely realized. But not infrequently the finger of God can be seen in the entirely literal fulfillment of certain prophecies. This is especially the case in the New Testament in the appearance of the Son of Man, in whom all the rays of Old Testament prophecy have found their common center.

Continued in PROPHECY; PROPHETS, 2.

Prophecy; Prophets, 2

Prophecy; Prophets, 2 - Continued from PROPHECY; PROPHETS, 1.

II. Historical Development of the Prophetic Office.

1. Abraham: It is a characteristic peculiarity of the religion of the Old Testament that its very elementary beginnings are of a prophetical nature. The fathers, above all Abraham, but also Isaac and Jacob, are the recipients of visions and of divine revelations. Especially is this true of Abraham, who appeared to the foreigners, to whom he was neither kith or kin, to be indeed a prophet (nabhi') (Genesis 20:7; compare Psalms 105:15), although in his case the command to preach the word was yet absent.

2. Moses: Above all, the creative founder of the Israelite national religion, Moses, is a prophet in the eminent sense of the word. His influence among the people is owing neither to his official position, nor to any military prowess, but solely and alone to the one circumstance, that since his call at the burning bush God has spoken to him. This intercourse between God and Moses was ever of a particularly intimate character. While other men of God received certain individual messages only from time to time and through the mediation of dreams and visions, Yahweh spoke directly and "face to face" with Moses (Numbers 12:6 ff; Deuteronomy 34:10; compare Exodus 33:11). Moses was the permanent organ through whom Yahweh brought about the Egyptian plagues and through whom He explained what these meant to His people, as also through whom He led and ruled them. The voice of Moses too had to explain to them the divine signs in the desert and communicate to them the commandments of God. The legislation of Moses shows that he was not only filled with the Spirit of God occasionally, but that he abode with God for longer periods of time and produced something that is a well-ordered whole. A production such as the Law is the result of a continuous association with God.

3. Period of the Judges: Since that time revelation through prophecy was probably never entirely wanting in Israel (Deuteronomy 18:15). But this fountain did not always flow with the same fullness or clearness. During the period of the Judges the Spirit of God urged the heroes who served Yahweh rather to deeds than to words. Yet Deborah enjoyed a high rank as a prophetess, and for a long time pronounced decisions of justice in the name of the Lord before she, through her prophetical utterances, aroused the people to rise up against their oppressors. What is said in 1 Samuel 3:1 concerning the times of Eli can be applied to this whole period, namely that the word and vision of the prophet had become rare in the land. All the more epoch-making was the activity of Samuel, who while yet a boy received divine revelations (1 Samuel 3:1 ff). He was by the whole people regarded as a "seer" whose prophecies were always fulfilled (1 Samuel 3:19 f). The passage 1 Samuel 9:6 ff shows that the people expected of such a man of God that he should also as a clairvoyant come to the assistance of the people in the troubles of life. Such a professional clairvoyant, indeed, Samuel was not, as he was devoted entirely to the service of his God and of his people and obeyed the Divine Spirit, even in those cases when he was compelled to act contrary to his personal inclinations, as was the case when the kingdom was established in Israel (1 Samuel 8:6 ff).

4. Schools of Prophets: Since the days of Samuel we hear of schools of prophets, or "sons of prophets." These associations probably originated in this way, that an experienced prophet attracted to himself bands of youths, who sought to receive a measure of his spirit. These disciples of the prophets, together with their families, lived in colonies around the master. Possibly Samuel was the first who founded such a school of prophets. For in or near the city of Ramah we first find nayoth, or colonies of such disciples (1 Samuel 19:18 f; 1 Samuel 20:1). Among these pupils is found to a much greater extent than among the teachers a certain ecstatic feature. They arouse their feelings through music and induce a frantic condition which also affects others in the same way, in which state they "prophesy" and, throwing off their garments, fall to the ground. In later times too we find traces of such ecstatic phenomena. Thus e.g. in Zechariah 13:6; 1 Kings 20:37-38, the "wounds" on the breast or on the forehead recall the self-mutilation of the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18:28). The deeds, suggestive of what the dervishes of our own day do, probably were phenomena quite similar to the action of the prophets of the surrounding tribes. But that prophecy in Israel was not, as is now not infrequently claimed, merely a less crude form of the heathen prophetic institution, is proved by such men as Moses and Samuel, who even in their times represent something much higher. Also in the colonies of prophets there was assuredly not to be found merely an enthusiasm without the Spirit of God. Proof for this is Samuel, the spiritual father of this colony, as Elijah was for the later colonies of this kind. These places were rather the centers of a religious life, where communion with God was sought by prayer and meditation, and where the recollection of the great deeds of God in the past seemed to prepare for the reception of new revelations. From such centers of theocratic ideas and ideals without a doubt there came forth also corresponding influences that affected the people. Perhaps not only was sacred music cultivated at these places but also sacred traditions, which were handed down orally and in writing. Certain it is that at these colonies the religion of Yahweh prevailed.

5. Period of the Kings: During the period of the kings prophetically inspired men frequently appeared, who demanded even of the kings that they should submit to their divinely-inspired word. Saul, who refused such submission, perished as the result of this conflict. David owed much to the support of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, Gad (1 Samuel 16:1 ff; 2 Samuel 7:1-29; 2 Chronicles 29:25, and elsewhere). But David also bowed in submission when these prophets rebuked him because of his transgression of the divine commands (2 Samuel 12:1-31; 2 Samuel 24:1-25). His son Solomon was educated by the prophet Nathan. But the destruction of his kingdom was predicted by the prophet Abijah, the Shilonite (1 Kings 11:29 ff). Since Yahweh, as the supreme Sovereign, has the right to enthrone or to dethrone kings, this is often done through the mouths of the prophets (compare 1 Kings 14:7 ff; 1 Kings 16:1 ff). After the division of the kingdom we find Shemaiah forbidding Rehoboam to begin a war with his brethren of Israel (1 Kings 12:21; compare 2 Chronicles 11:2 ff; compare another mission of the same prophet, 2 Chronicles 12:5 ff). On the other hand in the Northern Kingdom the prophetic word is soon turned against the untheocratic rule of Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:1-34; 1 Kings 14:1-31). It is in this very same Northern Kingdom that the prophets unfolded their full activity and generally in opposition to the secular rulers, although there was no lack of accommodating "prophets," who were willing to sanction everything that the king wanted. The opposition of the true prophets to these false representatives of prophecy is illustrated in the story of Micaiah, the son of Imlah (1 Kings 22:1-53). But a still higher type of prophecy above the ordinary is found in Elijah, whose historic mission it was to fight to the finish the battle between the followers of Yahweh and the worship of the Tyrian Baal. He was entirely a man of action; every one of his words is a deed on a grand scale (compare concerning Elijah and Elisha the article ISRAEL,RELIGION OF ). His successor Elisha inherited from him not only his mantle, but also a double measure of his spiritual gifts. He exhibits the prophetic office more from its loving side. He is accustomed to visit the schools of prophets found scattered throughout the land, calls the faithful together around himself on the Sabbaths and the new moons (2 Kings 4:23), and in this way establishes centers of a more spiritual culture than was common elsewhere among the people. We read that first-fruits were brought to him as to the priests (2 Kings 4:42). But while the activity of Elijah was entirely in antagonism to the ruling house in the kingdom, this feature is not entirely lacking in the work of Elisha also. He has even been charged with wicked conspiracies against the dynasty of Omri and the king of Syria (2 Kings 8:1-29; 2 Kings 9:1-37). His conduct in connection with these events can be excused only on the ground that he was really acting in the name of a higher Master. But in general it was possible for Elisha, after the radical change in public sentiment that had followed upon the work of Elijah, in later time to assume a more friendly attitude toward the government and the people. He often assisted the kings in their arduous contests with the Syrians (compare 2 Kings 6:8 ff; 2 Kings 13:14 ff). His deeds are generally of a benevolent character. In connection with these he exhibits to a remarkable degree the gift of prophetic foresight (2 Kings 4:16; 5:26; 6:8 ff; 2 Kings 7:1 ff; 2 Kings 8:10, 12; 9:6 ff; 2 Kings 13:19). Jonah, too, the son of Amittai, had at that time a favorable message for the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 14:25).

6. Literary Prophets, Amos, Hosea: However, the flourishing condition of the kingdom under Jeroboam II had an unfavorable influence on its spiritual development. Soon Amos and Hosea were compelled to announce to this kingdom its impending destruction through a great world-power. These two prophets have left us books. To put prophetic utterances into written form had already been introduced before this. At any rate, many scholars are of the conviction that the prophecies of Obadiah and Joel belong to an earlier period, although others place them in the post-exilic period. In any case, the expectation of a day of settlement by Yahweh with His people was already in the days of Amos common and current (5:18 ff). As the writing of individual prophecies (Isaiah 8:1 f; Isaiah 30:8; Habakkuk 2:2 f) had for its purpose the preserving of these words in permanent authentic form and later to convince the reader of their wonderful fulfillment, thus too the writing down of larger collections of prophecies had for its purpose to intensify the power of the prophetic word and to secure this as a permanent possession of the people (Jeremiah 30:2; 36:1 ff). Pupils of the prophets assisted them in this writing and in preserving their books (compare Jeremiah 36:4; Isaiah 8:16).

7. Poetical Form of Prophecy: It is to this custom that we owe our knowledge of the very words of the utterances of many of the prophets of a later period. In addition to the larger books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, we have a number of smaller prophetical books, which have been united into the Book of the Twelve Prophets. These utterances as a rule exhibited an elevated form of language and are more or less poetical. However, in modern times some scholars are inclined to go too far in claiming that these addresses are given in a carefully systematized metrical form. Hebrew meter as such is a freer form of expression than is Arabic or Sanskrit meter, and this is all the more the case with the discourses of the prophets, which were not intended for musical rendering, and which are expressed in a rhythmically-constructed rhetoric, which appears now in one and then in another form of melody, and often changes into prose.

8. Prophets in Judah Isaiah, and Others Down to Jeremiah:

In the kingdom of Judah the status of the prophets was somewhat more favorable than it was in Ephraim. They were indeed forced in Jerusalem also to contend against the injustice on the part of the ruling classes and against immorality of all kinds. But in this kingdom there were at any rate from time to time found kings who walked more in the footsteps of David. Thus Asa followed the directions of the prophet Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:1 ff). It is true that the prophet Hanani censured this king, but it was done for a different reason. Jehoshaphat also regularly consulted the prophets. Among those who had dealings with him Elisha is also mentioned (2 Kings 3:14), as also some other prophets (compare 2 Chronicles 19:2; 2 Chronicles 20:14-37). The greatest among the prophets during the period of the Assyrian invasions was Isaiah, who performed the duties of his office for more than 40 years, and under the kings Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and possibly too under Manasseh, through his word exercised a powerful influence upon the king and the nation. Although a preacher of judgments, he at critical times appeared also as a prophet of consolation. Nor did he despise external evidences of his prophetic office (compare Isaiah 7:11; 22, 8). His contemporary Micah is in full agreement with him, although he was not called to deal with the great of the land, with kings, or statesmen, as was the mission of Isaiah. Nahum, Zephaniah and Habakkuk belong rather to the period of transition from the Assyrian to the Chaldean periods. In the days of Josiah the prophetess Huldah had great influence in Jerusalem (2 Kings 22:14). Much more important under this same king was the prophet Jeremiah, who was called by God for a great mission. This prophet during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and after that time spoke as an unyielding yet deeply feeling exponent of God, and was compelled again and again to dash to the ground the false hopes of the patriots, whenever these arose. Not so firm was his contemporary and fellow-sufferer Uriah (Jeremiah 26:20).

9. During the Exile, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, Daniel:

In the time of the exile itself we find the period of the activity of Ezekiel. It was significant that this prophet became the recipient of divine revelations while on Babylonian territory. His work was, in accordance with the condition of affairs, more that of a pastor and literary man. He seems also to have been a bodily sufferer. His abnormal conditions became symbolical signs of that which he had to proclaim. Deutero-Isaiah, too (Isaiah 40:1-31 ff), spoke during the Babylonian period, namely at its close, and prepared for the return. The peculiar prophecies of Daniel are also accorded to a prophet living during the exile, who occupied a distinguished position at the court of the heathen rulers, and whose apocalyptic utterances are of a kind different from the discourses of the other prophets, as they deal more with the political condition of the world and the drama of history, in so far as this tends toward the establishment of the supremacy of Yahweh. These prophecies were collected in later times and did not receive their final and present form until the Greek period at the beginning of the 2nd century BC.

10. After the Exile, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: After the return from Babylon the Jews were exhorted by Haggai and Zechariah to rebuild their temple (about 520 BC). At that time there were still to be found prophets who took a hostile attitude to the men of God. Thus Nehemiah (Nehemiah 6:6-14) was opposed by hostile prophets as also by a prophetess, Noadiah. In contrast with these, Malachi is at all times in accord with the canonical prophets, as he was an ardent advocate for the temple cult of Yahweh, not in the sense of a spiritless and senseless external worship, but as against the current indifference to Yahweh. His style and his language, too, evidence a late age. The lyrical form has given way to the didactic. This is also probably the time when the present Book of Jonah was written, a didactic work treating of an older tradition.

11. Cessation of Prophecy: Malachi is regarded by the Jews as the last really canonical prophet. While doubtless there was not a total lack of prophetically endowed seers and speakers of God also in the closing centuries of the pre-Christian era, nevertheless the general conviction prevailed that the Spirit of God was no longer present, e.g. in the times of the Maccabees (compare 1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). It is true that certain modern critics ascribe some large sections of the Book of Isa, as well as of other prophets, even to a period as late as the Greek. But this is refuted by the fact mentioned in Ecclesiasticus (beginning of the 2nd century BC) that in the writer's time the prophetical Canon appeared already as a closed collection. Daniel is not found in this collection, but the Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets is. It was during this period that apocalyptic literature began to flourish, many specimens of which are foundamong the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These books consist of eschatological speculations, not the product of original inspiration, but emanating from the study of the prophetic word. The very name Pseudepigrapha shows that the author issued his work, not under his own name, but under the pseudonym of some man of God from older times, such as Enoch, Ezra, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, and others. This fact alone proves the secondary character of this class of literature.

See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.

12. Prophecy in the New Testament: Malachi finds a successor in John the Baptist, whose coming the former had predicted. John is the greatest of the prophets, because he could directly point to Him who completed the old covenant and fulfilled its promises. All that we know in addition concerning the times of Jesus shows that the prophetical gift was yet thought of as possibly dwelling in many, but that prophecy was no longer the chief spiritual guide of the people (compare e.g. Josephus, Ant, XIII, xi, 2; XV, x, 5, among the Essenes, or in the case of Hyrcanus, op. cit., XIII, x, 7). Josephus himself claims to have had prophetic gifts at times (compare BJ ,III , viii, 9). He is thinking in this connection chiefly of the prediction of some details. Such "prophets" and "prophetesses" are reported also in the New Testament. In Jesus Christ Himself the prophetic office reached its highest stage of development, as He stood in a more intimate relation than any other being to His Heavenly Father and spoke His word entirely and at all times. In the Christian congregation the office of prophecy is again found, differing from the proclamation of the gospel by the apostles, evangelists, and teachers. In the New Testament the terms prophetes, propheteia, propheteuo, signify speaking under the extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost. Thus in Acts 11:27 f (prophecy of a famine by Agabus); Acts 21:10 f (prediction of the sufferings of Paul); Acts 13:1 f (exhortation to mission work); Acts 21:9 ff (prophetical gift of the daughters of Philip). Paul himself also had this gift (Acts 16:6 ff; Acts 18:9; 22:17 ff; Acts 27:23 f). In the public services of the church, prophecy occupied a prominent position (see especially 1 Corinthians 14:1-40). A prophetical book in a special sense is the Apocalypse of John. The gift of prophecy was claimed by many also in later times. But this gift ceased more and more, as the Christian church more and more developed on the historical basis of revelation as completed in Christ. Especially in spiritually aroused eras in the history of the church, prophecy again puts in its appearance. It has never ceased altogether, but on account of its frequent misuse the gift has become discredited. Jesus Himself warned against false prophets, and during the apostolic times it was often found necessary to urge the importance of trying spirits (1 John 4:1; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 14:29).

Continued in PROPHECY; PROPHETS, 3.

Prophecy; Prophets, 3

Prophecy; Prophets, 3 - Continued from PROPHECY; PROPHETS, 2.

III. Historical Development of Prophecy. 1. Contents of Prophecy: The contents of prophecy are by no means merely predictions concerning the future. That which is given by the Spirit to the prophet can refer to the past and to the present as well as to the future. However, that which is revealed to the prophet finds its inner unity in this, that it all aims to establish the supremacy of Yahweh. Prophecy views also the detailed events in their relation to the divine plan, and this latter has for its purpose the absolute establishment of the supremacy of Yahweh in Israel and eventually on the entire earth. We are accustomed to call those utterances that predict this final purpose the Messianic prophecies. However, not only those that speak of the person of the Messiah belong to this class, but all that treat of the coming of the kingdom of God.

2. Conception of the Messiah: The beginnings of the religion of Israel, as also the chief epoch in its development, emanated from prophetical revelations. The prophet Moses elevated the tribal religion into a national religion, and at the same time taught the people to regard the religion of the fathers more ethically, spiritually and vitally. Samuel crowned the earthly form of the concrete theocracy by introducing an "Anointed of Yahweh" in whom the covenant relation between Yahweh and Israel was concentrated personally. The Anointed of the Lord entered into a much more intimate relationship to Yahweh as His Son or Servant than it was possible for the whole people of Israel to do, although as a people they were also called the servant or the son of God (compare Psalms 2:7 f; Psalms 110:1-7). The Psalms of David are a proof of this, that this high destiny of the kingdom was recognized. David himself became a prophet in those hymns in which he describes his own unique relation to Yahweh. But the actual kings of history as a rule corresponded too imperfectly to this idea. For this reason the word "prophetic" already in David's time directs to the future, when this relationship shall be more perfectly realized (2 Samuel 7:12 ff; compare David's own words, 2 Samuel 23:4 ff).

See MESSIAH.

3. Before the Exile (through Judgment to Deliverance):

Solomon completed the external equipment of theocracy by the erection of the temple. But it was just his reign that constituted the turning-point, from which time on the prophets begin to emphasize the judgment to come, i.e. the dissolution of the external existence of the kingdom of Yahweh. Yet prophecy at all times does this in such a manner, that a kernel of the divine establishment on Zion remains intact. The divine establishment of the sanctuary and the kingdom cannot be destroyed; all that is necessary is that they be restored in greater purity and dignity. This can be seen also in Amos, who predicts that the fallen tabernacle of David shall be raised up again (Amos 9:11 ff), which shall then be followed by a condition of undisturbed blessing. The same is found in Hosea, who sees how all Israel is again united under "David" the king of the last times, when between God and the people, between heaven and earth, an unbroken covenant of love shall be made (Hosea 2:1 f,18 ff); and also in Isaiah, who predicts that during the time of the conquest and subjection of the country by the Gentiles a Son of David shall be born in a miraculous manner and attain supremacy (Isaiah 7:14; 9:2 ff; Isaiah 11:1 ff), and who speaks constantly of that divine establishment on Zion (compare the quiet waters of Shiloah, Isaiah 8:6), the foundation stone that has been laid by Yahweh (Isaiah 28:16, etc.). Micah, his contemporary, does the same, and in an entirely similar manner predicts that the radical judgment of destruction which shall come over the temple and the royal palace shall be followed by the wondrous King of Peace from Bethlehem (Micah 5:1 ff). Possibly even at a somewhat earlier date Zechariah 9:9 described this future ruler in similar terms. In general it is not probable that Isaiah and Micah were the first to speak so personally of this King. They seem to presuppose that their contemporaries were acquainted with this idea.

4. Analogous Ideas among Heathen Peoples: In recent times scholars have pointed to the fact that in the old Orient, among the Egyptians, the Babylonians and elsewhere, the expectation of a miraculously-born King of the future, who was to bring to His own people and to all nations salvation and peace, was entertained at an early period. Yet so much is certain, that Isaiah and Micah did not base their hopes on the vague dreams of the Gentileworld, but upon the prophetic establishment of a divine sanctuary and kingdom of Zion. The personal figure of this Son of David is not so much in the foreground in the other prophets down to the period of the exile. These prophets mention only casually the Good Shepherd, as e.g. Jeremiah 23:1 ff; Jeremiah 33:12 ff; Ezekiel 34:23 f. But after that time this Messianic expectation became a permanent element in the hopes of Israel.

In the meanwhile, prophecy had thrown much light on the ways of God, which prepare for His kingdom on earth. Even long before Amos (5:18 ff) the idea of a "day of Yahweh," which was to be a day of revelation, on which God makes a settlement with the nations, must have been generally known, since Amos is already compelled to protest against the abuse of this expectation. But hand in hand with this settlement we find also and at all times the expectation of the exaltation and of the salvation of Israel. Yet the prophets have all emphasized that Israel and Judah must first be thoroughly purified by a judgment, before the land could, through God's grace, be glorified and richly blessed. The judgment which the preexilic prophets are continually predicting is, however, only a means to an end. This judgment is not the final word of the Lord, as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah and Habakkuk constantly teach. They announce that return to Yahweh and obedience to His commandments is the way to salvation (Hosea 6:1; Isaiah 1:18; Jeremiah 4:1, and often). However, the prophets know that the people will not turn again to God, but that first the Jewish state must be entirely overthrown (Isaiah 6:1-13). It is particularly deserving of notice, that believing trust in Yahweh is regarded as the positive means for deliverance (Isaiah 7:9; 30:15; Habakkuk 2:4). It is through this that the "remnant" of the faithful, "the kernel" of the people, is saved. Also in the case of Jeremiah, whose work it was to predict the immediate destruction of Judah, there is not absent a kind of an esoteric book of consolation. His battle cry for the future is "Yahweh our righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6; 33:16). In his case we find a rich spiritualization of religion. The external customs, circumcision and the like, he declares, do no good, if the true state of the heart is lacking. Even the ark of the covenant is unnecessary and is discarded in the enlargement of the sanctuary. Ezekiel, who lays more stress on the external ordinances, nevertheless agrees with Jeremiah in this, that Jerusalem together with the temple must fall. Only after this destruction the prophet in his spirit builds the sanctuary again; notwithstanding the external character of his restoration, there is yet found in his picture a further development of its spiritual character. The ethical rights and the responsibility of the individual are strongly emphasized (Ezekiel 18:1-32; Ezekiel 33:1-33). The land becomes transformed; the Gentiles are received into the covenant of God.

5. During the Exile (Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah): Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40:1-31 through Isaiah 66:1-24), during the time of the Babylonian captivity, enriches prophecy in an extraordinary manner, through the figure of the true "Servant of Yahweh," who in a peaceful way, through his words of instruction and especially through his innocent sufferings and his vicarious deeds, converts Israel, the undeserving servant, and also wins over the Gentileworld to Yahweh. It was not possible that the picture of a suffering man of God, who through his death as a martyr attains to exaltation, should be suggested to the Jews by the altogether different figure of a death and resurrection of a Babylonian god (Thammuz-Adonis!). Since the unjust persecutions of Joseph and David they were acquainted with the sufferings of the just, and Jeremiah's life as a prophet was a continuous martyrdom. But the writer of the second part of Isaiah had before his eyes a vision that far excelled all of these types in purity and in greatness to such a degree as did David's Son in Isaiah and Micah surpass His great ancestor. He brings to a completion the kingdom of God through teaching, suffering and death, and attains to the glory of rulership. In this way He unites the offices of prophet, priest and king.

6. After the Exile (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi): After the exile prophecy continues its work. The Messianic expectations, too, are developed further by Haggai, and still more by Zechariah. Malachi announces the advent of the Day of Yahweh, but expects before this a complete purification of the people of God. God Himself will come, and His angel will prepare the way for Him. The visions of Daniel picture the transformation of the world into a kingdom of God. The latter will mark the end of the history of the world. It comes from above; the earthly kingdoms are from below, and are pictured as beasts; the Ruler of the kingdom of God is a Son of man. The latter comes with the clouds of the heaven to take possession of His kingdom (Daniel 7:13 ff). Then the judgment of the world will take place and include also each human being, who before this will bodily arise from the dead, in order to enter upon blessedness or condemnation. Here we find indicated a universal expansion of the kingdom of God extending over the whole world and all mankind.

7. Contemporaneous Character of Prophecy: If we survey this prophecy of the kingdom of God and its divinely-blessed Ruler, the Messiah, from a Christian standpoint, we find that a grand divine unity connects its different elements. The form of this prophecy is indeed conditioned by the views and ideas of the time of utterance. The prophets were compelled to speak so that their hearers could understand them. Only gradually these limitations and forms become spiritualized, e.g. the kingdom of God is still pictured by the prophets as established around the local center of Zion. Mt. Zion is in a concrete manner exalted, in order to give expression to its importance, etc. It is the New Testament fulfillment that for the first time gives adequate form to divine revelation. At least in the person of Jesus Christ this perfection is given, although the full unfolding of this kingdom is yet a matter of the future.

8. Partial Character of Prophecy: A second characteristic feature of prophecy is the partial nature of the individual prophetical utterances and prophetical pictures. One picture must be supplemented by the others, in order not to be misunderstood. Thus, e.g. according to Isaiah 11:14; Zechariah 9:13 ff, we might expect that the kingdom of God was to be established by force of arms. But the same prophets show in other utterances (Isaiah 9:6 f; Zechariah 9:9 f) that these warlike expressions are to be understood figuratively, since the Messianic King is more than all others a Prince of Peace.

9. Perspective Character of Prophecy: A third feature that deserves attention is the perspective character of prophecy. The prophet sees together and at once upon the surface of the pictures things which are to be fulfilled only successively and gradually. Thus, e.g. Deutero-Isaiah sees in the near future the return from captivity, and directly connected with this a miraculous glorification of the city of God. The return did as a matter of fact take place soon afterward, but the glorification of the city in which Yahweh Himself had promised to dwell was yet in the distant future. The succeeding prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, predict that this consummation shall take place in the future.

Also in the predictions concerning the future made by Jesus and in the Apocalypse of John these characteristics of prophecy, its contemporaneous and perspective and at times symbolical features, are not disregarded. The firm prophetic word is intended to give the congregation certain directive lines and distinctive work. But an adequate idea of what is to come the Christian church will become compelled to form for itself, when the fulfillment and completion shall have taken place.

Continued in PROPHECY; PROPHETS, 4.

Prophecy; Prophets, 4

Prophecy; Prophets, 4 - Continued from PROPHECY; PROPHETS, 3.

IV. Analogous Phenomena among the Gentiles. 1. Necromancy and Technical Witchcraft: The uniqueness of Biblical prophecy is grasped fully only when we try to find analogies among the Gentile peoples. Here we find everywhere indeed the art of sooth-saying, the headquarters for which was Babylon. But with this art the prophecy of the Old Testament stands out in bold contrast (compare the prohibitions in Leviticus 19:26, 31; 6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10 ff, prohibitions that refer to necromancy for the purpose of discovering the future). This art was practiced through a medium, a person who had an 'obh (Babylonian, ubi), i.e. a spirit that brought forth the dead in order to question them. The spirits were thought to speak in murmurings or piping sounds (Isaiah 8:19), which could be imitated by the medium (ventriloquist). According to the Law, which forbade this under penalty of death, Saul had tried to destroy those who practiced incantations, who generally were women (1 Samuel 28:9). This practice, however, continued to flourish. In addition, the Babylonians and other peoples had also a developed art of interpretation in order to find omens for the future. Especially was the examination of intestines practiced by them. The liver of sacrificial animals particularly was carefully examined, and, from this, predictions, good or bad, were inferred (compare Ezekiel 21:21). See DIVINATION. This art passed over from the Babylonions to the seafaring Etruscans, and through these came to the Romans. But other phenomena also were by the different nations interpreted as prophetically significant and were by those skilled in this art interpreted accordingly. Among these were miscarriages by human beings and animals, the actions of hens, horses, the flight of birds, earthquakes, forms of the clouds, lightning, and the like. Further, mechanical contrivances were used, such as casting of lots, stones, sticks, etc.

2. The Mantic Art: More spiritual and popular was the interpretation of dreams. It also was the case that mediums intentionally would convert themselves into a semi-waking trance. In this way the suitable mediums attained to a certain kind of clairvoyance, found among various peoples. This approaches the condition of an ecstatically aroused pseudo-prophet, of whom mention is made above. In Greece, too, oracles were pronounced by the Pythian prophetess, who by vapors and the like was aroused to a practice of the mantic article In Dodona it was the voice of the divinity in Nature, which they sought to read in the rustling of the trees and the murmuring of the water. How uncertain these sources were was well known to heathen antiquity. The ancients complain of the enigmatical character of the Sibylline utterances and the doubtful nature of what was said. See GREECE,RELIGION IN ANCIENT . In contrast to this, Israel knows that it possesses in prophecy a clear word (Numbers 23:23).

3. Contents of Extra-Biblical Oracles: But the contents also of the Biblical prophecies are unique through their spiritual uniformity and greatness. The oracle at Delphi, too, at times showed a certain moral elevation and could be regarded as the conscience of the nation. But how insignificant and meager was that which it offered to those who questioned it, in comparison with the spontaneous utterances of the prophets of Israel! Also what has in recent times been said concerning the "prophetical texts" from ancient Egypt (Gressmann, Texte und Bilder, I, 20 ff) may indeed show some external similarity to the prophecies of Israel; but they lack the spiritual and religious depth and the strictly ethical dignity of the prophets of the Scriptures, as also the consistency with which these from century to century reveal the thoughts of God and make known with constantly increasing clearness their purposes and goal.

LITERATURE

Witsius, De prophetis et prophetia, 1731; Chr. A. Crusius, Hypomnemata ad theologiam propheticam, Part I, 1764; A. Knobel, Der Prophetismus der Hebraer, 1837; F. B. Koester, Die Propheten des Altes Testament und New Testament, 1838; B. Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten; Kuenen, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel; F. E. Koenig, Der Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament, 1882; C. von Orelli, Die alttestamentliche Weissagung von der Vollendung des Gottesreiches, 1882; W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel and Their Place in History, 1882; E. Riehm, Die messianische Weissagung, English translation, 1885; Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecy, 1891; A. T. Kirkpatrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets, 1892; G. French Oehler, Theologie des A T, 1891; Ed. Koenig, Dos Berufungsbewusstsein der alttestamentlichen Propheten, 1900; F. H. Woods, The Hope of Israel, 1896; R. Kraetzschmar, Prophet und Seher im alten Israel, 1902; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903; Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und dos A T, 1902; C. von Orelli, Allgemeine Religionsgeschichte; M. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, 1903; Gressmann, Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, 1905; W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, 1905; C. S. Macfarland, Jesus and the Prophets, 1905; G. G. Findlay, The Books of the Prophets in Their Historical Succession, 1906-7; Gressmann, Alt-orientalische Texte und Bilder zum A T, 1909; Selwyn, Christian Prophets.

C. von Orelli

Prophesyings, False

Prophesyings, False - prof'-e-si-ingz: The distinction between the true and the false prophecy and prophets is very difficult to state. Broadly speaking, the false prophesying related itself to the national ideal independently of any spiritual quality, while the true prophesying ever kept uppermost the spiritual conception of the national life. Among those given to false prophesying were the ones who spoke after "the deceit of their own heart" (Jeremiah 14:13-14); those who without real prophetic gift borrowed a message and assumed the speech of prophecy (Jeremiah 23:28, 31); and those who sought the prophet's role in order to gain the material gifts which came from the people to their prophets (Micah 3:5). These, when discovered, were counted worthy of punishment and even death. There were, however, false prophesyings from men who honestly believed themselves to have a message from Yahweh. These prophecies from self-deceived prophets often led the people astray. The dream of national greatness was substituted for the voice of Yahweh. It was against such prophesying that the true prophets had to contend. The only test here was the spiritual character of the utterance, and this test demanded a certain moral or spiritual sense which the people did not always possess. Consequently, in times of moral darkness the false prophets, predicting smooth things for the nation, independent of repentance, consecration and the pursuit of spiritual ideals, were honored above the true prophets who emphasized the moral greatness of Yahweh and the necessity of righteousness for the nation. In New Testament times false prophesying did much injury in the church.

See PROPHECY.

C. E. Schenk

Prophet, the Old

Prophet, the Old - See OLD PROPHET, THE.

Prophetess

Prophetess - prof'-et-es (nebhi'ah; prophetis): Women were not excluded from the prophetic office in the Old Testament, and were honored with the right of prophetic utterance in the New Testament. It should be noted, however, that women like Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4) and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14) were not credited with the seer's insight into the future, but were called "prophetesses" because of the poetical inspiration of their speech. Among others mentioned as having the prophetic gift we find Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1), Anna (Luke 2:36) and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8-9).

See PROPHET.

C. E. Schenk

Propitiation

Propitiation - pro-pish-i-a'-shun:

1. Terms and Meaning: The word is Latin and brings into its English use the atmosphere of heathen rites for winning the favor, or averting the anger, of the gods. In the Old Testament it represents a number of Hebrew words--ten, including derivatives--which are sufficiently discussed under ATONEMENT (which see), of which propitiation is one aspect. It represents in Septuagint the Greek stems hilask- (hile-), and katallag-, with derivatives; in the New Testament only the latter, and is rarely used. Propitiation needs to be studied in connection with reconciliation, which is used frequently in some of the most strategic sentences of the New Testament, especially in the newer versions In Hebrews 2:17, the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version have both changed "reconciliation" of the King James Version to "propitiation," to make it correspond with the Old Testament use in connection with the sacrifice on the DAY OF ATONEMENT (which see). Luke 18:13 ("God, be thou merciful (margin "be propitiated") to me the sinner" (the American Standard Revised Version margin)); Hebrews 8:12 (quoted from the Septuagint); and Matthew 16:22 (an idiomatic asseveration like English "mercy on us") will help in getting at the usage in the New Testament. In Septuagint hilasterion is the term for the "mercy-seat" or "lid of the ark" of the covenant which was sprinkled with blood on the Day of Atonement. It is employed in exactly this sense in Hebrews 9:5, where later versions have in the margin "the propitiatory."

Elsewhere in the New Testament this form is found only in Romans 3:25, and it is here that difficulty and difference are found extensively in interpreting. Greek fathers generally and prominent modern scholars understand Paul here to say that God appointed Christ Jesus to be the "mercy-seat" for sinners. The reference, while primarily to the Jewish ceremonial in tabernacle and temple, would not depend upon this reference for its comprehension, for the idea was general in religious thought, that some place and means had to be provided for securing friendly meeting with the Deity, offended by man's sin. In Hebrews particularly, as elsewhere generally, Jesus Christ is presented as priest and sacrifice. Many modern writers (compare Sanday and Headlam), therefore, object that to make Him the "mercy-seat" here complicates the figure still further, and so would understand hilasterion as "expiatory sacrifice." While this is not impossible, it is better to take the word in the usual sense of "mercy-seat." It is not necessary to complicate the illustration by bringing in the idea of priest at all here, since Paul does not do so; mercy-seat and sacrifice are both in Christ. hilasmos, is found in the New Testament only in 1 John 2:2; 4:10. Here the idea is active grace, or mercy, or friendliness. The teaching corresponds exactly with that in Romans. "Jesus Christ the righteous" is our "Advocate (margin "Helper") with the Father," because He is active mercy concerning (peri) our sins and those of the whole world. Or (Romans 4:10), God "loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for (active mercy concerning) our sins." This last passage is parallel with Romans 3:25, the one dealing with the abstract theory, and so Christ is set forward as a "mercy-seat," the other dealing with experience of grace, and so Christ is the mercy of God in concrete expression.

2. Theological Implication: The basal idea in Hebrew terms is that of covering what is offensive, so restoring friendship, or causing to be kindly disposed. The Greek terms lack the physical reference to covering but introduce the idea of friendliness where antagonism would be natural; hence, graciousness. Naturally, therefore, the idea of expiation entered into the concept. It is especially to be noted that all provisions for this friendly relation as between God and offending man find their initiation and provision in God and are under His direction, but involve the active response of man. All heathen and unworthy conceptions are removed from the Christian notion of propitiation by the fact that God Himself proposed, or "set forth," Christ as the "mercy-seat," and that this is the supreme expression of ultimate love. God had all the while been merciful, friendly, "passing over" man's sins with no apparently adequate, or just, ground for doing so. Now in the blood of Christ sin is condemned and expiated, and God is able to establish and maintain His character for righteousness, while He continues and extends His dealing in gracious love with sinners who exercise faith in Jesus. The propitiation originates with God, not to appease Himself, but to justify Himself in His uniform kindness to men deserving harshness. Compare also as to reconciliation, as in Romans 5:1-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18 ff.

Proportion

Proportion - pro-por'-shun: Occurs once in the sense of "space" as the translation of ma`-ar, "void or open space" (1 Kings 7:36. the King James Version margin "Hebrew `nakedness,' " the Revised Version (British and American) "space"); once in the obsolete sense of "form" as the translation of `erekh, "array," or "row" (Job 41:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "frame"); and once in the sense of "measure" as the translation of analogia, "proportion" "equality" (Romans 12:6, "the proportion of faith," the Revised Version (British and American) "the proportion of our faith"). "Proportionally" occurs in Wisdom of Solomon 13:5, analogos, the Revised Version (British and American) "in like proportion," margin "correspondently."

Proselyte

Proselyte - pros'-e-lit (proselutos, from proserchomai, "I approach"): Found 4 times in the New Testament. In the Septuagint it often occurs as the translation of ger. The Hebrew verb gur means "to sojourn"; ger accordingly means a stranger who has come to settle in the land, as distinguished on the one hand from 'ezrach, "a homeborn" or "native," and on the other from nokhri or ben-nekhar, which means a stranger who is only passing through the country. Yet it is to be noted that in 2 Chronicles 2:17 those of the native tribes still living in the land as Amorites, Hittites, etc., are also called gerim. In two places, (Exodus 12:19; Isaiah 14:1) the Septuagint uses g(e)ioras, which is derived from giyor, the Aramaic equivalent for ger. Septuagint uses paroikos (the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew toshabh, "a settler") for ger when Israel or the triarchs are indicated (Genesis 15:13; 23:4; Exodus 2:22; 18:3; Deuteronomy 23:7; 1 Chronicles 29:15; Psalms 39:12; 119:19; Jeremiah 14:8), and in a few other cases. In Talmudical literature ger always stands for proselyte in the New Testament sense, i.e. a Gentile who has been converted to Judaism. Onkelos, who was himself a proselyte, always translates the word in this way.

1. Ger in the Old Testament: No difficulties were put in the way of those strangers who wished to settle down in the land of Israel. All strangers, the third generation of Egyptians and Edomites included, and only Ammonites and Moabites excluded, could enter "the congregation of God" without circumcision and without the obligation to keep the ceremonial law.

`The stranger within the gate' was free to eat meat which was prohibited to the Israelite (Deuteronomy 14:21). If, however, the stranger wished to take part in the Passover, a feast permeated with national ideals, he must be circumcised. The keeping of the Sabbath and other feasts was regarded rather as a privilege than as a duty (Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 16:11, 14); but according to Leviticus 16:29 the ger was obliged to keep the fast of Atonement. He was forbidden on pain of death to blaspheme (Leviticus 24:16) or to offer children to Molech (Leviticus 20:2). If he desired to bring a burnt offering, the same law applied to him as to the Israelites (Leviticus 17:8; 22:18). Though the law of circumcision was not forced upon the ger, it seems that the Mosaic Law endeavored to bring him nearer to the cult of Israel, not from any proselytizing motives, but in order to preserve theocracy from admixture of foreign elements, which would speedily have proved fatal to its existence.

Though the God of Israel, when He is thought of only as such, ceases to be God; though Israel was chosen before all nations for all nations; though Israel had been again and again reminded that the Messiah would bring a blessing to all nations; and though there were instances of pagans coming to believe in Yahweh, yet it did not belong to the economy of Old Testament religion to spread the knowledge of God directly among the Gentiles (the Book of Jonah is an exception to this). There was certainly no active propagandism. Though we read in Nehemiah 10:28 of those who "separated themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God" (compare Isaiah 56:3, "the foreigner, that hath joined himself to Yahweh"--the only and exact description of a proselyte proper in the Old Testament), the spirit of exclusiveness prevailed; the doubtful elements were separated (Ezra 4:3): mixed marriages were prohibited by the chiefs, and were afterward disapproved of by the people (Ezra 9:1-15; Ezra 10:1-44; Nehemiah 13:23 ff). Direct proselytism did not begin till about a century later.

2. Proselytizing: The preaching of the gospel was preceded and prepared for by the dispersion of the Jews, and a world-wide propagandism of Judaism. In the 5th century BC the Jews had a temple of their own at Syene. Alexander the Great settled 8,000 Jews in the Thebais, and Jews formed a third of the population of Alexandria. Large numbers were brought from Palestine by Ptolemy I (320 BC), and they gradually spread from Egypt along the whole Mediterranean coast of Africa. After the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (170 BC) they scattered themselves in every direction, and, in the words of the Sibylline Oracles (circa 160 BC), "crowded with their numbers every ocean and country." There was hardly a seaport or a commercial center in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, or the Islands of the AEgean, in which Jewish communities were not to be found. Josephus (Ant., XIV, vii, 2) quotes Strabo as saying: "It is hard to find a place in the habitable earth that hath not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by them." Thus, in spite of the hatred and contempt which Judaism everywhere excited, its lofty, austere and spiritual religious aspirations and conceptions became known to the pagan world and exercised a profound attraction upon many souls that were deeply dissatisfied with contemporary religions. Judaism was at that period filled with missionary zeal and aspired to world-mastery. Many books on Judaism (e.g. the Sibylline Oracles) were written anonymously by Jews in order to influence pagan readers. The synagogue, which had become the center of Jewish worship, now opened its doors widely to the pagan world (compare Acts 15:21), and many of the sermons delivered there were directly aimed at the conversion of pagans. The Jews began to feel that they were "a guide of the blind, a fight of them that are in darkness" (Romans 2:19).

Not only Josephus (Apion, II; BJ, VII, iii, 3), but also Seneca (Apud Aug. De Civit. Dei vi.11), Dio Cassius (xxxvii.17), Tacitus (Ann. ii.85; Hist. v.5), Horace (Sat. i.4, 142), Juvenal (Sat. xiv.96 ff), and other Greek and Roman writers testify to the widespread effects of the proselytizing propaganda of the Jews.

Many gladly frequented the synagogues and kept some of the Jewish laws and customs. Among those were to be found the "men who feared God," spoken of in Acts. They were so called to distinguish them from full proselytes; and it was probably for this class that tablets of warning in the temple were inscribed in Greek and Latin

Another class kept practically all the Jewish laws and customs, but were not circumcised. Some again, though not circumcised, had their children circumcised (Juvenal Sat. xiv.96 ff). Such Jewish customs as fasting, cleansings, abstaining from pork, lighting the candles on Friday evening, and keeping the Sabbath (Josephus, Apion, II, 29, etc.) were observed by these Gentile sympathizers. Schurer holds that there were congregations of Greeks and Romans in Asia Minor, and probably in Rome, which, though they had no connection with the synagogue, formed themselves into gatherings after the pattern of the synagogue, and observed some of the Jewish customs. Among the converts to Judaism there were probably few who were circumcised, and most of those who were circumcised submitted to the rite in order to marry Jewesses, or to enjoy the rights and privileges granted to the Jews by Syrian, Egyptian and Roman rulers (Josephus, Ant, XIV, vii, 2; XX, vii, 1; compare XVI , vii, 6). It would appear from Christ's words ("one proselyte") that the number of full proselytes was not large. Hyrcanus forced the Edomites to adopt Judaism by circumcision (129 BC); and on other occasions the same policy of propagandism by force was followed. Josephus tells an interesting story (Ant., XX, ii, 1) of the conversion of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her two sons. The conversion of the sons was due to the teaching of a merchant called Ananias, who did not insist on circumcision. Later, another Jew, Eliezer of Galilee, told the young princes that it was not enough to read the Law, but that they must keep it too, with the result that both were circumcised. From this it is evident that Jewish teachers of the Gentileconverts varied in the strictness of their teaching.

3. Proselytes in the New Testament: The word "proselyte" occurs 4 times in the New Testament; once in Mt (23:15), where our Lord refers to the proselytizing zeal of the Pharisees, and to the pernicious influence which they exerted on their converts; and 3 times in Acts. Proselytes were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:10); Nicolas, one of the deacons appointed by the primitive church at Jerusalem, was a proselyte (Acts 6:5); and after Paul had spoken in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, many devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:43). It is to be noted in this last case that the proselytes are called sebomenoi, a word generally reserved for another class. Certain people are spoken of in Acts as phoboumenoi ton theon, "fearing God" (Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 16, 26), and as sebomenoi ton theon, "reverencing God," or simply sebomenoi (Acts 13:50; 16:14; 4, 17; 18:7). These seem (as against Bertholet and EB) to have been sympathizers with Judaism, who attended the worship of the synagogue, but were not circumcised. It was among this class that the gospel made its first converts among the Gentiles. Those who were fully proselytes were probably as fanatical opponents of Christianity as were the Jews.

4. Ger in the Talmud: From the old strict Pharisaic-Palestinian point of view, circumcision, with the addition of baptism and the offering of sacrifice, was indispensable (so to Paul every circumcised person was a Jew; compare Galatians 5:3); and thus their converts had to submit to the whole burden of the Mosaic and traditional Law. The rabbinic distinction between ger toshabh, "a settler," and ger tsedheq, "a proselyte of righteousness," is, according to Schurer, only theoretical, and arose at a later date (Babha' Metsi`a' 5 6,9,12; Makkoth 2 3; Negha`im 3 1, et al.).

While the ger tsedheq (or ger ha-berith, "proselyte of the covenant") was considered as being in every respect a "perfect Israelite," the ger toshabh (or ger sha`ar, "proselyte of the gate"; compare Exodus 20:10) only professed his faith in the God of Israel, and bound himself to the observance of the 7 Noachic precepts, abstinence from blasphemy, idolatry, homicide, fornication, robbery, eating the flesh of an animal that had died a natural death, and disobedience to (Jewish) authority (Sanh. 56a; compare Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). He was considered more of a Gentile than a Jew.

Three things were required for the admission of a proselyte, circumcision,. baptism, and the offering of sacrifice (Ber. 47b; Yebham. 45b, 46a, 48b, 76a; 'Abhoth 57a, et al.). In the case of women only baptism and the offering of sacrifice were required; for that reason there were more women converts than men. Josephus (BJ, II, xx, 2) tells how most of the women of Damascus were addicted to the Jewish religion. Doubt has been expressed as to the necessity of proselytes being baptized, since there is no mention of it by Paul or Philo or Josephus, but it is probable that a Gentile, who was unclean, would not be admitted to the temple without being cleansed.

The proselyte was received in the following manner. He was first asked his reason for wishing to embrace Judaism. He was told that Israel was in a state of affliction; if he replied that he was aware of the fact and felt himself unworthy to share these afflictions, he was admitted. Then he received instruction in some of the "light" and "heavy" commandments, the rules concerning gleaning and tithes, and the penalties attached to the breach of the commandments. If he was willing to submit to all this, he was circumcised, and after his recovery he was immersed without delay. At this latter ceremony two "disciples of the wise" stood by to tell him more of the "light" and "heavy" commandments. When he came up after the immersion, those assembled addressed him saying: "Unto whom hast thou given thyself? Blessed art thou, thou hast given thyself to God; the world was created for the sake of Israel, and only Israelites are called the children of God. The afflictions, of which we spoke, we mentioned only to make thy reward the greater." After his baptism he was considered to be a new man, "a little child newly born" (Yebham. 22a, 47a, 48b, 97b); a new name was given him; either he was named "Abraham the son of Abraham," or the Scriptures were opened at hazard, and the first name that was read was given to him. Thenceforth he had to put behind him all his past; even his marriage ties and those of kinship no longer held good (compare Yebham. 22a; Sanhedrin 58b).

Although he was thus juridically considered a new man, and one whose praises were sung in the Talmudical literature, he was yet on the whole looked down on as inferior to a born Jew (Kidd. 4 7; Shebhu`oth 10 9, et al.). Rabbi Chelbo said: "Proselytes are as injurious to Israel as a scab" (Yebham. 47b; Kidd. 70b; compare Philippians 3:5).

Proseuche; Proseucha

Proseuche; Proseucha - pro-su'-ke, prosu'-ka (proseuche): "A place in the open air where the Jews were wont to pray, outside of those cities where they had no synagogue," Acts 16:13, 16 (Thayer, Lexicon of the New Testament).

See PHILIPPI.

Prostitution

Prostitution - pros-ti-tu'-shun.

See CRIMES ; HARLOT; PUNISHMENTS.

Prostration

Prostration - pros-tra'-shun.

See ATTITUDES.

Protevangelium, of James

Protevangelium, of James - pro-te-van-jel'-i-um.

See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS,III , 1, (a).

Prove

Prove - proov (bachan, nacah; dokimazo, peirazo): Means (1) to test or try; (2) to establish, demonstrate; (3) to find by experience. It is for the most part in the first (original) sense that the word is found in Scripture. In the Old Testament it is most frequently the translation of nacah, primarily "to lift," hence, to weigh (Genesis 42:15-16, etc.). God is said to "prove" His people, i.e. to test or try them for their good (Genesis 22:1; Exodus 15:25; Deuteronomy 8:16, etc.). The Psalmist prays that God may prove him (Psalms 26:2). The word is frequently rendered "tempt." See TEMPT. The word bachan, primarily "to try by heat," has a similar meaning (Psalms 17:3, the heart, like metal, purified from dross; compare Job 23:10; Psalms 7:9; Malachi 3:2, etc.). In the New Testament the word most frequently rendered "prove" (sometimes "try") is dokimazo (Luke 14:19; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 8:8, 22; 13:5; Ephesians 5:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Peirazo, "to tempt," "to prove," used in both a good and a bad sense, frequently translated "tempt" (which see), is rendered "prove" in John 6:6, "This he said to prove him." Both Greek words occur frequently in Apocrypha (Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus). the Revised Version (British and American) has "prove" for "tempt" (Genesis 22:1); for, "make" (Job 24:25; Galatians 2:18); for "manifest" (Ecclesiastes 3:18); for "examine" (1 Corinthians 11:28); for "try" (1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 John 4:1), etc.

W. L. Walker

Provender

Provender - prov'-en-der ((1) micpo', from obsolete capha', "to feed," fodder for cattle in general (Genesis 24:25, 32; 42:27; Judges 19:19, 21); (2) belil, from balal, "to mix": "Loweth the ox over his fodder?" (Job 6:5); belil chamits: "The young asses that till the ground shall eat savory (Hebrew "salted") provender" (Isaiah 30:24); this is fodder mixed with salt or aromatic herbs): The ordinary provender in Palestine, besides fresh pasturage, is tibn, i.e. straw broken on the threshing floor, kursenneh (Vetch, Vicia errilia), given especially to camels and milch cows; bran, for fattening and especially in cold weather; and, occasionally, hay made from the dried mixed grass and herbs which spring up luxuriously after the rains. The Circassian colonists East of the Jordan are teaching their neighbors the value of this food, so long neglected.

E. W. G. Masterman

Proverb

Proverb - prov'-erb (mashal, chidhah; parabole (Luke 4:23), paroimia (John 16:25, 29)):

I. FOLK MEANING AND USE

1. The Primitive Sense

2. The Communal Origin

3. Animus of Proverbs

II. LITERARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROVERB

1. Discovery of Literary Value

2. The Differentiation

III. AS UNIT OF A STRAIN OF LITERATURE

1. From Detachment to Continuity

2. The Conception of Wisdom

3. In Later Times

By this term mainly, but sometimes by the term "parable" (e.g. Numbers 23:7, 18; 3, 15; Job 27:1; 29:1), is translated the Hebrew word (mashal), which designates the formal unit or vehicle of didactic discourse. The mashal was an enunciation of truth, self-evident and self-illustrative, in some pointed or concentrated form adapted to arrest attention, awaken responsive thought, and remain fixed in memory. Its scope was broader than that of our word "proverb," taking in subject matter as well as form. The mashal broadened indeed in the course of its history, until it became the characteristic idiom of Hebrew philosophy, as distinguished from the dialectic method of the Greeks. The Hebrew mind was not inductive but intuitive; it saw and asserted; and the word mashal is the generic term for the form in which its assertion was embodied.

I. Folk Meaning and Use. 1. The Primitive Sense: The mashal, nearly in our sense of proverb, traces back to the heart and life of the common folk; it is a native form reflecting in a peculiarly intimate way the distinctive genius of the Hebrew people. As to the primitive sense of the word, it is usually traced to a root meaning "likeness," or "comparison," as if the first sense of it were of the principle of analogy underlying it; but this derivation is a guess. The word is just as likely to be connected with the verb mashal, "to rule" or "master"; so by a natural secondary meaning to denote that statement which gives the decisive or final verdict, says the master word. The idea of how the thing is said, or by what phrasing, would be a later differentiation, coming in with literary refinement.

2. The Communal Origin: The earliest cited proverb (1 Samuel 10:12, repeated with varied occasion, 1 Samuel 19:24) seems to have risen spontaneously from the people's observation. That Saul, the son of Kish, whose very different temperament everybody knew, should be susceptible to the wild ecstasy of strolling prophets was an astonishing thing, as it were a discovery in psychology; "Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets?" A few years later David, explaining his clemency in sparing the life of the king who has become his deadly foe, quotes from a folk fund of proverbs: 1 Samuel 24:13, "As saith the proverb of the ancients, Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness; but my hand shall not be upon thee." The prophet Ezekiel quotes a proverb which evidently embodies a popular belief: "The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth"; which he corrects to, "The days are at hand, and the fulfillment of every vision" (Ezekiel 12:22-23). Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah (Ezekiel 18:2; Jeremiah 31:29) quote the same current proverb, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," in order to announce that the time has come for its discontinuance. These last two examples are very instructive. They show how the body of the people put the inwardness of their history into proverb form, as it were a portable lesson for the times; they show also how the prophets availed themselves of these floating sayings to point their own message. Ezekiel seems indeed to recognize the facility with which a situation may bring forth a proverb: Ezekiel 16:44, "Every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee (literally every one that mashals shall mashal against thee), saying, As is the mother, so is her daughter."

3. Animus of Proverbs: One element of the proverb, which a wide-awake people like the Hebrews would soon discover, was its adaptability for personal portrayal or satire, like a home thrust. Hence, the popular use of the name mashal came to connote its animus, generally of sarcasm or scorn. The taunting verse raised against Heshbon, Numbers 21:27-30, is attributed to them "that speak in proverbs" (meshalim); and Isaiah's taunt in his burden of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4-20) is composed in the proverb measure: "Thou shalt take up this parable (mashal, the King James Version "proverb") against the king of Babylon." Answering to this prevailing animus of proverbs was a corresponding susceptibility to their sting and rankle; they were the kind of utterance that most surely found the national and individual self-consciousness. To be a proverb--to be in everybody's mouth as a subject of laughter, or as a synonym for some awful atrocity--was about the most dreadful thing that could befall them. To be "a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse" (Jeremiah 24:9) was all one. That this should be the nation's fate was held as a threat over them by lawgiver and prophet (Deuteronomy 28:37; 1 Kings 9:7); and in adversities of experience, both individual and collective, the thing that was most keenly felt was to have become a byword (mashal) (Psalms 44:14; 69:11).

II. Literary Development of the Proverb. 1. Discovery of Literary Value: The rank of proverb was by no means attributed to every popular saying, however the people might set store by it. If its application was merely local (e.g. 2 Samuel 20:18; Genesis 22:14) or temporary (note how Jeremiah and Ezekiel announce popular sayings as obsolete), it remained in its place and time. About the proverb, on the other hand, there was the sense of a value universal and permanent, fitting it for literary immortality. Nor was the proverb itself a run-wild thing, at the shaping of the crowd; from the beginning it was in the hands of "those who speak in meshalim," whose business it was to put it into skillful wording. The popular proverb, however, and the literary proverb were and continued two different things. There came a time, in the literary development of Israel, when the value of the mashal as a vehicle of instruction came to be recognized; from which time a systematic cultivation of this type of discourse began. That time, as seems most probable, was the reign of King Solomon, when in a special degree the people awoke to the life and industry and intercourse and wealth of the world around them. The king himself was `large hearted' (1 Kings 4:29), versatile, with literary tastes; "spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five"; and his whole generation, both in Israel and surrounding nations, was engaged in a vigorous movement of thought and "wisdom" (see the whole passage, 1 Kings 4:29-34). For the unit and vehicle of this new thought the old native form of the mashal or proverb was chosen; it became the recognized medium of popular education and counsel, especially of the young; and the mashal itself was molded to the classic form, condensed, pointed, aphoristic, which we see best exemplified in the Book of Proverbs 10:1-32 through Proverbs 22:16--probably the earliest collection of this kind of literature. In this body of proverbs we see also that instead of retaining the unbalanced single assertion of the popular proverb, as it appears in 1 Samuel 10:12; 24:13, these composers of literary proverbs borrowed the poetic parallelism, or couplet, which in two lines sets two statements over against each other by antithesis or repetition, and cultivated this to its most condensed and epigrammatic construction. Thus the mashal took to itself a literary self-consciousness and became a work of art.

2. The Differentiation: Up to the time of this literary development a proverb was recognized simply as a proverb, with little sense of its various phases, except that there was a strong popular tendency to identify it with satire, and with less thought of the elements of its life and power. With the refinement of form, however, came a recognition of its inwardness. Under the generic term mashal, certain elements were differentiated; not, however, as we are wont to distinguish--parable, fable, apologue, allegory--these remained undifferentiated. The most fundamental distinction of classes, perhaps, is given in Proverbs 1:6: "To understand a proverb, and a figure, the words of the wise, and their dark sayings." Here it seems the word "proverb" (mashal) and "words of the wise," paired off with each other, are the generic terms; the other two, the differentiating terms, name respectively the two fundamental directions of the mashal, toward the clear and toward the enigmatic. Both are essential elements. The word translated "figure" (melitsah) is rather "interpretation," and seems to refer to the illuminative element of the mashal, and this was mainly analogy. Natural objects, phases of experience, contrasts were drawn into the mashal to furnish analogies for life; Solomon's use of plants and animals in his discourses (1 Kings 4:33) was not by way of natural history, but as analogies to illustrate his meshalim. The word translated "dark sayings" (chidhoth) is the word elsewhere translated "riddle" (Samson's riddle, for instance, was a [~chidhah, Judges 14:13-14), and refers to that quality of the proverb which, by challenging the hearer's acumen, gives it zest; it is due to an association of things so indirectly related that one must supply intermediate thoughts to resolve them. All of this of course. goes to justify the proverb as a capital vehicle for instruction and counsel; it has the elements that appeal to attention, responsive thought, and memory, while on the other hand its basis of analogy makes it illuminative.

III. As Unit of a Strain of Literature. 1. From Detachment to Continuity: Until it reached its classic perfection of phrasing, say during the time from Solomon to Hezekiah, the formal development of the proverb was concentrative; the single utterance disposed of its whole subject, as in a capsule. But the development of the mashal form from the antithetic to the synonymous couplet gave rise to a proverb in which the explanatory member did not fully close the case; the subject craved further elucidation, and so a group of several couplets was sometimes necessary to present a case (compare e.g. about the sluggard, Proverbs 26:13-16). From this group of proverbs the transition was easy to a continuous passage, in which the snappy parallelism of the proverb yields to the flow of poetry; see e.g. Proverbs 27:23-27. This is due evidently to a more penetrative and analytic mode of thinking, which can no longer satisfy its statement of truth in a single illustration or maxim.

2. The Conception of Wisdom: As the store of detached utterances on various phases of practical life accumulated and the task of collecting them was undertaken, it was seen that they had a common suffusion and bearing, that in fact they constituted a distinctive strain of literature. The field of this literature was broad, and recognized (see Proverbs 1:1-5) as promotive of many intellectual virtues; but the inclusive name under which it was gathered was Wisdom (chokhmah). Wisdom, deduced thus from a fund of maxims and analogies, became the Hebrew equivalent for philosophy. With the further history of it this article is not concerned, except to note that the mashal or proverb form held itself free to expand into a continuous and extended discourse, or to hold itself in to the couplet form. As to illustrative quality, too, its scope was liberal enough to include a fully developed parable; see for instance Ezekiel 17:1-10, where the prophet is bidden to "put forth a riddle, and speak a parable (literally, mashal a mashal) unto the house of Israel."

3. In Later Time: The existence of so considerable a body of proverbs is a testimony to the Hebrew genius for sententious and weighty expression, a virtue of speech which was held in special esteem. From the uses of practical wisdom the mashal form was borrowed by the later scribes and doctors of the law; we see it for instance in loose and artificial use in such books as Pirqe 'Abhoth, which gives the impression that the utterance so grandly represented in the Solomonic proverbs had become decadent. It is in another direction rather that the virtues of the mashal reach their culmination. In the phrasal felicity and illustrative lucidity of our Lord's discourses, and not less in His parables, employed that the multitude "may see and yet not see" (Mark 4:12), we have the values of the ancient mashal in their perfection, in a literary form so true to its object that we do not think of its artistry at all.

Proverbs, the Book of

Proverbs, the Book of - prov'-erbz:

I. THE BOOK'S ACCOUNT OF ITSELF

1. Title and Headings

2. Authorship or Literary Species?

II. THE SUCCESSIVE COMPILATIONS

1. The Introductory Section

2. The Classic Nucleus

3. A Body of Solicited Counsel

4. Some Left-over Precepts

5. The Hezekian Collection

6. Words of Agur

7. Words of King Lemuel

8. An Acrostic Eulogy of Woman

III. MOVEMENT TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY

1. Liberation of the Mashal

2. Emergence of Basal Principles

3. The Conception of Wisdom

IV. CONSIDERATIONS OF AGE AND LITERARY KINSHIP

1. Under the Kings

2. The Concentrative Point

3. Its Stage in Progressive Wisdom

The Scripture book which in both the Hebrew and the Greek arrangements of the Old Testament Canon immediately succeeds the Psalms. In the Hebrew Canon it stands second in the final or supplementary division called kethubhim Septuagint Paroimiai), "writings"; placed there probably because it would be most natural to begin this section with standard collections nearest at hand, which of course would be psalms and proverbs. This book is an anthology of sayings or lessons of the sages on life, character, conduct; and as such embodies the distinctively educative strain of Hebrew literature.

I. The Book's Account of Itself. 1. Title and Headings: At the beginning, intended apparently to cover the whole work, stands the title: "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel." It seemed good to the compilers, however, to repeat, or perhaps retain an older heading, "The proverbs of Solomon" at Proverbs 10:1-32, as if in some special sense the collection there beginning deserved it; and at Proverbs 25:1-28 still another heading occurs: "These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." All these ascribe the proverbs to Solomon; but the heading (Proverbs 30:1), "The words of Agur the son of Jakeh; the oracle," and the heading (Proverbs 31:1), "The words of king Lemuel; the oracle which his mother taught him," indicate that authorship other than that of Solomon is represented; while the mention of "the words of the wise" (Proverbs 1:6; 22:17), as also the definite heading, "These also are sayings of the wise" (Proverbs 24:23), ascribe parts of the book to the sages in general. The book is confessedly a series of compilations made at different times; confessedly, also, to a considerable extent at least, the work of a number, perhaps a whole guild, of writers.

2. Authorship or Literary Species?: It is hazardous to argue either for or against a specific authorship; nor is it my intention to do so. The question naturally arises, however, in what sense this book, with its composite structure so outspoken, can lay claim to being the work of Solomon. Does the title refer to actual personal authorship, or does it name a species and type of literature of which Solomon was the originator and inspirer--as if it meant to say "the Solomonic proverbs"? We may work toward the answer of this question by noting some literary facts.

Outside of the prophets only three of the Old Testament books are provided in the original text with titles; and these three are all associated with Solomon--two of them, Proverbs and the Song of Songs, directly; the third, Ecclesiastes, by an assumed name, which, however, personates Solomon. This would seem to indicate in the composition of these books an unusual degree of literary finish and self-consciousness, a sense on the part of writers or compilers that literature as an art has its claims upon them. The subject-matter of the books, too, bears this out; they are, relatively speaking, the secular books of the Bible and do not assume divine origin, as do law and prophecy. For the original impulse to such literary culture the history directs us to the reign of King Solomon; see 1 Kings 4:29-34, where is portrayed, on the part of king and court, an intense intellectual activity for its own sake, the like of which occurs nowhere else in Scripture. The forms then especially impressed upon the literature were the mashal (proverb) and the song, in both of which the versatile young king was proficient; compare 1 Kings 4:32. For the cultivation of the mashal these men of letters availed themselves of a favorite native form, the popular proverb; but they gave to it a literary mold and finish which would thenceforth distinguish it as the Solomonic mashal (see PROVERB). This then was the literary form in which from the time of Solomon onward the sages of the nation put their counsels of life, character, conduct; it became as distinctively the mold for this didactic strain of literature as was the heroic couplet for a similar strain in the age of Dryden and Pope.

It is reasonable therefore to understand this title of the Book of Proverbs as designating rather a literary species than a personal authorship; it names this anthology of Wisdom in its classically determined phrasing, and for age and authorship leaves a field spacious enough to cover the centuries of its currency. Perhaps also the proverb of this type was by the term "of Solomon" differentiated from mashal of other types, as for instance those of Balaam and Job and Koheleth.

II. The Successive Compilations. 1. The Introductory Section: That the Book of Proverbs is composed of several collections made at different times is a fact that lies on the surface; as many as eight of these are clearly marked, and perhaps subdivisions might be made. The book was not originally conceived as the development of a theme, or even as a unity; whatever unity it has was an afterthought. That it did come to stand, however, for one homogeneous body of truth, and to receive a name and a degree of articulation as such, will be maintained in a later section (see III , below). Meanwhile, we will take the sections in order and note some of the salient characteristics of each. The introductory section, Proverbs 1:1-33 through Proverbs 9:1-18, has the marks of having been added later than most of the rest; and is introductory in the sense of concentrating the thought to the concept of Wisdom, and of recommending the spiritual attitude in which it is to be received. Its style--and in this it is distinguished from the rest of the book--is hortatory; it is addressed to "my son" (Proverbs 1:8 and often) or "my sons" (Proverbs 4:1; 5:7; 7:24; 8:32), in the tone of a father or a sage, bringing stores of wisdom and experience to the young. The first six verses are prefatory, giving the purpose and use of the whole book. Then Proverbs 1:7 lays down as the initial point, or spiritual bedrock of Wisdom, the fear of Yahweh, a principle repeated toward the end of this introductory section (Proverbs 9:10), and evidently regarded as very vital to the whole Wisdom system; compare Job 28:28; Psalms 111:10; Sirach 1:14. The effect of this prefatory and theme-propounding matter is to launch the collection of proverbs much after the manner of modern literary works, and the rest of the section bears this out fairly well. The most striking feature of the section, besides its general homiletic tone, is its personification of Wisdom. She is represented as calling to the sons of men and commending to them her ways (Proverbs 1:20-33; Proverbs 8:1-21, 32-36); she condescends, for right and purity's sake, to enter into rivalry with the "strange woman," the temptress, not in secret, but in open and fearless dealing (Proverbs 7:6 through Proverbs 8:9; Proverbs 9:1-6, 13-18); and, in a supremely poetic passage (Proverbs 8:22-31 ), she describes her relation from the beginning with God and with the sons of men. It represents the value that the Hebrew mind came to set upon the human endowment of Wisdom. The Hebrew philosopher thought not in terms of logic and dialectics, but in symbol and personality; and to this high rank, almost like that of a goddess, his imagination has exalted the intellectual and spiritual powers of man.

See WISDOM.

2. The Classic Nucleus: The section Proverbs 10:1 through Proverbs 22:16, with the repeated heading "The proverbs of Solomon", seems to have been the original nucleus of the whole collection. All the proverbs in this, the longest section of the book, are molded strictly to the couplet form (the one triplet, Proverbs 19:7, being only an apparent exception, due probably to the loss of a line), each proverb a parallelism in condensed phrasing, in which the second line gives either some contrast to or some amplification of the first. This was doubtless the classic art norm of the Solomonic mashal.

The section seems to contain the product of that period of proverb-culture during which the sense of the model was a little rigid and severe, not venturing yet to limber up the form. Signs of a greater freedom, however, begin to appear, and possibly two strata of compilation are represented. In Proverbs 10:1-32 through Proverbs 15:1-33 the prevailing couplet is antithetic, which embodies the most self-closed circuit of the thought. Out of 184 proverbs only 19 do not contain some form of contrast, and 10 of these are in Proverbs 15:1-33. In Proverbs 16:1-33 through Proverbs 22:16, on the other hand, the prevailing form is the so-called synonymous or amplified couplet, which leaves the thought-circuit more open to illustrative additions. Out of 191 proverbs only 18 are antithetic, and these contain contrasts of a more subtle and hidden suggestion. As to subject-matter, the whole section is miscellaneous; in the first half, however, where the antithesis prevails, are the great elemental distinctions of life, wisdom and folly, righteousness and wickedness, industry and laziness, wise speech and reticence, and the like; while in the second half there is a decided tendency to go farther afield for subtler and less obvious distinctions. In this way they seem to reflect a growing and refining literary development, the gradual shaping and accumulation of materials for a philosophy of life; as yet, however, not articulated or reduced to unity of principle.

3. A Body of Solicited Counsel: In the short section Proverbs 22:17 through Proverbs 24:22, the proverb literature seems for the first time to have become as it were self-conscious--to regard itself as a strain of wise counsel to be reckoned with for its educative value. The section is introduced by a preface (Proverbs 22:17-21), in which these "words of the wise" are recommended to some person or delegation, "that thou mayest carry back words of truth to them that send thee" (Proverbs 22:21). The counsels seem intended for persons in responsible position, perhaps attached to the court (compare Proverbs 23:1-3), who, as they are to deal officially with men and affairs, need the prudence, purity, and temperance which will fit them for their duties. As to form, the detached couplet appears only occasionally; the favorite form is the quatrain; but proverbs of a greater number of lines are freely used, and one, the counsel on wine drinking (Proverbs 23:29-35), runs to 17 lines. In tone and specific counsel the section has many resemblances to the introductory section (Proverbs 1:1-33 through Proverbs 9:1-18), and provokes the conjecture that this latter section, as the introduction to a compiled body of Wisdom, was composed not long after it.

4. Some Left-over Precepts: The little appendix (Proverbs 24:23-34) is headed, "These also are sayings of the wise." They refer to wise intercourse and ordered industry. The little poem on the sluggard (Proverbs 24:30-34), with its refrain (Proverbs 24:33, 14), is noteworthy as being apparently one stanza of a poem which is completed with the same refrain in the introductory section (Proverbs 6:6-11). The stanzas are of the same length and structure; and it would seem the latter named was either discovered later or composed as a supplement to the one in this section.

5. The Hezekian Collection: The long section (Proverbs 25:1-28 through Proverbs 29:1-27) is headed, "These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." The collection claims to be only a compilation; but if, as already suggested, we understand the term "proverbs of Solomon" as equivalent to "Solomonic proverbs," referring rather to species than personal authorship, the compilation may have been made not merely from antiquity, but from the archives of the Wisdom guilds. If so, we have a clue to the state of the Wisdom literature in Hezekiah's time. The collection as a whole, unlike secs. 3 and 4, returns predominantly to the classic form of the couplet, but with a less degree of compression and epigram. There is a tendency to group numbers of proverbs on like subjects; note for instance the group on the king (Proverbs 25:2-7). The most striking-feature of the collection is the prevalence of simile and analogy, and in general the strong figurative coloring, especially in Proverbs 25:1-28 through Proverbs 27:1-27; it reads like a new species of proverb when we note that in all the earlier Solomonic sections there are only two clearly defined similes (Proverbs 10:26; 11:22). In Proverbs 25:1-28 through Proverbs 27:1-27 are several proverbs of three, four, or five lines, and at the end (Proverbs 27:23-27) a charming little poem of ten lines on husbandry. Proverbs 28:1-28; Proverbs 29:1-27 are entirely of couplets, and the antithetic proverb reappears in a considerable number. As to subject-matter, the thought of this section makes a rather greater demand on the reader's culture and thinking powers, the analogies being less obvious, more subtle. It is decidedly the reflection of a more literary age than that of section 2.

6. Words of Agur: Proverbs 30:1-33 is taken up with "the words of Agur the son of Jakeh," a person otherwise unknown, who disclaims expert knowledge of Wisdom lore (Proverbs 30:3), and avows an agnostic attitude toward theological speculations, yet shows a tender reverence before the name and unplumbed mystery of Yahweh (Proverbs 30:6, 9, 32). His words amount to a plea against a too adventurous, not to say presumptuous, spirit in the supposed findings of human Wisdom, and as such supply a useful makeweight to the mounting pride of the scholar. Yet over this peculiar plea is placed the word "Massa" (ha-massa'); "burden" or "oracle," the term used for prophetic disclosures; and the word for "said" ("the man said," ne'-um ha-genjer) is the word elsewhere used for mystic or divine utterance. This seems to mark a stage in the self-consciousness of Wisdom when it was felt that its utterances could be ranked by the side of prophecy as a revelation of truth (compare what Wisdom says of herself, Proverbs 8:14), and could claim the authoritative term "oracle." For the rest, apart from the humble reverence with which they are imbued, these words of Agur do not rise to a high level of spiritual thinking; they tend rather to the riddling element, or "dark sayings" (compare Proverbs 1:6). The form of his proverbs is peculiar, verging indeed on the artificial; he deals mostly in the so-called numerical proverb ("three things .... yea, four"), a style of utterance paralleled elsewhere only in Proverbs 6:16-19, but something of a favorite in the later cryptic sayings of the scribes, as may be seen in Pirqe 'Abhoth.

7. Words of King Lemuel: Proverbs 31:1-9 (possibly the whole chapter should be included) is headed, "The words of king Lemuel; the oracle which his mother taught him." Here occurs again the mysterious Word "oracle," which would seem to be open to the same interpretation as the one given in the previous paragraph, though some would make this otherwise unknown monarch a king of Massa, and refer to the name of one of the descendants of Ishmael (Genesis 25:14), presumably a tribal designation. The Hebrew sages from the beginning were in rivalry and fellowship with the sages of other nations (compare 1 Kings 4:30-31); and in the Book of Job, the supreme reach of Wisdom utterance, all of the sages, Job included, are from countries outside of Palestine. King Lemuel, if an actual personage, was not a Jew; and probably Agur was not. The words of Lemuel are a mother's plea to her royal son for chastity, temperance and justice, the kingly virtues. The form is the simple Hebrew parallelism, not detached couplets, but continuous.

8. An Acrostic Eulogy of Woman: The Book of Proverbs ends in a manner eminently worthy of its high standard of sanity and wisdom. Without any heading (it may possibly belong to the "oracle" that the mother of Lemuel taught her son) the last 22 verses (31:10-31) constitute a single poem in praise of a worthy woman, extolling especially her household virtues. In form these verses begin in the original with the successive 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet; a favorite form of Hebrew verse, as may be seen (in the original) in several of the psalms, notably Psalms 119:1-176, and in Lamentations 1:1-22 through Lamentations 4:1-22.

III. Movement toward a Philosophy. It has been much the fashion with modern critics to deny to the Hebrews a truly philosophic mind; this they say was rather the distinctive gift of the Greeks; while for their solution of the problem of life the Hebrews depended on direct revelation from above, which precluded that quasi-abeyance of concepts, that weighing of cosmic and human elements, involved in the commonly received notion of philosophy. This criticism takes account of only one side of the Hebrew mind. It is true they believed their life to be in direct contact with the will and word of Yahweh, revealed to them in terms which could not be questioned; but in the findings and deliverance of their own intellectual powers, too, they had a reliance and confidence which merits the name of an authentic philosophy. But theirs was a philosophy not of speculative world-making, but of conduct and the practical management of life; and it was intuitive and analogical, not the result of dialectical reasoning. Hence, its name wisdom, the solution itself, rather than philosophy, the love of wisdom, the search for solution. This Book of Proverbs, beginning with detached maxims on the elements of conduct, reveals in many suggestive ways the gradual emergence of a philosophy, a comprehensive wisdom, as it were, in the making; it is thus the pioneer book of that Hebrew Wisdom which we see developed to maturer things in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes. Some of its salient stages may here be traced.

1. Liberation of the Mashal: We may first note it, or the literary preparation for it, in the opening up of the mashal, or proverb unit, toward added elements of illustration, explanation, amplitude, a development that begins to appear, in the oldest section (the classic nucleus, section 2) at about Proverbs 16:1-33. The primitive antithetic mashal contrasted two aspects of truth in such a way as to leave the case closed; there was nothing for it but to go on to a new subject. This had the good effect of setting over against each other the great elemental antagonisms of life: righteousness and wickedness, obedience and lawlessness, teachableness and perversity, industry and laziness, prudence and presumption, reticence and prating, etc., and so far forth it was a masterly analysis of the essentials of individual and social conduct. As soon, however, as the synonymous and illustrative mashal prevails, we are conscious of a limbering up and greater penetrativeness of the range of thought; it is open to subtler distinctions and remoter discoveries, and the analogies tend to employ the less direct relationships of cause and effect. This is increased as we go on, especially by the greater call upon the imagination in the figurative tissue of the Hezekian section, and by the decidedly greater tendency to the riddling and paradox element. The mashal increases in length and amplitude, both by the grouping of similar subjects and by the enlargement from the couplet to the quatrain and the developed poem. All this, while not yet a self-conscious philosophy, is a step on the way thereto.

2. Emergence of Basal Principles: One solid presupposition of the sages, like an axiom, was never called in question: namely, that righteousness and wisdom are identical, that wickedness of any sort is folly. This imparts at once a kind of prophetic coloring to the Wisdom precepts, well represented by the opening proverb in the original section (after the prefatory one about the wise son), "Treasures of wickedness profit nothing; but righteousness delivereth from death" (Proverbs 10:2). Thus from the outset is furnished an uncompromising background on which the fascinating allurements of vice, the crooked ways of injustice and dishonesty, the sober habits of goodness and right dealing, show for what they are and what they tend to. The sages thus put themselves, too, in entire harmony with what is taught by priests and prophets; there is no quarrel with the law or the word; they simply supply the third strand in the threefold cord of instruction (compare Jeremiah 18:18). From this basal presumption other principles, scarcely less axiomatic, come in view: that the fount and spring of wise living is reverence, the fear of Yahweh; that the ensuring frame of mind is teachableness, the precluding attitude perverseness; that it is the mark of wisdom, or righteousness, to be fearless and above board, of wickedness, which is folly, to be crooked and secretive. These principles recur constantly, not, as a system, but in numerous aspects and applications in the practical business of life. For their sanctions they refer naively to the Hebrew ideal of rewards on the one hand--wealth, honor, long life, family (compare Proverbs 11:31)--and of shame and loss and destruction on the other; but these are emphasized not as direct bestowments or inflictions from a personal Deity, rather as in the law of human nature. The law that evil works its own destruction, good brings its own reward, is forming itself in men's reason as one of the fundamental concepts out of which grew the Wisdom philosophy.

3. The Conception of Wisdom: From times long before Solomon sagacity in counsel, and. skill to put such counsel into maxim or parable, gave their possessor, whether man or woman, a natural leadership and repute in the local communities (compare 2 Samuel 14:2; 20:16); and Solomon's exceptional endowment showed itself not merely in his literary tastes, but in his ability, much esteemed among Orientals, to determine the merits of cases brought before him for judgment (1 Kings 3:16-28), and to answer puzzling questions (1 Kings 10:1, 6-7). It was from such estimate of men's intellectual powers, from the recognition of mental alertness, sagacity, grasp, in their application to the practical issues of life (compare Proverbs 1:1-5), that the conception of Wisdom in its larger sense arose. As, however, the cultivation of such sagacity of utterance passed beyond the pastime of a royal court (compare 1 Kings 4:29-34) into the hands of city elders and sages it attained to greatly enhanced value; note how the influence of such sage is idealized (Job 29:7-25). The sages had definite calling and mission of their own, more potent perhaps than belonged to priests and prophets; the frequent reference to the young and the "simple" or immature in the Book of Prov would indicate that they were virtually the schoolmasters and educators of the nation. As such, working as they did in a fellowship and collaboration with each other, the subject-matter with which they dealt would not remain as casual and miscellaneous maxims, but work toward a center and system of doctrine which could claim the distinction of an articulated philosophy of life, and all the more since it was so identified with the great Hebrew ideal of righteousness and truth. We have already noted how this sense of the dignity and value of their calling manifested itself in the body of precepts sent in response to solicitation (3 above), with its appendix (4 above) (Proverbs 22:17 through Proverbs 24:34). It was not long after this stage of Wisdom-culture, I think, that a very significant new word came into their vocabulary, the word (tushiyah, a puzzle to the translators, variously rendered "sound wisdom," "effectual working," and called by the lexicographers "a technical term of the Wisdom literature," BDB, under the word). Its earliest appearance, and the only one except in the introductory section (Proverbs 18:1), is where the man who separates himself from others' opinions and seeks his own desire is said to quarrel with all tushiyah. The word seems to designate Wisdom in its subjective aspect, as an authentic insight or intuition of truth, the human power to rise into the region of true revelation from below, as distinguished from the prophetic or legal word spoken directly from above. Outside of Proverbs and Job the word occurs only twice: once in Micah 6:9, and once in Isaiah 28:29, in which latter case the prophet has deliberately composed a passage (Isaiah 28:23-29) in the characteristic mashal idiom, and attributed that strain of insight to Yahweh. Evidently there came a time in the culture of Wisdom when its utterances attained in men's estimate to a parity with utterances direct from the unseen; perhaps this explains why Agur's and Lemuel's words could be boldly ranked as oracles (see above, 6 and 7). At any rate, such a high distinction, an authority derived from intimacy with the creative work of Yahweh (Proverbs 8:30-31), is ascribed to Wisdom (chokhmah, in the introductory section; "counsel is mine," Wisdom is made to say, "and tushiyah" (Proverbs 8:14). Thus the Book of Proverbs reveals to us a philosophy, as it were, in the making and from scattered counsels attaining gradually to the summit where the human intellect could place its findings by the side of divine oracles.

IV. Considerations of Age and Literary Kinship. To get at the history of the Book of Proverbs, several inquiries must be raised. When were the proverbs composed? The book, like the Book of Psalms, is confessedly an anthology, containing various accumulations, and both by style and maturing thought bearing the marks of different ages. When were the successive compilations made? And, finally, when did the strain of literature here represented reach that point of self-conscious unity and coordination which justified its being reckoned with as a strain by itself and choosing the comprehensive name Wisdom? What makes these inquiries hard to answer is the fact that these proverbs are precepts for the common people, relating to ordinary affairs of the village, the market, and the field, and move in lines remote from politics and dynastic vicissitudes and wars. They are, to an extent far more penetrative and pervasive than law or prophecy, the educative literature on which the sturdy rank and file of the nation was nourished. `Where there is no vision, the people let loose,' says a Hezekian proverb (Proverbs 29:18); but so they are also when there is no abiding tonic of social convention and principle. Precisely this latter it is which this Book of Prey in a large degree reveals; and in course of time its value was so felt that, as we have seen, it could rank itself as an asset of life by the side of vision. It represents, in a word, the human movement toward self-directiveness and self-reliance, without supine dependence on ruler or public sentiment (compare Proverbs 29:25-26). When and how was this sane and wholesome communal fiber developed?

1. Under the Kings: When Solomon and his court made the mashal an elegant fad, they builded better than they knew. They gave to the old native form of the proverb and parable, as reduced to epigrammatic mold and polish, the eclat of a popular literature. This was done orally at first (Solomon spoke his proverbs, 1 Kings 4:32-33); but the recording of such carefully expressed utterances could not be long delayed; perhaps this brief style coupe was the most natural early exercise in the new transition from the unwieldly cuneiform to the use of papyrus and a more flexible alphabet, which probably came in with the monarchy. At any rate, here was the medium for a practical didactic literature, applied to the matters of daily life and intercourse to which in Solomon's time the nation was enthusiastically awake. There is no valid reason for denying to Solomon, or at least to his time, the initiation of the Solomonic mashal; and if, as has been suggested, the name "proverbs of Solomon" designates rather literary species than personal authorship, the title of the whole book (Proverbs 1:1), as well as the headings of sections (Proverbs 10:1; 25:1), may be given in entire good faith, whatever the specific time or personal authorship of the utterances. Nor is there anything either in recorded history or the likelihood of the case to make improbable that the activity of the "men of Hezekiah" means just what is said; these men of letters were adding this supplementary collection (Proverbs 25:1-28 through Proverbs 29:1-27) to a body of proverbs that already existed and were recognized as Solomon's. This would put the composition of the main body of the Proverbs (chapters 10 through 29) prior to the reign of Hezekiah. They represent therefore the chief literary instruction available to the people in the long period of the Kings from Solomon onward, a period which otherwise was very meagerly supplied. The Mosaic Law, as we gather from the finding of the Law in the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22:1-20), was at best a sequestered thing in the keeping--or neglect--of priests and judges; the prophetic word was a specific message for great national emergencies; the accumulations of sacred song were the property of the temple and the cult; what then was there for the education of the people? There were indeed the folk-tales and catechetical legends of their heroic history; but there were also, most influential of all, these wise sayings of the sages, growing bodies of precept and parable, preserved in village centers, published in the open places by the gate (compare Job 29:7), embodying the elements of a common-sense religion and citizenship, and representing views of life which were not only Hebrew, but to a great extent international among the neighbor kingdoms. Understood so, these Solomonic proverbs furnish incomparably the best reflection we have of the religious and social standards of the common people, during a period otherwise meagerly portrayed. And from it we can understand what a sterling fiber of character existed after all, and how well worth preserving for a unique mission in the world, in spite of the idolatrous corruptions that invaded the sanctuaries, the self-pleasing unconcern of the rulers and the pessimistic denunciations of the prophets.

2. The Concentrative Point: For the point in the Hebrew literary history when these scattered Solomonic proverbs were recognized as a homogeneous strain of thought and the compilations were made and recommended as Wisdom, we can do no better, I think, than to name the age of Israel's literary prime, the age of Hezekiah. The "men of Hezekiah" did more than append their supplementary section (Proverbs 25:1-28 through Proverbs 29:1-27); the words "these also" (gam 'elleh) in their heading imply it.

See HEZEKIAH,THE MEN OF .

I apprehend the order and nature of their work somehow thus: Beginning with the classic nucleus (Proverbs 10:1-32 through Proverbs 22:16) (see above,II , 2), which may have come to them in two subsections (Proverbs 10:1-32 through Proverbs 15:1-33; Proverbs 16:1-33 through Proverbs 22:16), they put these together as the proverbs most closely associated with Solomon, without much attempt at systematizing, substantially as these had accumulated through the ages in the rough order of their developing form and thought; compiling thus, in their zeal for the literary treasures of the past, the body of educational literature which lay nearest at hand, a body adapted especially, though not exclusively, to the instruction of the young and immature. This done, there next came to their knowledge a remarkable body of "words of the wise" (Proverbs 22:17 through Proverbs 24:22), which had evidently been put together by request as a vade mecum for some persons in responsible position, and which were prefaced by a recommendation of them as "words of truth" designed to promote "trust in Yahweh" (Proverbs 22:19-21)--which latter, as we know from Isaiah, was the great civic issue of Hezekiah's time. With this section naturally goes the little appendix of "sayings of the wise" (Proverbs 24:23-34), added probably at about the same time. These two sections, which seem to open the collection to matter beyond the distinctive Solomonic mashal, are, beyond the rest of the book, in the tone of the introductory section (Proverbs 1:1-33 through Proverbs 9:1-18), which latter, along with the Hezekian appendix (Proverbs 25:1-28 through Proverbs 29:1-27), was added, partly as a new composition, partly as incorporating some additional findings (compare for instance the completion of the poem on the sluggard, Proverbs 6:6-11). Thus, by the addition of this introductory section, the Book of Proverbs was recognized as a unity, provided with a preface and initial proposition (Proverbs 1:1-6, 7), and launched with such hortatory material as had already, on a smaller scale, introduced the third section. This part not only contains the praise of Wisdom as a human endowment, sharing in the mind and purpose of the divine (Proverbs 8:22-31), but it has become aware also of the revelatory value of tushiyah (Proverbs 2:7; 3:21; 8:14), or chastened intuition (see above,III , 3), and dares to aspire, in its righteous teachableness, to the intimacy or secret friendship of Yahweh (codho, 3:32). All this indicates the holy self-consciousness to which Wisdom has attained.

I see no cogent reason for postponing the substantial completion of the Book of Proverbs beyond the time of Hezekiah. The words of Agur and of King Lemuel, with the final acrostic poem, may be later additions; but their difference in tone and workmanship is just as likely to be due to the fact that they are admitted, in the liberal spirit of the compilers, from foreign stores of wisdom. For spiritual clarity and intensity they do not rise to the height of the native Hebrew consciousness; and they incline to an artificial structure which suggests that the writer's interest is divided between sincere tushiyah and literary skill. For the sake of like-minded neighbors, however, something may be forgiven.

3. Its Stage in Progressive Wisdom: It is too early in the history of Wisdom to regard this Book of Proverbs as an articulated and coordinated system. It is merely what it purports to be, a collected body of literature having a common bearing and purpose; a literature of reverent and intelligent self-culture, moving among the ordinary relations of life, and not assuming to embody any mystic disclosures of truth beyond the reach of human reason. As such, it has a vocabulary and range of ideas of its own, which distinguishes it from other strains of literature. This is seen in those passages outside of the Book of Proverbs which deliberately assume, for some specific purpose, the Wisdom dialect. In Isaiah 28:23-29, the prophet, whom the perverse rulers have taunted with baby-talk (Isaiah 28:9-10), appeals to them with the characteristic Wisdom call to attention (Isaiah 28:23), and in illustrations drawn from husbandry proves to them that this also is from Yahweh of hosts, `who is transcendent in counsel, preeminent in tushiyah' (Isaiah 28:29)--teaching them thus in their own vaunted idiom. In Micah 6:9-15, similarly, calling in tushiyah to corroborate prophecy ("the voice of Yahweh," qol Yahweh, wethushiyah, Micah 6:9), the prophet speaks of the natural disasters that men ought to deduce from their abuse of trade relations, evidently appealing to them in their own favorite strain of thinking. Both these passages seem to reflect a time when the Wisdom dialect was prevalent and popular, and both are concerned to call in sound human intuition as an ally of prophecy. At the same time, as prophets have the right to do, they labor to give revelation the casting vote; the authentic disclosure of truth from Yahweh is their objective, not the mere luxury of making clever observations on practical life. All this coincides, in the Wisdom sphere, with what in Isaiah's and Micah's time was the supreme issue of state, namely trust in Yahweh, rather than in crooked human devices (compare Isaiah 28:16; 29:15); and it is noteworthy that this is the venture of Wisdom urged by the editors of Proverbs in their introductory exhortations (compare Isaiah 22:19; Isaiah 3:5-8). In other words, these editors are concerned with inducing a spiritual attitude; and so in their literary strain they make their book an adjunct in the movement toward spirituality which Isaiah is laboring to promote. As yet, however, its findings are still in the peremptory stage, stated as absolute and unqualified truths; it has not reached the sober testing of fact and interrogation of motive which it must encounter in order to become a seasoned philosophy of life. Its main pervading thesis--that righteousness in the fear of God is wisdom and bound for success, that wickedness is fatuity and bound for destruction--is eternally sound; but it must make itself good in a world where so many of the enterprises of life seem to come out the other way, and where there is so little appreciation of spiritual values. Nor is the time of skepticism and rigid test long in coming. Two psalms of this period (as I apprehend) (Psalms 73:1-28 and Psalms 49:1-20) concern themselves with the anomaly of the success of the wicked and the trials of the righteous; the latter pointedly adopting the Wisdom or mashal style of utterance (Psalms 49:3-4), both laboring to induce a more inward and spiritual attitude toward the problem. It remains, however, for the Book of Job to take the momentous forward step of setting wisdom on the unshakable foundation of spiritual integrity, which it does by subjecting its findings to the rigid test of fact and its motives to a drastic Satanic sifting. It is thus in the Book of Job, followed later by the Book of Ecclesiastes, that the Wisdom strain of literature, initiated by the Proverbs of Solomon, finds its Old Testament culmination.

John Franklin Genung

Providence, 1

Providence, 1 - prov'-i-dens:

I. PROVIDENCE DEFINED

II. DIFFERENT SPHERES OF PROVIDENTIAL ACTIVITY DISTINGUISHED

III. BIBLICAL PRESENTATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE

1. Divine Providence in the Old Testament Scriptures

(1) Providence in the Pentateuch

(2) The Historical Books of the Old Testament

(3) The Psalms

(4) The Wisdom Literature

(5) The Book of Job

(6) The Prophetical Writings

2. Divine Providence in the New Testament

(1) The Synoptic Gospels

(2) The Johannine Writings

(3) The Book of Acts and Other New Testament History

(4) The Pauline Epistles

(5) The Petrine Epistles, and Other New Testament Writings

3. Old Testament and New Testament Doctrines of Providence Compared

(1) The New Emphasis on the Fatherhood and Love of God

(2) The Place of Christ and the Holy Spirit in Providence

(3) The New Emphasis upon Moral and Spiritual Blessings

IV. DISCUSSION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

1. Different Views of Providence Compared

(1) The Atheistic or Materialistic View

(2) The Pantheistic View

(3) The Deistic View

(4) The Theistic or Biblical View

(5) The Divine Immanence

2. The Divine Purpose and Final End of Providence

3. Special Providence

(1) Spiritual, Not Material, Good to Man the End Sought in Special Providence

(2) Special Providence and "Accidents"

(3) Special Providence as Related to Piety and Prayer

(4) Special Providence as Related to Human Cooperation

(5) General and Special Providence Both Equally Divine

4. Divine Providence and Human Free Will

(1) Divine Providence as Related to Willing Wills

(2) Divine Providence as Related to Sinful Free Will

5. Divine Providence as Related to Natural and Moral Evil

6. Evil Providentially Overruled for Good

7. Interpreting Providence

8. Conclusion

LITERATURE

I. Providence Defined. The word "provide" (from Latin providere) means etymologically "to foresee." The corresponding Greek word, pronoia, means "forethought." Forethought and foresight imply a future end, a goal and a definite purpose and plan for attaining that end. The doctrine of final ends is a doctrine of final causes, and means that that which is last in realization and attainment is first in mind and thought. The most essential attribute of rational beings is that they act with reference to an end; that they act not only with thought but with forethought. As, therefore, it is characteristic of rational beings to make preparation for every event that is foreseen or anticipated, the word "providence" has come to be used less in its original etymological meaning of foresight than to signify that preparation care and supervision which are necessary to secure a desired future result. While all rational beings exercise a providence proportioned to their powers, yet it is only when the word is used with reference to the Divine Being who is possessed of infinite knowledge and power that it takes on its real and true significance. The doctrine of divine providence, therefore, has reference to that preservation care and government which God exercises over all things that He has created in order they may accomplish the ends for which they were created.

"Providence is the most comprehensive term in the language of theology. It is the background of all the several departments of religious truth, a background mysterious in its commingled brightness and darkness. It penetrates and fills the whole compass of the relations of man with his Maker. It connects the unseen God with the visible creation, and the visible creation with the work of redemption, and redemption with personal salvation, and personal salvation with the end of all things. It carries our thoughts back to the supreme purpose which was in the beginning with God, and forward to the foreseen end and consummation of all things, while it includes between these the whole infinite variety of the dealings of God with man" (W. B. Pope, Compendium of Christian Theology, I, 456).

II. Different Spheres of Providential Activity Distinguished.

The created universe may be conveniently divided, with reference divine providence, into three departments: first, the inanimate or physical universe, which is conserved or governed by God according to certain uniform principles called the laws of Nature; secondly, animate existence, embracing the vegetable and animal world, over which God exercises that providential care which is necessary to sustain the life that He created; and thirdly, the rational world, composed of beings who, in addition to animate life, are possessed of reason and moral free agency, and are governed by God, not necessitatively, but through an appeal to reason, they having the power to obey or disobey the laws of God according to the decision of their own free wills. This widespread care and supervision which God exercises over His created universe is commonly designated as His general providence which embraces alike the evil and the good, in addition to which there is a more special and particular providence which He exercises over and in behalf of the good, those whose wills are in harmony with the divine will.

III. Biblical Presentation of the Doctrine of Providence.

The word "providence" is used only once in the Scriptures (Acts 24:2), and here it refers, not to God, but to the forethought and work of man, in which sense it is now seldom used. (See also Romans 13:14, where the same Greek word is translated "provision.") While, however, the Biblical use of the word calls for little consideration, the doctrine indicated by the term "providence" is one of the most significant in the Christian system, and is either distinctly stated or plainly assumed by every Biblical writer. The Old Testament Scriptures are best understood when interpreted as a progressive revelation of God's providential purpose for Israel and the world. Messianic expectations pervade the entire life and literature of the Hebrew people, and the entire Old Testament dispensation may not improperly be regarded as the moral training and providential preparation of the world, and especially of the chosen people, for the coming Messiah. In the apocryphal "Book of Wisdom" the word "providence" is twice used (Wisd 14:3; 17:2) in reference to God's government of the World. Rabbinical Judaism, according to Josephus, was much occupied with discussing the relation of divine providence to human free will. The Sadducees, he tells us, held an extreme view of human freedom, while the Essenes were believers in absolute fate; the Pharisees, avoiding these extremes, believed in both the overruling providence of God and in the freedom and responsibility of man (Ant., XIII, v, 9; XVIII, i, 3; BJ, II, viii, 14). See PHARISEES. The New Testament begins with the announcement that the "kingdom of heaven is at hand," which declaration carries along with it the idea of a providential purpose and design running through the preceding dispensation that prepared for the Messiah's coming. But the work of Christ is set forth in the New Testament, not only as the culmination of a divine providence that preceded it, but as the beginning of a new providential order, a definite and far-reaching plan, for the redemption of the world, a forethought and plan so comprehensive that it gives to the very idea of divine providence a new, larger and richer meaning, both intensively and extensively, than it ever had before. The minutest want of the humblest individual and the largest interests of the world-wide kingdom of God are alike embraced within the scope of divine providence as it is set forth by Christ and the apostles.

1. Divine Providence in the Old Testament Scriptures:

(1) Providence in the Pentateuch.

The opening sentence of the Scriptures, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," is a noble and majestic affirmation of God's essential relationship to the origin of all things. It is followed by numerous utterances scattered throughout the sacred volume that declare that He who created also preserves and governs all that He created. But the Israelite nation was from the beginning of its history, in the Hebrew conception, the special object of God's providence and care, though it was declared that Yahweh's lordship and government extended over all the earth (Exodus 8:22). The Deuteronomist (Deuteronomy 10:14) uses language which implies that divine possession of all things in heaven and earth carries along with it the idea of divine providence and control; and he also regards Israel as Yahweh's peculiar possession and special care (Deuteronomy 32:8).

This special providence that was over the elect nation as a whole was also minute and particular, in that special individuals were chosen to serve a providential purpose in the making of the nation, and were divinely-guided in the accomplishment of their providential mission. Thus Abraham's providential place in history is set forth in Nehemiah 9:7-8. Jacob acknowledges the same providential hand in his life (Genesis 31:42; 48:15). The life of Joseph abounds in evidences of a divine providence (Genesis 45:5, 7; 50:20). The whole life-history of Moses as it is found in the Pentateuch is a study in the doctrine of divine providence. Other lives as set forth in these early narratives may be less notable, but they are not less indebted to divine providence for what they are and for what they accomplish for others. Indeed, as Professor Oehler remarks, "The whole Pentateuchal history of revelation is nothing but the activity of that divine providence which in order to the realization of the divine aim, is at once directed to the whole, and at the same time proves itself efficacious in the direction of the life of separate men, and in the guiding of all circumstances" (Old Testament Theology).

(2) The Historical Books of the Old Testament.

In a sense all the books of the Old Testament are historical in that they furnish material for writing a history of the people of Israel. See ISRAEL,HISTORY OF . The Pentateuch, the Poetical Books, the Wisdom Literature, the Prophets, all furnish material for writing Old Testament history; but there is still left a body of literature, including the books from Joshua to Esther that may with peculiar fitness designated as historical. These books are all, in an important sense, an interpretation and presentation of the facts of Hebrew history in their relation to divine providence. The sacred historians undertake to give something of a divine philosophy of history, to interpret in a religious way the facts of history, to point out the evils of individual and national sin and the rewards and blessings of righteousness, and to show God's ever-present and ever-guiding hand in human history--that He is not a silent spectator of human affairs, but the supreme moral Governor of the universe, to whom individuals and nations alike owe allegiance. To the Hebrew historian every event in the life of the nation has a moral significance, both because of its relation to God and because of its bearing on the providential mission and testing of Israel as the people of God. The Book of Judges, which covers the "dark ages" of Bible history, and is an enigma to many in the study of God's hand in history, shows how far God must needs condescend at times in His use of imperfect and even sensual men through whom to reveal His will and accomplish His work in the world. While therefore He condescends to use as instruments of His providence such men as Samson and Jephthah, it is never through these that He does His greatest work, but through an Abraham, a Joseph, a Moses, an Isaiah, through men of lofty moral character. And this is one of the most notable lessons of Old Testament history if it be studied as a revelation of God's providential methods and instrumentalities. Among these historical writers none has given clearer and stronger expression to God's providential relation to the physical world as its preserver and to the moral world as its Divine Governor than the author of Nehemiah. "Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all. .... Yet thou in thy manifold mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go. Thou gavest also thy good spirit to instruct them" (Nehemiah 9:6, 19-20 the King James Version). His words reflect the views that were entertained by all the Old Testament historains as to God's hand in the government and guidance of the nation. Hebrew history, because of the divine promises and divine providence, is ever moving forward toward the Messianic goal.

(3) The Psalms.

The poets are among the world's greatest religious teachers, and theology of the best poets generally represents the highest and purest faith that is found among a people. Applying this truth to the Hebrew race, we may say that in the Psalms and the Book of Job we reach the high-water mark of the Old Testament revelation as to the doctrine of divine providence. The Psalmist's God is not only the Creator and Preserver of all things, but is a prayer-hearing and prayer-answering God, a Being so full of tender mercy and loving-kindness that we cannot fail to identify Him with the God whom Christ taught us to call "our Father." Nowhere else in the entire Scriptures, except in the Sermon on the Mount, can we find such a full and clear exhibition of the minute and special providence of God over His faithful and believing children as in the Psalms--notably such as Psalms 91:1-16; Psalms 103:1-22; Psalms 104:1-35 and Psalms 139:1-24. Psalms 105:1-45 traces God's hand in providential and gracious guidance through every stage of Israel's wondrous history. Thanksgiving and praise for providential mercies and blessings abound in Psalms 44:1-26; Psalms 66:1-20; Psalms 78:1-72; Psalms 85:1-13; Psalms 138:1-8. While the relation of God's power and providence to the physical universe and to the material and temporal blessings of life is constantly asserted in the Psalms, yet it is the connection of God's providence with man's ethical and spiritual nature, with righteousness and faith and love, that marks the highest characteristic of the Psalmist's revelation of the doctrine of providence. That righteousness and obedience are necessary conditions and accompaniments of divine providence in its moral aspects and results is evidenced by numerous declarations of the psalmists (Psalms 1:6; Psalms 31:19-20; 74:12; 84:11; 91:1; 125:2). This thought finds happiest expression in Psalms 37:23 the King James Version: "The steps of a good man are ordered of the Lord, and he delighteth in his way." The inspired poets make it plain that the purpose of divine providence is not merely to meet temporal wants and bring earthly blessings, but to secure the moral good of individuals and nations.

(4) The Wisdom Literature.

The doctrine of providence finds ample and varied expression in the wisdom Lit. of the Old Testament, notably in the Book of Proverbs. The power that preserves and governs and guides is always recognized as inseparable from the power that creates and commands (Proverbs 3:21-26; 16:4). Divine providence does not work independently of man's free will; providential blessings are conditioned on character and conduct (Proverbs 26:10 the King James Version; Proverbs 2:7-8; 2, 21). There cannot be, in Old Testament terms of faith, any stronger statement of the doctrine of divine providence than that given by the Wise Men of Israel in the following utterances recorded in the Book of Proverbs: "In thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy paths" (Proverbs 3:6); "A man's heart deviseth his way, but Yahweh directeth his steps" (Proverbs 16:9) "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh" (Proverbs 16:33); "A man's goings are of Yahweh" (Proverbs 20:24); "The king's heart is in the hand of Yahweh as the watercourses: He turneth it whithersoever he will" (Proverbs 21:1); "The horse is prepared against the day of battle; but victory is of Yahweh" (Proverbs 21:31). See also Proverbs 3:21-26; 2, 21. The conception of providence that is presented in the Book of Ecclesiastes seems to reflect the views of one who had had experience in sin and had come into close contact with many of life's ills. All things have their appointed time, but the realization of the providential purposes and ends of creaturely existence is, wherever human free agency is involved, always conditioned upon man's exercise of his free will. The God of providence rules and overrules, but He does not by His omnipotence overpower and override and destroy man's true freedom. Things that are do not reflect God's perfect providence, but rather His providence as affected by human free agency and as marred by man's sin (Ecclesiastes 3:1-11). "I know that there is nothing better for them, than to rejoice, and to do good so long as they live: And also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy good in all his labor, is the gift of God" (Ecclesiastes 3:12-13; see also Ecclesiastes 3:14); "The righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God" (Ecclesiastes 9:1); "The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" (Ecclesiastes 9:11). The same conclusion that the author of Ecclesiastes reached as to how human life is affected by divine providence and man's sin has found expression in the oft-quoted lines of the great poet:

"There's a Divinity that shapes our ends,

Rough-hew them how we will."

(5) The Book of Job.

The greatest of all the inspired contributions to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament, the Book of Job, demands special consideration. It is the one book in the Bible that is devoted wholly to a discussion of divine providence. The perplexities of a thoughtful mind on the subject of divine providence and its relation to human suffering have nowhere in the literature of the world found stronger and clearer expression than in this inspired drama which bears the name of its unique and marvelous hero, Job. Job represents not only a great sufferer, but an honest doubter: he dared to doubt theology of his day, a theology which he had himself doubtless believed until experience, the best of all teachers, taught him its utter inadequacy to explain the deepest problems of human life and of divine providence. The purpose of this book in the inspired volume seems to be to correct the prevailing theology of the day with regard to the subject of Sin and suffering in their relation to divine providence. There is no more deplorable and hurtful error that a false theology could teach than that all suffering in this world is a proof of sin and a measure of one's guilt (see AFFLICTION). It is hard enough for the innocent to suffer. To add to their suffering by them that it is all because they are awful sinners, even though their hearts assure them that they are not, is to lay upon the innocent a burden too grievous to be borne. The value in the inspired Canon of a book written to reveal the error of such a misleading doctrine as this cannot easily be over-estimated. The invaluable contribution which this book makes to the Biblical doctrine of providence is to be found, not in individual and detached sayings, striking and suggestive as some of these may be, but rather in the book as a whole. Statements concerning God's general abound in this inspired drama--such these, for example: "Who knoweth not in all these, that the hand of Yahweh hath wrought this, in whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?" (Job 12:9-10) ; "Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world? .... He shall break in pieces mighty men without number, and set others in their stead" (Job 34:13-14 the King James Version).

But the special contribution of the Book of Job to the doctrine of divine providence, as already indicated, is to set forth its connection with the fact of sin and suffering. Perplexed souls in all ages have been asking: If God be all-powerful and all-good, why should there be any suffering in a world which He created and over which He rules? If He cannot prevent suffering is He omnipotent? If He can, but will not prevent suffering, is He infinitely good? Does the book solve the mystery? We cannot claim that it does. But it does vindicate the character of God, the Creator, and of Job, the moral free agent under trial. It does show the place of suffering in a moral world where free agents are forming Character; it does show that perfect moral character is made, not by divine omnipotence, but by trial, and that physical suffering serves a moral end in God's providential government of men and nations. While the book does not clear the problem of mystery, it does show how on the dark background of a suffering world the luminous holiness of divine and human character may be revealed. The picture of this suffering man of Uz, racked with bodily pains and irritated by the ill-spoken words of well-meaning friends, planting himself on the solid rock of his own conscious rectitude, and defying earth and hell to prove him guilty of wrong, and knowing that his Vindicator liveth and would come to his rescue--that is an inspired picture that will make every innocent sufferer who reads it stronger until the end of time.

Providence, 2

Providence, 2 - Continued from PROVIDENCE, 1.

IV. Discussion of the Contents of the Biblical Doctrine.

1. Different Views of Providence Compared: There are four distinct conceptions of providence as it concerns God's relation to the ongoing of the world and to man, the rational and moral free agent whom He has placed upon it, namely, the atheistic, the deistic, the pantheistic, and theistic or Biblical view. See also GOD, I, 4. The last named view can best be understood only when stated in comparison and contrast with these opposing views.

(1) The Atheistic or Materialistic View: Atheism or materialism, stands at one extreme, affirming that there is no God, that the material universe is eternal, and that from material atoms, eternally endowed with certain properties, there have come, by a process of evolution, all existing forms of vegetable, animal and rational life. As materialism denies the existence of a personal Creator, it, of course, denies any and every doctrine of divine providence.

(2) The Pantheistic View: Pantheism stands at the other extreme from atheism, teaching that God is everything and everything is God. The created universe is "the living garment" of God--God is the soul of the world, the universe His existence form. But God is an infinite It, not a personal Being who can express His existence in terms of selfconsciousness--I, Thou, He, Providence, according to pantheism, is simply the evolution of impersonal deity, differing from materialism only in the name which it gives to the infinite substance from which all things flow.

(3) The Deistic View: Deism teaches that there is a God, and that He created the world, but created things do not need His presence and the exercise of His power in order to continue in existence and fulfill their functions. The material world is placed under immutable law; while man, the rational and moral free agent, is left to do as he wills. God sustains, according to deism, very much the same relation to the universe that the clock-maker does to his timepiece. Having made his clock, and wound it up, he does not interfere with it, and the longer it can run without the maker's intervention the greater the evidence of wisdom and skill on the part of the maker. God according to deism has never wrought a miracle nor made a supernatural revelation to man. The only religion that is possible to man is natural religion; he may reason from Nature up to Nature's God. The only value of prayer is its subjective influence; it helps us to answer our own prayers, to become and be what we are praying to be. If the Divine Being is a prayer-hearing God, He is least not a prayer-answering God. The laws of Nature constitute God's general providence; but there is no other personal and special providence than this, according to deism. God, the deists affirm, is too great, too distant, too transcendent a Being to concern Himself with the details of creaturely existence.

(4) The Theistic or Biblical View: The theistic or Biblical conception of providence teaches that God is not only the Creator but the Preserver of the universe, and that the preservation of the universe, no less than its creation, implies and necessitates at every moment of time an omnipotent and omnipresent personal Being. This world is not "governed by the laws of Nature," as deism teaches, but it is "governed by God according to the laws of Nature." "Law," in itself, is an impotent thing, except as it is the expression of a free will or person back of it; "the laws of Nature" are meaningless and impotent, except as they are an expression of the uniform mode, according to which God preserves and governs the world. It is customary to speak of the laws of Nature as if they were certain self-existent forces or powers governing the world. But shall we not rather say that there is no real cause except personal will--either the divine will or created wills? If this be true, then it is inconsistent to say that God has committed the government of the physical universe to "secondary causes"--that is, to the laws of Nature--and that these laws are not immediately dependent upon Him for their efficiency. The omnipresent and ever-active God is the only real force and power and cause in the universe, except as created wills may be true and real causes within their limited bounds. This view of God's relation to the created universe serves to distinguish the Biblical doctrine of divine providence from the teachings of materialists and deists, who eliminate entirely the divine hand from the ongoing of the universe, and in its stead make a god of the "laws of Nature," and hence, have no need for a divine preserver. Biblical theism makes ample room for the presence of the supernatural and miraculous, but we must not be blind to a danger here, in that it is possible to make so much of the presence of God in the supernatural (revelation, inspiration, and miracle) as to overlook entirely His equally important and necessary presence in the natural--which would be to encourage a deistical conception of God's relation to the world by exaggerating His transcendence at the expense of His immanence. That is the true theistic doctrine of providence which, while not undervaluing the supernatural and miraculous, yet stedfastly maintains that God is none the less present in, and necessary to, what is termed the "natural."

(5) The Divine Immanence. This idea of God's essential relation to the continuation of all things in existence is perhaps best expressed by the term "immanence." Creation emphasizes God's transcendence, while providence emphasizes His immanence. Pantheism affirms God's immanence, but denies His transcendence. Deism affirms His transcendence, but denies His immanence. Biblical theism teaches that God is both transcendent and immanent. By the term "transcendence," when applied to God, is meant that the Divine Being is a person, separate and distinct from Nature and above Nature--"Nature" being used here in its largest signification as including all created things. By the Divine Immanence is meant that God is in Nature as well as over Nature, and that the continuance of Nature is as directly and immediately dependent upon Him as the origin of Nature--indeed, by some, God's preservation of the created universe is defined as an act of "continuous creation." By the Divine Immanence is meant something more than omnipresence, which term, in itself alone, does not affirm any causal relation between God and the thing to which He is present, whereas the term "immanence" does affirm such causal relation. By asserting the Divine Immanence, therefore, as the mode of God's providential efficiency, we affirm that all created things are dependent upon Him for continued existence, that the laws of Nature have no efficiency apart from their Creator and Preserver, that God is to be sought and seen in all forms and phases of creaturely existence, in the natural as well as the supernatural and miraculous, that He is not only omnipresent but always and everywhere active both in the natural and the spiritual world, and that without Him neither the material atom, nor the living organism, nor the rational soul could have any being. He not only created all things, but "by him all things consist," that is, by Him all things are preserved in being.

2. The Divine Purpose and Final End of Providence:

What, then, let us ask, do the Scriptures teach as to the purpose and end of God's providential goverment of the world? Back of this question is another: What was the divine motive and supreme thought in the creation of the universe, and what the final cause and end of all things in the mind and purpose of God? If we can think God's thoughts after Him and discover this "final cause" of creation, with even approximate accuracy, then we shall find a principle that will illuminate at least, if it does not fully explain, the methods and mysteries of providence. We venture to affirm that the controlling thought in the mind of God in establishing this order of things, of which we are a conscious part, was to create a race of beings who should find their highest happiness by being in the highest degree holy, and who should, in proportion as they attain their highest holiness and happiness, thereby in the highest degree glorify their Creator. The Creator's highest glory can be promoted only by such beings as are at once rational, moral, free, holy. There are unconscious, unthinking, unmoral forms of existence, but the motive and meaning of the universe is to be found, not in the lower, the physical and animal, but in the highest, in the rational and moral. The lower exists for the higher, the material and animal for the spiritual and moral. A being whose character is formed under the conditions and laws of intellectual and moral freedom is higher than any being can be that is what it is necessitatively, that is, by virtue of conditions over which it has no control. Character that is formed freely under God's government and guidance will glorify the Creator more than anything can which is made to be what it is wholly by divine omnipotence. These things being true, it follows that God's providence in the world will be directed primarily and ceaselessly toward developing character in free moral agents, toward reducing sin to the minimum and developing the maimum of holiness, in every way and by every means compatible with perfect moral freedom in the creature.

The possibility of sin in a world of free agents and in a state of probation is unavoidable, but to say that sin is possible does not mean that it is necessary. See CHOICE; WILL. The final cause and end, the purpose and motive, of divine providence, then, are not the temporal, material and earthly happiness of men, but the highest ultimate moral good of free beings whose highest happiness is secured through their highest holiness--which means first, their obedience to the holy will of God as their Father, and secondly, loving and self-sacrificing service to their fellow-men. This ever-present and all-dominating moral purpose of divine providence determines its methods and explains, in part at least, what would otherwise be its mysteries. With this conception of divine providence the general trend of Biblical thought is in entire accord. In the light of Christ's revelation of God as a holy and loving Father who regards all men as His children and whose chief concern is to develop holiness and love in those whom He loves, we may define divine providence as Infinite Wisdom, using infinite power to accomplish the ends of infinite holiness and love. The originating and determining cause of divine providence is, in the New Testament conception of it, always to be found in the love of God, while the final cause is the glory of the Father as realized in the holiness and happiness of His children.

3. Special Providence: By the doctrine of special providence, according to the best use of that term in theological literature, is meant as already indicated, that minute care and ever-watchful supervision which God exercises over His obedient and believing children in things, both small and great, which are designed to secure their ever-increasing holiness and usefusness. God's general providence is and must be special, in that it descends to particulars--to the minute details of creaturely existence--and is always and everywhere active. But the Scriptures teach that there is a more special care over and ordering of the lives of the spiritually good than pertains to the wicked, who have not the fear of God before their eyes. The following Scriptures set forth in unmistakable terms the doctrine of a special providence exercised by the heavenly Father over and in behalf of the righteous: "A man's goings are established of Yahweh; and he delighteth in his way" (Psalms 37:23); "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he will direct thy paths" (Proverbs 3:6); "There shall no mischief happen to the righteous" (Proverbs 12:21); "But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33); "To them that love God all things work together for good" (Romans 8:28). The following points seem to be plainly involved in any statement of the doctrine of special providence that can claim to be faithful to the teachings of the Scriptures;

(1) Spiritual, Not Material, Good to Man the End Sought in Special Providence.

A mistaken and hurtful notion has long been prevalent to the effect that special providence is designed to secure the secular and earthly good, the material and temporal prosperity, of God's children. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Material blessings may indeed come as a special providence to the child of God (Matthew 6:33 et al.), but that "good" which all things work together to secure for them that love God is mainly spirtual good, and not financial or social, or intellectual, or temporal good, except as these may secure ultimate spiritual good. Indeed, God's special providence make take away wealth and bring poverty in its stead in order to impart the "true riches." It may defeat rather than further one's worldly hopes and ambitions; may bring sickness rather than health, and ever death instead of life--for sometimes a Christian can do more good by sickness or death than by health or continued life--and when that is the case, his sickness or death may well be interpreted as a special providence. "Every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." Many of the Old Testament promises do, it is true, seem to have special reference to material and temporal blessings, but we should remember that the best interpretation of these is to be found in the New Testament, where they are (as, for example, when quoted by Christ in the Temptation) interpreted as having mainly a spiritual signifigcance. When our Lord speaks of the very hairs of our heads being numbered, and declares that if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without the Father's notice, surely we, who are of more value than many sparrows, cannot drift beyond His love and care, His words might be interpreted as teaching that God will save us from physical suffering and death; but such is not His meaning, for, in the very same context He speaks of how they to whom He thus pledges His love and care shall be persecuted and hated for His name's sake, and how some of them shall be put to death; and yet His promise was true. God was with them in their physical sufferings, but the great blessing wherewith He blessed them was not physical, but moral and spiritual.

(2) Special Providence and "Accidents."

Another still more mistaken and hurtful notion concerning special providence is the association of it with, and the limitation of it largely to, what are called "accidents," those irregular and occasional occurrences which involve more than ordinary danger and risk to life. The popular notion of special providence associates it with a happy escape from visible dangers and serious injury, as when the house catches on fire, or the horses run away, or the train is wrecked, or the ship encounters an awful storm, or one comes in contact with contagious disease or the terrible pestilence that walketh in darkness. A happy escape from injury and death on such an occasion is popularly designated as a "special providence," and this regardless of whether the individual thus escaping is a saint or a sinner. We cannot too strongly emphasize the fact that God's special providence is not a capricious, occasional, and irregular intervention of His love and power in behalf of His children, but involves ceaseless--yea infinite--thought and care for those that love Him, everywhere and in all the experiences of life.

(3) Special Providence as Related to Piety and Prayer.

God's special providence is conditioned upon piety and prayer though it far transcends, in the blessings it brings, the specific requests of His children. While we may properly pray for things pertaining to our temporal and physical life with the assurance that God will answer such prayers in so far as He deems best; yet the Scriptures encourage us to make spiritual blessings the main object of our prayers. "Seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness," is the essence of the New Testament teaching on this subject; but we should not overlook the fact that this divine injunction is both preceded and followed by the strongest assurances of the most minute and ceaseless provision for all our temporal and physical wants by the loving heavenly Father. "Therefore take no thought saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? .... For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you," the King James Version. In keeping with this Scripture, the poet has written:

"Make you His service your delight;

Your wants shall be His care."

But while it is true that God has promised to make our wants His care, we should remember that He has promised this only to that devout and godly number of pious, praying souls who "seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness." His general providence is alike to all, by which "he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." But it is only "to them that love God" that it is promised that "all things work together for good"--and the proof of love is not in one's profession, but in his obedience and service.

(4) Special Providence as Related to Human Cooperation.

The words of Christ concerning the heavenly Father's watchful and loving providence do not mean that the children of God are not in any sense to take thought for food and raiment, and labor daily to obtain the necessities of life. Labor, both mental and physical, is as much a duty as prayer. The prayer, "Give us this day our daily bread," does not render it unnecessary that they who offer it should work for their own daily bread. Nothing could be more hurtful to healthful Christian activity than to interpret our Lord's insistence, in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, upon trust in the heavenly Father's watchful providence as a justification of thoughtlessness, idleness, and improvidence; seeing that its purpose is simply to warn us against that needless and hurtful anxiety about the future which is not only inconsistent with trust in God, but which is utterly destructive of man's best efforts in his own behalf.

(5) General and Special Providence Both Equally Divine.

While the Scriptures appear to us to make a real and true distinction between God's natural and His supernatural order, and between His general and His special providence, yet to truly pious and wisely discerning souls all is alike divine, the natural as well as the supernatural, general as well as special providence. So far as God's faithful and loving children are concerned, general and special providence blend into one. The only real and important distinction between the two is that made by the free wills of men, by virtue of which some are in loving accord with the divine plans concerning them, and others are at enmity with God and oppose the purpose of His love concerning them. If all men were and had always been, alike trustful and loving children of the heavenly Father, there would perhaps never have been any occasion for making a distinction between the general and the special providence of God. The only distinction we should have needed to recognize in that case would have been as to the varieties of divine providence, in view of the fact that the all-loving Father would cause widely different events to happen to His different children. If anyone, therefore, is inclined to deny the distinction which we have here made between general and special providence, and prefers to affirm that there is but one general providential order over mankind in the world, that the distinction is in man and not in God's providence, his position cannot be seriously objected to, provided he does not thereby mean that the world is governed by impersonal and immutable laws, but will affirm with clearness and confidence that the world is governed by the all-loving, all-wise, omnipresent, and everywhere-active God. For, indeed, the only thing that is really "special" and out of order is the limitation which sin imposes upon the workings of divine providence in so far as the self-will and opposition of men prevent the realization of the providential purposes of God concerning them. But, unfortunately, sin is now, and has long been, so prevalent and dominant in the world that we have come to regard God's providence as affected and limited by it, as that which is regular and general, and His more perfect and complete providence in behalf of and over the good as the exceptional and special. But whether we call divine providence, as related to believers, "general" or "special," is of little consequence, provided we believe that "the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord" (Psalms 37:23 the King James Version), that "all things work together for (spiritual) good to them that love God," and that to those who, duly subordinating the temporal to the spiritual, seek "first the kingdom of God and his righteousness," all things needful "shall be added" by the heavenly Father.

4. Divine Providence and Human Free Will: The problem of divine providence has its utmost significance, not in its bearing on the laws of physical nature, but in that phase of it which concerns God's dealings with moral agents, those creatures who may, and often do, act contrary to His will. God governs men as a father governs his children, as a king governs his free subjects; not as a machinist works his machine, or as a hypnotist controls his mesmerized victims. A father in his family and a sovereign in his realm may each do as he pleases within certain limits, and God infinitely more: "He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35). He setteth up one and putteth down another. Nevertheless, even God acts within limits; He limited Himself when He created free agents. As a mere matter of power God can predetermine man's volitions and necessitate his acts, but He can do so only by making of him a kind of rational machine, and destroying his true freedom. But Scripture, reason and consciousness all unite in teaching man that he is morally free, that he is an agent, and not something merely acted on. God's providential government of men, therefore, is based on their freedom as rational and moral beings, and consists in such an administration and guidance by the Holy Spirit of the affairs of men as shall encourage free moral agents to virtue, and discourage them from sin. God's providence must needs work upon and with two kinds of wills--willing wills and opposing wills.

(1) Divine Providence as Related to Willing Wills.

The apostle declares that God works in believers "both to will and to do of his good pleasure." If God's special providence over and in behalf of His children may involve an intervention of His Divine power within the realm of physical law, much more, it would seem, will it involve a similar intervention within the realm of the human mind and the human will. Spiritual guidance is one of the most precious privileges of believers, but it is difficult to conceive how the Holy Spirit can effectively guide a believer without finding some way of controlling his will and determining his volitions that is compatible with free agency. While most of man's thoughts, emotions and volitions are self-determined in their origin, being due to the free and natural workings of his own mind and heart and will, yet there are also thoughts, emotions and volitions that are divinely produced. Even a sinner under conviction of sin has thoughts and emotions that are produced by the Holy Spirit. Much more has the believer divinely-produced thoughts and feelings; and if divinely-produced thoughts and feelings, there may be, in like manner, it would seem, Divinely produced volitions. Does this seem irreconcilable with the fact of moral free agency? We think not; it is no more subversive of human free agency for God to influence effectively a man's volitions and secure a certain course of action than it is for one man effectively to influence another. No volition that is divinely necessitated can be a free moral volition; for moral volitions are such as are put forth freely, in view of motives and moral ends. The element of necessity and compulsion would destroy all true freedom in, and moral accountability for, any particular volition, so that it could not be either virtuous or vicious. But--and here is the crucial point--when a man, by an act of his own will, freely commits the ordering of his life to God, and prays God to choose for him what is best, working in him both to will and to do, that act of self-commitment to God involves the very essence of moral freedom, and is the highest exercise of free agency. "Our wills are ours to make them Thine," the poet has truly said. In other words, the highest moral act of man's free will is the surrender of itself to the divine will; and whatever control of man's will on God's part results from and follows this free act of self-surrender is entirely consistent with perfect moral freedom, even though it should involve divinely-produced volitions. Does a perplexed child cease to be free when in the exercise of his freedom he asks a wise and loving father to decide a matter for him, and be his guide in attaining a certain desired end? Surely not; and this intervention of parental wisdom and love is none the less effective if it should work, as far as possible, through the mind and will of the child, rather than allow the child to be entirely passive. So God works effectively through the mind and will of every soul who unreservedly commits himself to the divine will--commits himself not once simply, but continually. God cannot under the divinely-appointed laws of freedom work in and through the sinner "both to will and to do," because the sinner's will is bent on evil, and hence, opposed to the divine will. God's will can work, not with, but only against, a sinful will; and if it should so work and necessitate his volitions, that would destroy his true freedom. But, if God should work in and through an obedient and acquiescent will that is seeking divine guidance, THAT would be an exercise of divine power in no way incompatible with the true moral freedom of men. Such is the influence, as we conceive it, of the divine will upon the human will in providence. God's providence works effectively only through willing wills.

(2) Divine Providence as Related to Sinful Free Will.

But God's providence encounters opposing as well as willing wills. Not every unconverted man, however, represents an equally antagonistic will--there are different degrees of opposition. That God's gracious and special providence in behalf of an individual often antedates his forsaking sin and his acceptance of Christ as a personal Saviour is manifest to every student of Christian biography. Much of the best training that many a "chosen vessel" ever receives for his life-work turns out to be that unconscious providential preparation which he was receiving under a Father's guidance before he consciously consecrated himself to his divine Master. "I girded thee, though thou hast not known me," said God to Cyrus--and on this text Horace Bushnell preached one of the greatest of modern sermons on divine providence, taking as his theme, "Every man's life is a plan of God." If this be true of a Christian man, that, even before his conversion, the Holy Spirit was seeking him, and even preparing him, as far as was then possible, for fulfilling the "plan of God" in his life, is it not in all probability equally true that the Holy Spirit and the good providence of God were working in behalf of other sinners who persisted to the end in rebellion against God? Such is the power of moral free agency with which God has endowed man that the created free agent can defeat the plan of Infinite Love concerning his life, and frustrate the workings of providence in his behalf (Jeremiah 18:1-23). Whether a free moral agent, then, shall allow God's providential plans to be worked out for him or not, depends upon his own free will. It is said of the divine Christ that He could not do many mighty works in a certain city because of their unbelief and opposition. In like manner divine providence is conditioned and limited by a sinful free will.

5. Divine Providence as Related to Natural and Moral Evil:

That the Biblical writers do not regard the existence of evil as a valid objection to divine providence is evident to every student of the Scriptures. Indeed, it is in working good out of what the world accounts evil that divine providence accomplishes many of its most salutary and beneficent ends in behalf of the good. That natural or physical evil (poverty, sickness, suffering, etc.) is one of the mightiest agencies in the hands of God for restraining and correcting moral evil and for working out moral and spiritual good to fallen and sinful men, admits of easy demonstration. For the existence in the world of moral evil (sin), man, the moral free agent, is wholly responsible. God could prevent moral free agents from sinning only by not creating them, or else by placing their wills under irresistible divine restraint and compulsion. But the latter method of controlling them would virtually destroy their real and true freedom; and if this were done, then not only all sin, but all virtue and holiness as attributes of free beings would be thereby rendered impossible in men; for only such beings can put forth free holy volitions as can put forth free sinful volitions. If man had never sinned, there would probably have never been such a large providential use of natural or physical evil as prevails at present; and this because of the fact that an unfallen and holy race of beings would not have needed the presence of natural evil to secure their highest moral development. But a fallen and sinful race does need such an agency to bring it back to God and to develop holy character and the highest moral service. It is not true that sin is now always or even generally the immediate cause of an individual's suffering physical evil, or that extraordinary suffering is a proof of extraordinary sin. "Master, who did sin," asked the disciples, "this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" (John 9:2-3 King James Version). Human suffering is for man's spiritual good and for the divine glory, as shown in working good out of evil--this is the explanation which the Master gives as to why natural evil is permitted or sent by God. It is not only a powerful, but, in a world like ours, a necessary agency for the correction and cure of moral evil and for the spiritual development of fallen man. "Before I was afflicted I went astray; but now I observe thy word .... It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I may learn thy statutes" (Psalms 119:67, 71); "Every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit" (John 15:2). The saintly and eminently useful men and women of history have, as a rule, had to undergo a severe discipline and to endure many and severe trials, and were made perfect only by their sufferings. Divine providence thus turns much of the world's natural and physical evil into moral good.

6. Evil Providentially Over-ruled for Good: Many of the things that befall the children of God are directly due to the sins of other men. That good men, even the very best of men, suffer many things at the hands of wicked men admits of no question; and yet these ills are among the "all things" which are declared by the apostle to work together for good to them that love God. The good that may ensue to good men from the evil conduct of the wicked is certainly not due to the intrinsic power in sin to work good to those against whom it is maliciously directed; it can only be due to the fact that God overrules it for the good of the innocent. "As for you," said Joseph, "ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20); "The things which happened unto me," said Paul, "have fallen out rather unto the progress of the gospel" (Philippians 1:12). God, though foreknowing the evil that wicked men are planning to work against His children, may not prevent it; and this because He can and will overrule it for His glory and for their good, if they abide faithful. But, suppose a good man is not simply injured, but killed by the wicked, as in the case of the martyrs that died at the stake--does the principle still hold good? It does, we answer; the saint who dies in the discharge of duty and because of is fidelity to duty is not only assured, by all the promises of revelation, of a happy immortality, but he has the rare privilege of serving to advance the kingdom of God by his death as well as by his life. God's kingdom is advanced in manifold ways by the death of good men. Is not "the blood of the martyrs the seed of the church"? But we need here again to remark that it is not material and temporal, but moral and spiritual good, that God has guaranteed to His holy, loving and faithful children. If sin had an intrinsic power to work good, they would be right who maintain that "the end justifies the means, and one may do evil when good will come of it" (compare Romans 3:8); and they also would be right who maintain that God is the Author of evil, seeing that evil is, on that supposition, only disguised good--propositions which are thoroughly vicious and subversive of all that is good in man or God. The Scriptures, rightly interpreted, nowhere lend themselves to such false and misleading ethics (compare Isaiah 45:7).

7. Interpreting Providence: To what extent may we, having studied God's providential methods as revealed in the Scriptures, in Nature, in human history, and in personal experience, venture to interpret providence as it applies to current events in our own lives and in the lives of others? Experience and observation will warn us both against haste and against too great confidence in our interpretations of providence. Hasty misinterpretations of providence in its bearing on present passing events frequently become fruitful sources of skepticism for the future. Some people are much given to interpreting providence. Certain ills or misfortunes come to a bad man; they are quick to assert that it is a divine judgment sent upon him in view of his sin. Certain blessings come to a good man; they are sure the blessings are heaven-sent in view of his extraordinary piety. A whiskey merchant's store burns down: it is, say they, a divine judgment, in view of his ill-gotten gains. But presently the property of an unquestionably pious and consecrated man is swept away by the flames: where now is the providence? The "oracles" fail to explain; and so they do in innumerable other cases: as, for example, when two men, a saint and a sinner, are prostrated on beds of sickness. The former, in spite of prayer and piety, continues to grow worse, and perhaps dies; while the other, without piety or prayer, is restored to health. God has not made us interpreters of His providences except for ourselves; and even much of that which we sincerely believe comes to us in a graciously providential manner we can well afford to keep as a sacred secret between ourselves and our God, seeing that God has not furnished us with any means of absolutely proving that what has happened to us might not have happened, under similar circumstances, even to sinful men. Many a Christian man comes to see that the ill that has happened to him--the loss of property, the terrible spell of sickness, and the like--things that, at the time, he would not interpret as providential--are among the best things that were ever sent upon him, in that they made him holier and more useful (compare John 13:7):

"Blind unbelief is sure to err,

And scan His work in vain;

God is His own interpreter

And He will make it plain."

There are, however, many evident truths written large on the pages of history, in the rise, decline and fall of kingdoms and nations, which he who runs may read. And to him who truly believes in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and who will duly consider all the facts and lessons of life, in himself and others, in individuals and in nations, and not for a day merely but patiently as the years come and go, it will be made plain that "God's in His heaven--All's right with the world," and that all things work together for the spiritual good of those who love God and who prove their love for Him by serving their fellow-men.

8. Conclusion: We conclude, then, that there is, according to the Scriptures, an ever-watchful providence exercised by the heavenly Father over His faithful and loving children, which is ceaselessly working to secure their ever-increasing holiness and usefulness here, an their perfect happiness in a future state of existence. To prepare rational and immortal free agents through holiness and usefulness here for happiness hereafter is the aim and end of this all-embracing providence of God, which includes within its loving care every human being except such as exclude themselves therefrom by their own willful and persistent sinning. And in the accomplishment of this end, what the world counts as the misfortunes and ills of life often contribute far more than what, in the estimation of men, are accounted the greatest earthly blessings. There is no providential highway to a state here that is free from life's ills, and that abounds in temporal and earthly blessings to the good. But there is a royal and holy highway, along which moves a providential pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, leading the children of the covenant, through lives of loving service and sacrifice, to a holy land of promise, the goal of a gracious providence; and they who journey along this highway bear this seal: "The Lord knoweth them that are his: And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Timothy 2:19 the King James Version). They who bear this seal are the divinely-chosen instruments and agents of that larger and wider providence that is ever working to establish a perfect kingdom of righteousness in the whole earth, that kingdom of God, to inaugurate which, in its Messianic form, our Lord became incarnate, and to consummate which, in its final and perfect form, He reigns from heaven and will continue to reign until, having "put all enemies under his feet," He shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father"--when the poet's vision shall be realized of:

"That God who ever lives and loves;

One God, one law, one element,

And one far-off Divine event,

To which the whole creation moves."

LITERATURE.

James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World; A. B. Bruce, The Providential Order of the World; James McCosh, The Method of Divine Government; James Hinton, The Mystery of Pain; John Telford, Man's Partnership with Divine Providence; W. N. Clarke, The Christian Doctrine of God, and, An Outline of Christian Theology; W. B. Pope, Compendium of Christian Theology; A. L. Lilley, Adventus Regni; Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus; George B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology; E. P. Gould, The Biblical Theology of the New Testament; T. Jackson, The Providence of God Viewed in the Light of the Holy Scripture; H. M. Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God; Lux Mundi: Preparation in History for Christ; J. Flavell, Divine Conduct, or the Mystery of Providence; O. D. Watkins, The Divine Providence; Borden P. Bowne, The Immanence of God.

Wilbur F. Tillett

Province

Province - prov'-ins (medhinah, "jurisdiction"; eparchia (English Versions of the Bible, province) (Acts 23:34; 25:1)):

1. Meaning of the Term

2. Roman Provincial Administration

(1) First Period

(2) Second Period

(3) Third Period

3. Division of Provinces

4. Province of Judea

5. Revenue

LITERATURE

1. Meaning of the Term: Province (provincia) did not originally denote a territorial circumscription in Roman usage, since the employment of the word was much more ancient than any of the conquests of the Romans outside of Italy. In the most comprehensive official sense it signified a magistrate's sphere of administrative action, which in one instance might be the direction of jurisdiction at Rome, in another the management of military operations against a particular hostile community. When the imperium was conferred upon two consuls at the beginning of the Republic, and upon a praetor in 367 BC, and finally upon a second praetor in 241 BC, it became necessary in practice to define their individual competence which was unlimited in theory. When the Romans extended their control over lands situated outside of Italy, it became expedient to fix territorial limits to the exercise of authority by the magistrates who were regularly sent abroad, so that provincia signified henceforth in an abstract sense the rule of the governor, and in a concrete sense the specified region entrusted to his care; and with the development and consolidation of the Roman system of administration, the geographical meaning of the word became more and more significant.

2. Roman Provincial Administration: The history of Roman provincial administration in the more definite sense commences in 227 BC, when four praetors were elected for the first time, of whom two were assigned to the government of the provinces. Three periods may be distinguished in the history of the system of provincial administration: (1) from 227 BC to Sulla, (2) from Sulla to Augustus, and (3) the Empire.

(1) First Period. During the first period, provision was made for the government of the provinces by means of special praetors, or, in exceptional circumstances, by consuls, during their term of office. Accordingly, the number of praetors was increased from four in 227 BC to eight at the time of Sulla.

(2) Second Period. In accordance with the reforms of Sulla all the consuls and praetors remained at Rome during their year of office, and were entrusted with the administration of provinces a subsequent year with the title proconsul (pro consule) or propraetor (pro praetore). The proconsuls were sent to the more important provinces. The senate determined the distinction between consular and praetorian provinces and generally controlled the assignment of the provinces to the ex-magistrates. Julius Caesar increased the praetors to sixteen, but Augustus reduced them to twelve.

(3) Third Period. In 27 BC, Augustus as commander-in-chief of the Roman army definitely assumed the administration of all provinces which required the presence of military forces and left the other provinces to the control of the senate. There were then twelve imperial and ten senatorial provinces, but all provinces added after 27 BC came under imperial administration. The emperor administered his provinces through the agency of personal delegates, legati Augusti of senatorial, and praefecti or procuratores of equestrian, rank. The term of their service was not uniform, but continued usually for more than a single year. The senatorial administration was essentially a continuation of the post-Sullan, republican regime. The senatorial governors were called proconsuls generally, whether they were of consular or praetorian rank; but Africa and Asia alone were reserved for exconsuls, the eight remaining senatorial provinces being attributed to ex-praetors. The financial administration of each imperial province was entrusted to a procurator, that of each senatorial province to a quaestor.

3. Division of Provinces: The provinces were divided into smaller circumscriptions (civitates) for the purposes of local government. In the older provinces these districts corresponded generally with the urban communities which had been the units of sovereignty before the advent of the Romans. Under Roman rule they were divided into different classes on the basis of their dignity and prerogatives, as follows:

(1) Coloniae: Roman or Latin colonies established after the model of the Italian commonwealths.

(2) Civitates Foederatae: Communities whose independence had been guaranteed by a formal treaty with Rome.

(3) Civitates Liberae: Communities whose independence the Romans respected, although not bound to do so by a formal obligation.

(4) Civitates Stipendiariae: Communities which had surrendered to the discretion of the Romans and to which limited powers of local government were granted by the conquerors as a matter of convenience.

The civitates stipendiariae, and in some cases the colonies, paid taxes to the Roman government, the greater part of which was in the form either of a certain proportion of the annual products of the soil, such as a fifth or tenth, or a fixed annual payment in money or kind.

4. Province of Judea: Judaea became a part of the province of Syria in 63 BC, but was assigned in 40 BC as a kingdom to Herod the Great, whose sovereignty became effective three years later. The provincial regime was reestablished in 6 AD, and was broken only during the years 41-44 AD, when Herod Agrippa was granted royal authority over the land (Josephus, Josephus, Antiquities XIX, viii, 2). The Roman administration was in the hands of the procurators (see PROCURATOR) who resided at Caesarea (Josephus,BJ ,II , xv, 6; Acts 23:23, 33; 25:1) in the palace of Herod the Great (Acts 23:1-35 through 35). The procurators of Judea were subject to the authority of the imperial governors of Syria, as is evident from the deposition of Pontius Pilate by Vitellius (Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iv, 2; Tacitus, Annals vi.32). The procurator was competent to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the provincials in cases involving a capital sentence (Josephus, BJ, II, viii, 1), but he was bound to grant an appeal by Roman citizens for trial at Rome (Acts 25:11). A death sentence by the Sanhedrin required the sanction of the procurator, as appears in the process against the Saviour. Under Roman rule cities like Caesarea, Sebaste, and Jerusalem became organs for local government, like the urban communities in other parts of the Empire.

5. Revenue: The revenue of Palestine under Claudius is said to have been 12,000,000 denarii (about $2,400,000, or 500,000 British pounds (in 1915); compare Josephus, AntXIX , viii, 2). In addition to the ground tax, the amount of which is not known, a variety of indirect contributions were collected on auctions, salt, highways, bridges, etc., which constituted, no doubt, the field of activity in which the publicans gained their unenviable reputation.

LITERATURE.

The reader may be directed to Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, I, 497-502, 517-57, for a general discussion of the Roman system of provincial administration, and to the same volume, pp. 405-12, for the provincial government of Palestine.

George H. Allen

Provocation; Provoke

Provocation; Provoke - prov-o-ka'-shun, pro-vok': "Provoke," literally, "to call forth," hence, to excite or stir up, whether in a good or bad sense, appears frequently in the Old Testament as the translation of Piel, or Hiphil of ka`ac (noun, ka`ac), in the sense of "to make angry" (Deuteronomy 4:25; 9:18; 1 Kings 14:9, 15, etc.); sometimes of marah (Isaiah 3:8), and of other words. In the New Testament we have parazeloo, "to make jealous" (Romans 10:19; 11, 14); parorgizo, "to make angry" (Ephesians 6:4; compare Colossians 3:21); with parapikraino, "to embitter" (Hebrews 3:16; compare in 1 Esdras 6:15), and other Greek words. "Provocation" in Hebrews 3:8, 15 (quoting Psalms 95:8) is parapikrasmos, the Septuagint for the Hebrew meribhah. An example of the good sense of the word is in Hebrews 10:24, "Consider one another to provoke (literally, "to the provoking," here paroxusmos) unto love and good works."

For "provoke" the Revised Version (British and American) has "despise" (Numbers 14:11; 31:20), "rebel against" (Psalms 78:40); for "provoked," "despised" (Numbers 14:23; 16:30; Isaiah 1:4), "moved" (Deuteronomy 32:16; 1 Chronicles 21:1), "rebelled against" (Psalms 78:56), "were rebellious" (Psalms 106:33, 43); for "provoking" (Psalms 78:17), "to rebel against"; for "provoked" (2 Corinthians 9:2), "stirred up"; "provoked within" for "stirred in" (Acts 17:16); "provoked" for "limited" (Psalms 78:41 margin, "limited"); "provoketh" for "emboldeneth" (Job 16:3); instead of "Provoke not your children to anger" (Colossians 3:21), "Provoke not your children."

W. L. Walker

Prudence; Prudent

Prudence; Prudent - proo'-dens, proo'-dent: In the Old Testament "prudence" is the translation of `ormah (Proverbs 8:12); also in the King James Version of sekhel (2 Chronicles 2:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "discretion"); and "prudent" is the translation of `arum, "subtle" (Proverbs 12:16, 23; 13:16, etc.; compare Genesis 3:1; Job 5:12), and of bin (1 Samuel 16:18, the Revised Version margin "skillful"; Proverbs 16:21; 18:15; Isaiah 5:21; 10:13, the American Standard Revised Version "understanding," etc.), with other words. In the New Testament "prudence" occurs once as the translation of phronesis (Ephesians 1:8); "prudent" is in the King James Version the translation of sunetos, changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "understanding" (Matthew 11:25; Acts 13:7); in 1 Corinthians 1:19, the American Standard Revised Version has "the discerning," the English Revised Version retains "prudent." In its etymological sense of seeing beforehand (contraction of "providence"), "prudence" does not occur in the New Testament. As forethought, foresight, prudence was reckoned one of the cardinal virtues by the ancient ethical writers. See the remarks of Coleridge on its lower and higher character in his Aids to Reflection, Aphor. 29.

W. L. Walker

Pruning-hook

Pruning-hook - proon'-ing-hook.

See HOOK, (3); VINE.