International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Red Heifer — Revive; Reviving

Red Horse

Red Horse - See HORSE, RED; REVELATION OF JOHN.

Red Sea - (yam-cuph (Exodus 10:19 and often), but in many passages it is simply hayam, "the sea"' Septuagint with 2 or 3 exceptions renders it by he eruthra thalassa, "the Red Sea"; Latin geographers Mare Rubrum):

1. Name

2. Peculiarities

3. Old Testament References

4. Passage through the Red Sea by the Israelites

Objections

(1) Steep Banks of the Channel

(2) Walls Formed by the Water

(3) The East Winds

(4) The Miraculous Set Aside

LITERATURE

1. Name: The Hebrew name yam-cuph has given rise to much controversy. Yam is the general word for sea, and when standing alone may refer to the Mediterranean, the Dead Sea, the Red Sea, or the Sea of Galilee. In several places it designates the river Nile or Euphrates. Cuph means a rush or seaweed such as abounds in the lower portions of the Nile and the upper portions of the Red Sea. It was in the cuph on the brink of the river that the ark of Moses was hidden (Exodus 2:3, 5). But as this word does not in itself mean red, and as that is not the color of the bulrush, authorities are much divided as to the reason for this designation. Some have supposed that it was called red from the appearance of the mountains on the western coast, others from the red color given to the water by the presence of zoophytes, or red coral, or some species of seaweed. Others still, with considerable probability, suppose that the name originated in the red or copper color of the inhabitants of the bordering Arabian peninsula. But the name yam-cuph, though applied to the whole sea, was especially used with reference to the northern part, which is alone mentioned in the Bible, and to the two gulfs (Suez and Aqabah) which border the Sinaitic Peninsula, especially the Gulf of Suez.

2. Pecularities: The Red Sea has a length of 1,350 miles and an extreme breadth of 205 miles. It is remarkable that while it has no rivers flowing into it and the evaporation from its surface is enormous, it is not much salter than the ocean, from which it is inferred that there must be a constant influx of water from the Indian Ocean through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, together with an outflow of the more saline water beneath the surface. The deepest portion measures 1,200 fathoms. Owing to the lower land levels which prevailed in recent geological times, the Gulf of Suez formerly extended across the lowland which separates it from the Bitter Lakes, a distance of 15 or 20 miles now traversed by the Suez Canal, which encountered no elevation more than 30 ft. above tide. In early historic times the Gulf ended at Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. North of this the land rises to a height of more than 50 ft. and for a long time furnished a road leading from Africa into Asia. At a somewhat earlier geological (middle and late Tertiary) period the depression of the land was such that this bridge was also submerged, so that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean were connected by a broad expanse of water which overflowed the whole surface of Lower Egypt.

The evidence of the more recent depression of the land surface in all Lower Egypt is unmistakable. Raised beaches containing shells and corals still living in the Red Sea are found at various levels up to more than 200 ft. above tide. One of the most interesting of these is to be seen near the summit of the "Crow's Nest," a half-mile South of the great pyramids, where, near the summit of the eminence, and approximately 200 ft. above tide, on a level with the base of the pyramids, there is a clearly defined recent sea beach composed of water-worn pebbles from 1 inches to 1 or 2 ft. in diameter, the interstices of which are filled with small shells loosely cemented together. These are identified as belonging to a variable form, Alectryonia cucullata Born, which lives at the present time in the Red Sea. On the opposite side of the river, on the Mokattam Hills South of Cairo, at an elevation of 220 ft. above tide, similar deposits are found containing numerous shells of recent date, while the rock face is penetrated by numerous borings of lithodomus mollusks (Pholades rugosa Broc.). Other evidences of the recent general depression of the land in this region come from various places on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. According to Lartet at Ramleh, near Jaffa, a recent beach occurs more than 200 ft. above sea-level containing many shells of Pectunculus violascens Lamk, which is at the present time the most abundant mollusk on the shore of the adjoining Mediterranean. A similar beach has been described by Dr. Post at Lattakia, about 30 miles North of Beirut; while others, according to Hull, occur upon the island of Cyprus. Further evidence of this depression is also seen in the fact that the isthmus between Suez and the Bitter Lakes is covered with recent deposits of Nile mud, holding modern Red Sea shells, showing that, at no very distant date, there was an overflow of the Nile through an eastern branch into this slightly depressed level. The line of this branch of the Nile overflow was in early times used for a canal, which has recently been opened to furnish fresh water to Suez, and the depression is followed by the railroad. According to Dawson, large surfaces of the desert North of Suez, which are now above sea-level, contain buried in the sand "recent marine shells in such a state of preservation that not many centuries may have elapsed since they were in the bottom of the sea" (Egypt and Syria, 67).

3. Old Testament References: The Red Sea is connected with the children of Israel chiefly through the crossing of it recorded in Exodus (see 4, below); but there are a few references to it in later times. Solomon is said (1 Kings 9:26) to have built a navy at "Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom." This is at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah, the eastern branch of the Red Sea. Here his ships were manned by Hiram king of Tyre with "shipmen that had knowledge of the sea" (1 Kings 9:27). And (1 Kings 9:28) "they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold." But Eloth was evidently lost to Israel when Edom successfully revolted in the time of Joram (2 Kings 8:20). For a short time, however, it was restored to Judah by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:22); but finally, during the reign of Ahaz, the Syrians, or more probably, according to another reading, the Edomites, recovered the place and permanently drove the Jews away. But in 1 Kings 22:48 Jehoshaphat is said to have "made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber"; while in 2 Chronicles 20:36 Jehoshaphat is said to have joined with Ahaziah "to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in Ezion-geber."

Unless there is some textual confusion here, "ships of Tarshish:" is simply the name of the style of the ship, like "East Indiaman," and Tarshish in Chronicles may refer to some place in the East Indies. This is the more likely, since Solomon's "navy" that went to Tarshish once every 3 years came "bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks," which could hardly have come from any other place than India.

See SHIPS AND BOATS,II , 1, (2).

4. Passage through the Red Sea by the Israelites: Until in recent times it was discovered that the Gulf of Suez formerly extended 30 miles northward to the site of the present Ismailia and the ancient Pithom, the scene of the Biblical miracle was placed at Suez, the present head of the Gulf. But there is at Suez no extent of shoal water sufficient for the east wind mentioned in Scripture (Exodus 14:21) to have opened a passage-way sufficiently wide to have permitted the host to have crossed over in a single night. The bar leading from Suez across, which is now sometimes forded, is too insignificant to have furnished a passage-way as Robinson supposed (BR(3), I, 56-59). Besides, if the children of Israel were South of the Bitter Lakes when there was no extension of the Gulf North of its present limits, there would have been no need of a miracle to open the water, since there was abundant room for both them and Pharaoh's army to have gone around the northern end of the Gulf to reach the eastern shore, while South of Suez the water is too deep for the wind anywhere to have opened a passage-way. But with an extension of the waters of the Gulf to the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah, rendered probable by the facts cited in the previous paragraph, the narrative at once so perfectly accords with the physical conditions involved as to become not only easily credible, but self-evidencing.

The children of Israel were at Rameses (Exodus 12:37) in the land of Goshen, a place which has not been certainly identified, but could not have been far from the modern Zagazig at the head of the Fresh Water Canal leading from the Nile to the Bitter Lakes. One day's journey eastward along Wady Tumilat, watered by this canal brought them to Succoth, a station probably identical with Thuket, close upon the border line separating Egypt from Asia. Through the discoveries of Naville in 1883 this has been identified as Pithom, one of the store-cities built by Pharaoh during the period of Hebrew oppression (Exodus 1:11). Here Naville uncovered vast store pits for holding grain built during the reign of Rameses II and constructed according to the description given in Exodus 1:1-22: the lower portions of brick made with straw, the middle with stubble, and the top of simple clay without even stubble to hold the brick together (see Naville, "The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus," Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; M. G. Kyle, "A Re-examination of Naville's Works," Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7). The next day's journey brought them to Etham on the "edge of the wilderness" (Exodus 13:20; Numbers 33:6), probably in the vicinity of the modern Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. From this point the natural road to Palestine would have been along the caravan route on the neck of land referred to above as now about 50 ft. above sea-level. Etham was about 30 miles Southeast of Zoan or Tanis, the headquarters at that time of Pharaoh, from which he was watching the movements of the host. If they should go on the direct road to Palestine, his army could easily execute a flank movement and intercept them in the desert of Etham. But by divine command (Exodus 14:2) Moses turned southward on the west side of the extension of the Red Sea and camped "before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon" (Exodus 14:22; Numbers 33:5-7). At this change of course Pharaoh was delighted, seeing that the children of Israel were "entangled in the land" and "the wilderness" had "shut them in." Instead of issuing a flank movement upon them, Pharaoh's army now followed them in the rear and "overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth," the location of which is essential to a proper understanding of the narrative which follows.

In Exodus 14:2, Pi-hahiroth is said to be "between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon." Now though Migdol originally meant "watch-tower," it is hardly supposable that this can be its meaning here, otherwise the children of Israel would have been moving directly toward a fortified place. Most probably, therefore, Migdol was the tower-like mountain peak marking the northeast corner of Jebel Geneffeh, which runs parallel with the Bitter Lakes, only a short distance from their western border. Baal-zephon may equally well be some of the mountain peaks on the border of the Wilderness of Paran opposite Cheloof, midway between the Bitter Lakes and Suez. In the clear atmosphere of the region this line of mountains is distinctly visible throughout the whole distance from Ismailia to Suez. There would seem to be no objection to this supposition, since all authorities are in disagreement concerning its location. From the significance of the name it would seem to be the seat of some form of Baal worship, naturally a mountain. Brugsch would identify it with Mr. Cassius on the northern shore of Egypt. Naville (see Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, "Red Sea, Passage of") would connect it with the hill called Tussum East of Lake Timsah, where there is a shrine at the present day visited every year about July 14 by thousands of pilgrims to celebrate a religious festival; but, as this is a Mohammedan festival, there seems no reason to connect it with any sanctuary of the Canaanites. Dawson favors the general location which we have assigned to Pi-hahiroth, but would place it beside the narrow southern portion of the Bitter Lakes.

Somewhere in this vicinity would be a most natural place for the children of Israel to halt, and there is no difficulty, such as Naville supposes, to their passing between Jebel Geneffeh and the Bitter Lakes; for the mountain does not come abruptly to the lake, but leaves ample space for the passage of a caravan, while the mountain on one side and the lake on the other would protect them from a flank movement by Pharaoh and limit his army to harassing the rear of the Israelite host. Protected thus, the Israelites found a wide plain over which they could spread their camp, and if we suppose them to be as far South as Cheloof, every condition would be found to suit the narrative which follows. Moses was told by the Lord that if he would order the children of Israel to go forward, the sea would be divided and the children of Israel could cross over on dry ground. And when, in compliance with the divine command, Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, "Yahweh caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen" (Exodus 14:21-30). But when the children of Israel were safely on the other side the waters returned and overwhelmed the entire host of Pharaoh. In the Song of Moses which follows, describing the event, it is said that the waters were piled up by the "blast of thy (God's) nostrils" (Exodus 15:8), and again, verse 10, "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them." Thus 3 times the wind is mentioned as the means employed by God in opening the water. The competency of the wind temporarily to remove the water from the passage connecting the Gulf of Suez with the Bitter Lakes, provided it was only a few feet deep, is amply proved by facts of recent observation. Major General Tullock of the British army (Proc. Victoria Inst., XXVIII, 267-80) reports having witnessed the driving off of the water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 ft., thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom. According to the report of the Suez Canal Company, the difference between the highest and the lowest water at Suez is 10 ft. 7 inches, all of which must be due to the effect of the wind, since the tides do not affect the Red Sea. The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for 1896 (165, 168) it appears that strong wind from the Southwest sometimes lowers the water at Toledo, Ohio, on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 ft., at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount; while a change in the wind during the passage of a single storm reverses the effect, thus sometimes producing a change of level at either end of the lake of 14 ft. in the course of a single day. It would require far less than a tornado to lower the water at Cheloof sufficiently to lay bare the shallow channel which we have supposed at that time to separate Egypt from the Sinaitic Peninsula.

See EXODUS, THE.

Objections:

Several objections to this theory, however, have been urged which should not pass without notice.

(1) Steep Banks of the Channel: Some have said that the children of Israel would have found an insuperable obstacle to their advance in the steep banks on either side of the supposed channel. But there were no steep banks to be encountered. A gentle sag leads down on one side to the center of the depression and a correspondingly gentle rise leads up on the other.

(2) Walls Formed by the Water: Much has also been made of the statement (Exodus 14:22) that "the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left"; but when we consider the rhetorical use of this word "wall" it presents no difficulty. In Proverbs 18:11 we are told that "The rich man's wealth is his strong city, And as a high wall in his own imagination." In Isaiah 26:1 we are told that God will appoint salvation "for walls and bulwarks." Again Nahum (Isaiah 3:8) says of Egypt that her "rampart was the sea (margin "the Nile"), and her wall was of the sea." The water upon either side of the opening served the purpose of a wall for protection. There was no chance for Pharaoh to intercept them by a flank movement. Nor is there need of paying further attention to the poetical expressions in the Song of Moses, where among other things it is said "that the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea," and that the "earth (instead of the water) swallowed them."

(3) The East Winds: Again it is objected that an east wind does not come from the right direction to produce the desired result. On the other hand it is an east wind only which could have freed the channel from water. A north wind would have blown the water from the Bitter Lakes southward, and owing to the quantity of water impounded would have increased the depth of the water in the narrow passage from the southern end of Suez. An east wind, however, would have pressed the water out from the channel both ways, and from the contour of the shore lines would be the only wind that could have done so.

(4) The Miraculous Set Aside: Again, it is objected that this explanation destroys the miraculous character of the event. But it should be noted that little is said in the narrative about the miraculous. On the other hand, it is a straightforward statement of events, leaving their miraculous character to be inferred from their nature. On the explanation we have given the transaction it is what Robinson felicitously calls a mediate miracle, that is, a miracle in which the hand of God is seen in the use of natural forces which it would be impossible for man to command. If anyone should say that this was a mere coincidence, that the east wind blew at the precise time that Moses reached the place of crossing, the answer is that such a coincidence could have been brought about only by supernatural agency. There was at that time no weather bureau to foretell the approach of a storm. There are no tides on the Red Sea with regular ebb and flow. It was by a miracle of prophecy that Moses was emboldened to get his host into position to avail themselves of the temporary opportunity at exactly the right time. As to the relation of the divine agency to the event, speculation is useless. The opening of the sea may have been a foreordained event in the course of Nature which God only foreknew, in which case the direct divine agency was limited to those influences upon the human actors that led them to place themselves where they could take advantage of the natural opportunity. Or, there is no a priori difficulty in supposing that the east wind was directly aroused for this occasion; for man himself produces disturbances among the forces of Nature that are as far-reaching in their extent as would be a storm produced by direct divine agency. But in this case the disturbance is at once seen to be beyond the powers of human agency to produce.

It remains to add an important word concerning the evidential value of this perfect adjustment of the narrative to the physical conditions involved. So perfect is this conformity of the narrative to the obscure physical conditions involved, which only recent investigations have made clear, that the account becomes self-evidencing. It is not within the power of man to invent a story so perfectly in accordance with the vast and complicated conditions involved. The argument is as strong as that for human design when a key is found to fit a Yale lock. This is not a general account which would fit into a variety of circumstances. There is only one place in all the world, and one set of conditions in all history, which would meet the requirements; and here they are all met. This is scientific demonstration. No higher proof can be found in the inductive sciences. The story is true. It has not been remodeled by the imagination, either of the original writers or of the transcribers. It is not the product of mythological fancy or of legendary accretion.

LITERATURE.

Dawson, Egypt and Syria; Hull, Mt. Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine; Naville, "The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus," Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; Kyle, "Bricks without Straw at Pithom: A Re-examination of Naville's Works," Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7; Wright, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, 83-117.

George Frederick Wright

Redeemer; Redemption

Redeemer; Redemption - re-dem'-er, re-demp'-shun (paraq, "to tear loose," "to rescue," padhah, ga'al; agorazo, referring to purchase, lutroumai, from lutron, "a ransom"):

1. Gradual Moralizing of Idea of Redemption

2. Redemption as Life in Individual

3. Redemption as Social

4. Redemption as Process

5. Moral Implications in Scriptural Idea of Redeemer

6. Uniqueness of Son of God as Redeemer

LITERATURE

The idea of redemption in the Old Testament takes its start from the thought of property (Leviticus 25:26; Ruth 4:4 ff). Money is paid according to law to buy back something which must be delivered or rescued (Numbers 3:51; Nehemiah 5:8). From this start the word "redemption" throughout the Old Testament is used in the general sense of deliverance. God is the Redeemer of Israel in the sense that He is the Deliverer of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:26; 2 Samuel 7:23; 1 Chronicles 17:21; Isaiah 52:3). The idea of deliverance includes deliverance from all forms of evil lot, from national misfortune (Isaiah 52:9; 63:9; compare Luke 2:38), or from plague (Psalms 78:35, 52), or from calamity of any sort (Genesis 48:16; Numbers 25:4, 9). Of course, the general thought of the relation of Israel to God was that God had both a claim upon Israel (Deuteronomy 15:15) and an obligation toward Israel (1 Chronicles 17:21; Psalms 25:22). Israel belonged to Him, and it was by His own right that He could move into the life of Israel so as to redeem Israel. On the other hand, obligation was upon Him to redeem Israel.

In the New Testament the idea of redemption has more a suggestion of ransom. Men are held under the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13), or of sin itself (Romans 7:23 f). The Redeemer purchases their deliverance by offering Himself as payment for their redemption (Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18).

1. Gradual Moralizing of Idea of Redemption: Throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament there is to be observed a gradual moralizing of the meaning of redemption. The same process of moralizing has continued throughout all the Christian ages. Starting with the idea of redemption price, conceived almost in material terms, religious thought has advanced to conceptions entirely moral and spiritual. Through the Scriptures, too, the idea of redemption becomes more specffic with the progress of Christian revelation. In the beginning God is the Redeemer from distresses of all kinds. He redeems from calamity and from sorrows. This general idea, of course, persists throughout the revelation and enters largely into our thinking of today, but the growing moral discernment of the Biblical writers comes to attach more and more importance to sin as the chief disturber of man's welfare. We would not minimize the force of the Scriptural idea that God is the Deliverer from all misfortune to which man falls heir, but the Scriptural emphasis moves more and more to deliverance from sin. Paul states this deliverance as a deliverance from the law which brings sin out into expression, but we must not conceive his idea in any artificial fashion. He would have men delivered not only from the law, but also from the consequences of evil doing and from the spirit of evil itself (Romans 8:2).

2. Redemption as Life in the Individual: In trying to discern the meaning of redemption from sin, toward which the entire progress of Biblical and Christian thought points, we may well keep in mind the Master's words that He came that men might have life and might have it more abundantly (John 10:10). The word "life" seems to be the final New Testament word as a statement of the purpose of Christ. God sent His Son to bring men to life. The word "life,"' however, is indefinite. Life means more at one period of the world's history than at another. It has the advantage, nevertheless, of always being entirely intelligible in its essential significance. Our aim must be to keep this essential significance in mind and at the same time to provide for an increasing fullness and enlargement of human capacity and endeavor. The aim of redemption can only be to bring men to the fullest use and enjoyment of their powers. This is really the conception implicit even in the earliest statements of redemption. The man redeemed by money payment comes out of the prison to the light of day, or he comes out of slavery into freedom, or he is restored to his home and friends. The man under the law is redeemed from the burden and curse of the law. Paul speaks of his experience under the law as the experience of one chained to a dead body (Romans 7:24). Of course, relief from such bondage would mean life. In the more spiritual passages of the New Testament, the evil in men's hearts is like a blight which paralyzes their higher activities (John 8:33-51).

In all redemption, as conceived of in Christian terms, there is a double element. There is first the deliverance as from a curse. Something binds a man or weights him down: redemption relieves him from this load. On the other hand, there is the positive movement of the soul thus relieved toward larger and fuller life. We have said that the Biblical emphasis is always upon deliverance from sin as the essential in redemption, but this deliverance is so essential that the life cannot progress in any of its normal activities until it is redeemed from evil. Accordingly in the Scriptural thought all manner of blessings follow deliverance. The man who seeks first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness finds all other things added unto him (Matthew 6:33). Material, intellectual and social blessings follow as matters of course from the redemption of the inner spirit from evil. The aim of redemption, to beget in men's hearts the will to do right, once fulfilled, leads men to seek successfully along all possible avenues for life. This, of course, does not mean that the redeemed life gives itself up to the cultivation of itself toward higher excellencies. It means that the redeemed life is delivered from every form of selfishness. In the unselfish seeking of life for others the redeemed life finds its own greatest achievement and happiness (Matthew 16:25).

3. Redemption as Social: Just as the idea of redemption concerned itself chiefly with the inner spirit; so also it concerns itself with the individual as the object of redemption. But as the redemption of the inner spirit leads to freedom in all realms of life, so also the redemption of the individual leads to large social transformations. It is impossible to strike out of the Scriptures the idea of a redeemed humanity. But humanity is not conceived of in general or class terms. The object of redemption is not humanity, or mankind, or the masses. The object of redemption is rather men set in relation to each other as members of a family. But it would do violence to the Scriptural conception to conceive of the individual's relations in any narrow or restricted fashion (1 Corinthians 12:12-27).

An important enlargement of the idea of redemption in our own time has come as men have conceived of the redemption of individuals in their social relationships. Very often men have thought of redemption as a snatching of individuals from the perils of a world in itself absolutely wicked. Even the material environment of men has at times been regarded as containing something inherently evil. The thought of redemption which seems most in line with Scriptural interpretation would seem to be that which brings the material and social forces within reach of individual wills. Paul speaks of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain waiting for the revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:22). This graphic figure sets before us the essentially Christian conception of the redemption of the forces in the midst of which men are placed. Those redeemed for the largest life, by the very force of their life, will seize all powers of this world to make them the servants of divine purposes. The seer saw a great multitude which no man could number, of every kindred and nation and tongue, shouting the joys of salvation (Revelation 7:9), yet the implication nowhere appears that these were redeemed in any other fashion than by surrendering themselves to the forces of righteousness.

4. Redemption as Process: We have said that the aim of redemption is to bring men to the largest and fullest life. We have also said that "life" is a general term. To keep close to the Scriptural conceptions we would best say that the aim of redemption is to make men like Christ (Romans 8:9). Otherwise, it might be possible to use the word "life" so as to imply that the riotous exercise of the faculties is what we mean by redemption. The idea of redemption, as a matter of fact, has been thus interpreted in various times in the history of Christian thinking. Life has been looked upon as sheer quantitative exuberance--the lower pleasures of sense being reckoned as about on the same plane with the higher. We can see the moral and spiritual anarchy which would thus be brought about. In Christ's words to His disciples He once used the expression, "Ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15:3). In this particular context the idea does not seem to be that of an external washing. Christ seems rather to mean that His disciples are cleansed as a vineyard is cleansed by pruning away some of the branches that others may bear fruit. In other words, the redemption of life is to be interpreted so that stress is laid upon the qualitative rather than the quantitative. Christ indeed found place in His instructions and in His own life for the normal and healthy activities of human existence. He was not an ascetic; He went to feasts and to weddings, but His emphasis was always upon life conceived of in the highest terms. We can say then that the aim of redemption is to beget in men life like that in Christ.

5. Moral Implications in the Scriptural Idea of Redeemer:

Moreover, redemption must not be conceived of in such fashion as to do away with the need of response upon the part of the individual will. The literal suggestion of ransom has to do with paying a price for a man's deliverance, whether the man is willing to be delivered or not. Of course, the assumption in the mind of the Biblical writers was that any man in prison or in slavery or in sickness would be overjoyed at being redeemed; but in dealing with men whose lives are set toward sin we cannot always make this assumption. The dreadfulness of sin is largely in the love of sinning which sinning begets. Some thinkers have interpreted redemption to mean almost a seizing of men without regard to their own will. It is very easy to see how this conception arises. A man who himself hates sin may not stop to realize that some other men love sin. Redemption, to mean anything, must touch this inner attitude of will. We cannot then hold to any idea of redemption which brings men under a cleansing process without the assent of their own wills. If we keep ourselves alive to the growing moral discernment which moves through the Scriptures, we must lay stress always upon redemption as a moral process. Not only must we say that the aim of redemption is to make men like Christ, but we must say also that the method of redemption must be the method of Christ, the method of appealing to the moral will. There is no Scriptural warrant for the idea that men are redeemed by fiat. The most we can get from the words of Christ is a statement of the persistence of God in His search for the lost: `(He goeth) after that which is lost, until he finds it' (Luke 15:4). Some would interpret these words to mean that the process of redemption continues until every man is brought into the kingdom. We cannot, in the light of the New Testament, limit the redeeming love of God; but we cannot, on the other hand, take passages from figurative expressions in such sense as to limit the freedom of men. The redemption must be conceived of as respecting the moral choices of men. In our thought of the divine search for the control of inner human motive we must not stop short of the idea of men redeemed to the love of righteousness on its own account. This would do away with the plan of redeeming men by merely relieving them of the consequences of their sins. Out of a changed life, of course, there must come changed consequences. But the Scriptural teaching is that the emphasis in redemption is always moral, the turning to life because of what life is.

Having thus attempted to determine, at least in outline, the content of the Christian idea of redemption, it remains for us to point out some implications as to the work of the Redeemer. Throughout the entire teaching on redemption in the Scriptures, redemption is set before us primarily as God's own affair (John 3:16). God redeems His people; He redeems them out of love for them. But the love of God is not to be conceived of as mere indulgence, partiality, or good-humored affection. The love of God rests down upon moral foundations. Throughout the Scriptures, therefore, we find implied often, if not always clearly stated, the idea that God is under obligations to redeem His people. The progress of later thinking has expanded this implication with sureness of moral discernment. We have come to see the obligations of power. The more powerful the man the heavier his obligations in the discharge of this power. This is a genuinely Christian conception, and this Christian conception we apply to the character of God, feeling confident that we are in line with Scriptural teaching. Hence, we may put the obligations of God somewhat as follows: God is the most obligated being in the universe. If a man is under heavy obligations to use aright the power of controlling the forces already at work in the world, how much heavier must be the obligations on the Creator who started these forces! The obligation becomes appalling to our human thought when we think that creation includes the calling of human beings into existence and endowing them with the unsolicited boon of freedom. Men are not in the world of their own choice. Vast masses of them seem to be here as the outworking of impulses almost blind. The surroundings of men make it very easy for them to sin. The tendencies which at least seem to be innate are too often tragically inclined toward evil. Men seem, of themselves, utterly inadequate for their own redemption. If there is to be redemption it must come from God, and the Christian thought of a moral God would seem to include the obligation on the part of God to redeem those whom He has sent into the world. Christ has made clear forever the absolutely binding nature of moral considerations. If the obligation to redeem men meant everything to Christ, it must also mean everything to the God of Christ. So we feel in line with true Christian thinking in the doctrine that redemption comes first as a discharge of the obligations on the part of God Himself.

If we look for the common thought in all the Christian statements of God's part in redemption we find it in this: that in all these statements God is conceived of as doing all that He can do for the redemption of man. If in earlier times men conceived of the human race as under the dominion of Satan, and of Satan as robbed of his due by the deliverance of man and therefore entitled to some compensation, they also conceived of God Himself as paying the ransom to Satan. If they thought of God as a feudal lord whose dignity had been offended by sin, they thought of God as Himself paying the cost due to offended dignity. If their idea was that a substitute for sinners must be furnished, the idea included the thought of God as Himself providing a substitute. If they conceived of the universe as a vast system of moral laws--broken by sin--whose dignity must be upheld, they thought of God Himself as providing the means for maintaining the dignity of the laws. If they conceived of men as saved by a vast moral influence set at work, they thought of this influence as proceeding, not from man, but from God. The common thought in theories of redemption then, so far as concerns God's part, is that God Himself takes the initiative and does all He can in the discharge of the obligation upon Himself. Each phrasing of the doctrine of redemption is the attempt of an age of Christian thinking to say in its own way that God has done all that He can do for men.

6. Uniqueness of the Son of God as Redeemer: It is from this standpoint that we must approach the part played by Christ in redemption. This is not the place for an attempt at formal statement, but some elements of Christian teaching are, at least in outline, at once clear. The question is, first, to provide some relation between God and Christ which will make the redemptive work of Christ really effective. Some have thought to find such a statement in the conception that Christ is a prophet. They would empty the expression, "Son of God," of any unique meaning; they would make Christ the Son of God in the same sense that any great prophet could be conceived of as a son of God. Of course, we would not minimize the teaching of the Scripture as to the full humanity of Christ, and yet we may be permitted to voice our belief that the representation of Christ as the Redeemer merely in the same sense in which a prophet is a redeemer does not do justice to the Scripture teaching; and we feel, too, that such a solution of the problem of Christ would be inadequate for the practical task of redemption. If Christ is just a prophet giving us His teaching we rejoice in the teaching, but we are confronted with the problem as to how to make the teaching effective. If it be urged that Christ is a prophet who in Himself realized the moral ideal, we feel constrained to reply that this really puts Christ at a vast distance from us. Such a doctrine of Christ's person would make Him the supreme religious genius, but the human genius stands apart from the ordinary mass of men. He may gather up into Himself and realize the ideals of men; He may voice the aspirations of men and realize those aspirations; but He may not be able to make men like unto Himself. Shakespeare is a consummate literary genius. He has said once and for all many things which the common man thinks or half thinks. When the common man comes upon a phrase of Shakespeare he feels that Shakespeare has said for all time the things which he would himself have said if he had been able. But the appreciation of Shakespeare does not make the ordinary man like Shakespeare; the appreciation of Christ has not proved successful in itself in making men like unto Christ.

If, on the contrary, without attempting formal theological construction, we put some real meaning into the idea of Christ as the Son of God and hold fast to a unique relationship between Christ and God which makes Christ the greatest gift that God can give us, we find indeed that Christ is lifted up to essentially divine existence; but we find also that this divinity does not estrange Him from us. Redemption becomes feasible, not merely when we have a revelation of how far up man can go, but when we have also a revelation of how far down God can come. If we can think of God as having in some real way come into the world through His Son Jesus Christ, that revelation makes Christ the Lord who can lead us to redemption.

Such a conception furnishes the dynamic which we must have in any real process of redemption. We need not only the ideal, but we need power by which to reach the ideal. If we can feel that the universe is under the sway of a moral God, a God who is under obligations to bear the burdens of men, and who willingly assumes these obligations, we really feel that moral life at its fullest and best is the greatest fact in the universe. Moreover, we must be true to the Scriptures and lift the entire conception of redemption beyond the realm of conscience to the realm of the heart. What the conscience of God calls for, the love of God willingly discharges. The Cross of Christ becomes at once the revelation of the righteousness of God and the love of God. Power is thus put back of human conscience and human love to move forward toward redemption (Romans 8:35-39).

The aim of the redemption in Christ then is to lift men out of death toward life. The mind is to be quickened by the revelation of the true ideals of human life. The conscience is to be reenforced by the revelation of the moral God who carries on all things in the interests of righteousness. The heart is to be stirred and won by the revelation of the love which sends an only begotten Son to the cross for our redemption. And we must take the work of Christ, not as a solitary incident or a mere historic event, but as a manifestation of the spirit which has been at work from the beginning and works forever. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8); the spirit of God revealed in the cross of Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. We have in the cross a revelation of holy love which, in a sense, overpowers and at the same time encourages. The cross is the revelation of the length to which God is willing to go in redemption rather than set aside one jot or tittle of His moral law. He will not redeem men except on terms which leave them men. He will not overwhelm them in any such manner as to do away with their power of free choice. He will show men His own feeling of holiness and love. In the name of a holy love which they can forever aspire after, but which they can never fully reach, men call to Him for forgiveness and that forgiveness men find forever available.

It remains to add one further item of Scriptural teaching, namely that redemption is a continuous process. If we may again use the word "life," which has been the key to this discussion, we may say that the aim of redemption is to make men progressively alive. There are not limits to the development of human powers touched by the redemptive processes of God. The cross is a revelation of divine willingness to bear with men who are forever being redeemed. Of course, we speak of the redeemed man as redeemed once and for all. By this we mean that he is redeemed once and for all in being faced about and started in a right direction, but the progress toward full life may be faster or slower according to the man and the circumstances in the midst of which he is placed. Still the chief fact is the direction in which the man is moving. The revelation of God who aids in redemption is of the God who takes the direction as the chief fact rather than the length of the stride or the rate of the movement. Every man is expected to do his best. If he stumbles he is supposed to find his way to his feet; if he is moving slowly, he must attempt to move faster; if he is moving at a slower rate than he can attain, he must strive after the higher rate, but always the dynamic force is the revelation of the holy love of God.

The Scriptures honor the prophets in whatever land or time they appear. The Scriptures welcome goodness under any and all circumstances. They have a place for a "light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world," but they still make it clear that the chief force in the redemption of men is the revelation of holy love in Jesus Christ. The redemption, we repeat, is never conceived of in artificial or mechanical terms. If any man hath not the spirit of Christ he does not belong to Christ (Romans 8:9). The aim of redemption is to beget this spirit, and this spirit is life.

LITERATURE.

H. C. Sheldon, Systematic Theology; Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology; Brown, Christian Theology in Outline; Mackintosh, Doctrine of Person of Christ; Bowne, Studies in Christianity; Tymms, The Christian Atonement.

Francis J. McConnell

Redness of Eyes

Redness of Eyes - red'-nes.

See DRUNKENNESS,II .

Redound

Redound - re-dound' (from re-, "back," and undare, "to surge as a wave"): To be sent back as a reaction, to overflow; occurs only as the translation of perisseuo, "to be over and above," "to superabound" (frequent in the New Testament); in 2 Corinthians 4:15, "might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God," the Revised Version (British and American) "may cause the thanksgiving to abound."

Reed

Reed - red: (1) achu, translated "reed-grass" (Genesis 41:2, 18; Job 8:11 margin). See FLAG. (2) 'ebheh, translated "swift," margin "reed" (Job 9:26). The "ships of reed" are the light skiffs made of plaited reeds used on the Nile; compare "vessels of papyrus" (Isaiah 18:2). (3) 'aghammim, translated "reeds," margin "marshes," Hebrew "pools" (Jeremiah 51:32); elsewhere "pools" (Exodus 7:19; 8:5; Isaiah 14:23, etc.). See POOL. (4) `aroth; achi, translated "meadows," the King James Version "paper reeds" (Isaiah 19:7). See MEADOW. (5) qaneh; kalamos (the English "cane" comes from Hebrew via Latin and Greek canna), "stalk" (Genesis 41:5, 22); "shaft" (Exodus 37:17, etc.); "reed," or "reeds" (1 Kings 14:15; 2 Kings 18:21; Isaiah 36:6; 42:3; Psalms 68:30, the King James Version "spearman"); "calamus" (Exodus 30:23; Song of Solomon 4:14; Ezekiel 27:19); "sweet cane," margin "calamus" (Isaiah 43:24; Jeremiah 6:20); "bone" (Job 31:22); used of the cross-beam of a "balance" (Isaiah 46:6); "a measuring reed" (Ezekiel 40:3); "a staff of reed," i.e. a walking-stick (Isaiah 36:6; Ezekiel 29:6); the "branches" of a candlestick (Exodus 37:18). (6) kalamos, "a reed shaken with the wind" (Matthew 11:7; Luke 7:24); "a bruised reed" (Matthew 12:20); they put "a reed in his right hand" (Matthew 27:29-30); "They smote his head with a reed" (Mark 15:19); "put it on a reed" (Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36); "a measuring reed" (Revelation 11:1; Revelation 21:15-16); "a pen" (3 John 1:13).

It is clear that qaneh and its Greek equivalent kalamos mean many things. Some refer to different uses to which a reed is put, e.g. a cross-beam of a balance, a walking-stick, a measuring rod, and a pen (see above), but apart from this qaneh is a word used for at least two essentially different things: (1) an ordinary reed, and (2) some sweet-smelling substance.

(1) The most common reed in Palestine is the Arundo donax (Natural Order Gramineae), known in Arabic as qacabfarasi, "Persian reed." It grows in immense quantities in the Jordan valley along the river and its tributaries and at the oases near the Dead Sea, notably around `Ain Feshkhah at the northwest corner. It is a lofty reed, often 20 ft. high, of a beautiful fresh green in summer when all else is dead and dry, and of a fine appearance from a distance in the spring months when it is in full bloom and the beautiful silky panicles crown the top of every reed. The "covert of the reed" (Job 40:21) shelters a large amount of animal and bird life. This reed will answer to almost all the requirements of the above references.

(2) Qaneh is in Jeremiah 6:20 qualified qaneh ha-Tobh, "sweet" or "pleasant cane," and in Exodus 30:23, qeneh bhosem, "sweet calamus," or, better, a "cane of fragrance." Song of Solomon 4:14; Isaiah 43:24; Ezekiel 27:19 all apparently refer to the same thing, though in these passages the qaneh is unqualified. It was an ingredient of the holy oil (Exodus 30:23); it was imported from a distance (Jeremiah 6:20; Ezekiel 27:19), and it was rare and costly (Isaiah 43:24). It may have been the "scented calamus" (Axorus calamus) of Pliny (NH, xii.48), or some other aromatic scented reed or flag, or, as some think, some kind of aromatic bark. The sweetness refers to the scent, not the taste.

Reed, Measuring

Reed, Measuring - mezh'-ur-ing (qeneh ha-middah): In Ezekiel's vision of the temple a "man" (an angel) appears with a "measuring reed" to measure the dimensions of the temple (Ezekiel 40:3 ff; Ezekiel 42:16 ff). The reed is described as 6 cubits long, "of a cubit and a handbreadth each," i.e. the cubit used was a handbreadth longer than the common cubit (see CUBIT; WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; TEMPLE). In the Apocalypse this idea of a measuring reed reappears for measuring the temple (Revelation 11:1) and the holy city (Revelation 21:15-16, "a golden reed"). The thought conveyed is exactitude in the dimensions of these edifices, symbolic of the symmetry and perfection of God's church.

James Orr

Reed-grass

Reed-grass - (Genesis 41:2, 18; Job 8:11 margin).

See FLAG, (2); REED, (1).

Reelaiah

Reelaiah - re-el-a'-ya, re-el-i'-a (re`elyah): One of the 12 chiefs who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2 parallel Nehemiah 7:7). In the passage in Neh the name is Raamiah" (ra`amyah), and in 1 Esdras 5:8 "Resaias." Which is the original, it is almost impossible to decide; "Reelaiah" seems preferable.

Reelias

Reelias - re-el'-i-as (Codex Alexandrinus Rheelias (Fritzschel); Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete, Boroleias; the King James Version Reelius): One of the "leaders" with Zerubbabel in the return from exile (1 Esdras 5:8, margin "Reelaiah"). It occupies the place of "Bigvai" in Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7, but in form it must be the equivalent of "Reelaiah" of Ezr and "Raamiah" of Nehemiah. It is perhaps a duplicate of "Resaias."

Reesaias

Reesaias - re-e-sa'-yas, re-e-si'-as: the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) RESAIAS (which see).

Refiner; Refining

Refiner; Refining - re-fin'-er, re-fin'-ing: Two Hebrew words have been translated "refine": (1) tsaraph, literally, to "fuse" (Zechariah 13:9; Isaiah 48:10; Malachi 3:2-3, etc.). The same word is rendered also "tried" (Psalms 66:10); "melt" (Jeremiah 6:29 the King James Version); "purge" (Isaiah 1:25). (2) zaqaq, literally, to "strain" or "sift." In the case of silver and gold the term probably referred to some washing process in connection with refining, as in Malachi 3:3 both tsaraph and zaqaq are used (1 Chronicles 28:18; 29:4; Job 28:1). The same word in Isaiah 25:6 referred to the straining of wine. Greek puroo, in the passive, literally, "to be ignited," is translated "refined," in Revelation 1:15; 3:18.

The ancient process of refining gold has already been described under METALLURGY (which see). Most of the Bible references are to the refining of silver (Proverbs 25:4; Zechariah 13:9; Isaiah 48:10). The silver used by the ancients was probably obtained by smelting lead sulfide ore, rich in silver (argentiferous galena). After the ore had been reduced to a metallic condition, the lead was separated from the silver by blowing hot air over the surface of the melted metal. The lead was thus changed to lead oxide which, in a powdered condition, was driven away by the air blast. The resulting lead oxide, called in the Bible silver dross, was used for glazing pottery (Proverbs 26:23), a use to which it is still put by Syrian potters. The description of refining in Ezekiel 22:18-22 may indicate that a flux (compare "as with lye," Isaiah 1:25 the American Revised Version margin) was sometimes added to the melted metal to dissolve the oxides of copper, lead, tin and iron as they formed, thus leaving the silver pure. Crude processes similar to those described above are used in the Taurus Mountains today.

Figurative:

In the various Bible references the refining of precious metals is used figuratively to illustrate the kind of trial God's children are called upon to go through. If they are of the right metal the dross will finally be blown away, leaving pure, clear, shining silver. If of base metal they will be like the dross described in Jeremiah 6:29-30. The refiner may blow fiercely, but in vain, for nothing but lead dross appears.

James A. Patch

Reform

Reform - re-form' (yacar): The word in the Revised Version (British and American) is found only in Leviticus 26:23, in the phrase "ye will not be reformed." The meaning is, "to be instructed," or, more fully, "to let one's self be chastened," i.e. by God's discipline to learn the lessons of this chastening.

The Hebrew word is the same in a similar connection in Jeremiah 6:8, where it is rendered, "Be thou instructed," and in Jeremiah 31:18, "I was chastised." Psalms 2:10 ("instructed"); Proverbs 29:19 ("corrected") use the Hebrew term of admonition by the words of man.

The King James Version also has "reform" in 2 Esdras 8:12; Wisdom of Solomon 9:18.

Reformation

Reformation - ref-or-ma'-shun: The word is found only in Hebrews 9:10, being the translation of diorthosis, in its only occurrence. This Greek word means etymologically "making straight," and was used of restoring to the normally straight condition that which is crooked or bent. In this passage it means the rectification of conditions, setting things to rights, and is a description of the Messianic time.

Refresh; Refreshing

Refresh; Refreshing - re-fresh', re-fresh'-ing: "Refresh" occurs a few times in the Old Testament as the translation of naphash, "to take breath," figurative "to be refreshed" (Exodus 23:12; 31:17; 2 Samuel 16:14); of rawach, "to have room (1 Samuel 16:23; Job 32:20, margin "find relief," the King James Version margin "may breathe"); of ca`adh, "to support" (1 Kings 13:7); and in the New Testament as the translation of anapauo, "to give rest" (1 Corinthians 16:18; 2 Corinthians 7:13; Philemon 1:7, 20; in compound middle, Romans 15:32 the King James Version); also of anapsucho, "to invigorate," "revive" (2 Timothy 1:16), and other words. "Refreshing" is in Isaiah 28:12 marge`ah, "rest" or "quiet"; and in Acts 3:19, anapsuxis, "seasons of refreshing," through the coming of Jesus, the Christ; compare 2 Esdras 11:46 and the King James Version, Sirach 43:22 hilaroo).

W. L. Walker

Refuge

Refuge - ref'-uj: A place of resort and safety. The principal words in the Old Testament are machceh (Psalms 14:6; 46:1; Psalms 62:7-8; Isaiah 4:6, etc.), and manoc (2 Samuel 22:3; Psalms 59:16, etc.), both applied chiefly to God as a "refuge" for His people. For the King James Version "refuge" in Deuteronomy 33:27, the Revised Version (British and American) has "dwelling-place," and in Psalms 9:9, "high tower." Conversely, the Revised Version (British and American) has "refuge" for the King James Version "shelter" in Psalms 61:3, and "hope" in Jeremiah 17:17.

Refuge, Cities of

Refuge, Cities of - `are ha-miqlaT; poleis ton phugadeuterion (compare 1 Maccabees 10:28), and other forms):

1. Location: Six cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were set apart and placed in the hands of the Levites, to serve as places of asylum for such as might shed blood unwittingly. On the East of the Jordan they were Bezer in the lot of Reuben, Ramoth-gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in the territory of Manasseh. On the West of the Jordan they were Hebron in Judah, Shechem in Mt. Ephraim, and Kedesh in Naphtali (Numbers 35:6, 14; Joshua 20:2, 7 ff; Joshua 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; Bezer is named in Joshua 21:36, but not described as a City of Refuge). An account of these cities is given in separate articles under their names. Deuteronomy 19:2 speaks of three cities thus to be set apart, referring apparently to the land West of the Jordan.

2. Purpose: From time immemorial in the East, if a man were slain the duty of avenging him has lain as a sacred obligation upon his nearest relative. In districts where more primitive conditions prevail, even to this day, the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing is not too strictly observed, and men are often done to death in revenge for what was the purest accident. To prevent such a thing where possible, and to provide for a right administration of justice, these cities were instituted. Open highways were to be maintained along, which the manslayer might have an unobstructed course to the city gate.

3. Regulations: The regulations concerning the Cities of Refuge are found in Numbers 35:1-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13; Joshua 20:1-9. Briefly, everything was to be done to facilitate the flight of the manslayer, lest the avenger of blood, i.e. the nearest of kin, should pursue him with hot heart, and, overtaking him, should smite him mortally. Upon reaching the city he was to be received by the elders and his case heard. If this was satisfactory, they gave him asylum until a regular trial could be carried out. They took him, apparently, to the city or district from which he had fled, and there, among those who knew him, witnesses were examined. If it were proved that he was not a willful slayer, that he had no grudge against the person killed, and had shown no sign of purpose to injure him, then he was declared innocent and conducted back to the city in which he had taken refuge, where he must stay until the death of the high priest. Then he was free to return home in safety. Until that event he must on no account go beyond the city boundaries. If he did, the avenger of blood might slay him without blame. On the other hand, if he were found guilty of deliberate murder, there was no more protection for him. He was handed over to the avenger of blood who, with his own hand, took the murderer's life. Blood-money, i.e. money paid in compensation for the murder, in settlement of the avenger's claim, was in no circumstances permitted; nor could the refugee be ransomed, so that he might "come again to dwell in the land" until the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:32).

A similar right of refuge seems to have been recognized in Israel as attaching to the altar in the temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings 1:50; 2:28; compare Exodus 21:12 f). This may be compared with the right of asylum connected with the temples of the heathen.

W. Ewing

Refuse

Refuse - re-fuz': Formerly used with the additional meaning "reject," and hence, the change from the King James Version to the Revised Version (British and American) in 1 Samuel 16:7; Ezekiel 5:6; 1 Timothy 4:4; 1 Peter 2:7, etc.

Refute

Refute - re-fut': Only in Jude 1:22, the American Revised Version margin "And some refute while they dispute with you," where the Revised Version (British and American) in the text reads "And on some have mercy, who are in doubt."

The Greek text of Jude 1:22-23 is very uncertain, being given very differently in the various manuscripts. the Revised Version (British and American) text follows the two oldest manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Instead of eleate, "have mercy," the reading elegchete, "refute," "convict," has the powerful support of Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, the best cursives, Vulgate, Memphitic, Armenian and Ethiopian versions, and is placed in the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles (Westcott-Hort in list of "Suspected Readings" says: "Some primitive error probable: perhaps the first eleate an interpolation"). Compare Jude 1:15, where the same Greek word occurs in the same sense (the King James Version "convince," the Revised Version (British and American) "convict"); compare also 1 Timothy 5:20; Titus 1:9, where the same idea of refuting the sinful occurs.

D. Miall Edwards

Regem

Regem - re'-gem (reghem, "friend" (?)): A Calebite, the son of Jahdai (1 Chronicles 2:47), mentioned as the eponym of a Calebite family or clan.

Regem-melech

Regem-melech - re'-gem-me'-lek, re'-gem-mel'-ek (reghem melekh): One of a deputation sent to inquire concerning the propriety of continuing the commemoration of the destruction of the temple by holding a fast (Zechariah 7:2). The text of the passage is in disorder. The name may mean "friend of the king"; hence, some have sought to remove the difficulty by interpreting reghem melekh as a title, not a personal name, reading the clause, "They of Beth-el had sent SHAREZER (q.v. (2)), the friend of the king."

Regeneration

Regeneration - re-jen-er-a'-shun, re-:

I. THE TERM EXPLAINED

1. First Biblical Sense (Eschatological)

2. Second Biblical Sense (Spiritual)

II. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION

1. In the Old Testament

2. In the Teaching of Jesus

3. In Apostolic Teaching

III. LATER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE

IV. PRESENT SIGNIFICANCE

LITERATURE

I. The Term Explained. The theological term "regeneration" is the Latin translation of the Greek expression palingenesia, occurring twice in the New Testament (Matthew 19:28; Titus 3:5). The word is usually written paliggenesia, in classical Greek. Its meaning is different in the two passages, though an easy transition of thought is evident.

1. First Biblical Sense (Eschatological): In Matthew 19:28 the word refers to the restoration of the world, in which sense it is synonymical to the expressions apokatastasis panton, "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21; the verb is found in Matthew 17:11, apokatastsei panta, "shall restore all things"), and anapsuxis, "refreshing" (Acts 3:19), which signifies a gradual transition of meaning to the second sense of the word under consideration. It is supposed that regeneration in this sense denotes the final stage of development of all creation, by which God's purposes regarding the same are fully realized, when "all things (are put) in subjection under his feet" (1 Corinthians 15:27). This is a "regeneration in the proper meaning of the word, for it signifies a renovation of all visible things when the old is passed away, and heaven and earth are become new" (compare Revelation 21:1). To the Jew the regeneration thus prophesied was inseparably connected with the reign of the Messiah.

We find this word in the same or very similar senses in profane literature. It is used of the renewal of the world in Stoical philosophy. Josephus (Ant., XI, iii, 9) speaks of the anaktesis kai paliggenesia tes patridos, "a new foundation and regeneration of the fatherland," after the return from the Babylonian captivity. Philo (ed. Mangey, ii.144) uses the word, speaking of the post-diluvial epoch of the earth, as of a new world, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (xi.1), of a periodical restoration of all things, laying stress upon the constant recurrence and uniformity of all happenings, which thought the Preacher expressed by "There is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). In most places, however, where the word occurs in philosophical writings, it is used of the "reincarnation" or "subsequent birth" of the individual, as in the Buddhistic and Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls (Plut., edition Xylander, ii.998c; Clement of Alexandria, edition Potter, 539) or else of a revival of life (Philo i.159). Cicero uses the word in his letters to Atticus (vi.6) metaphorically of his return from exile, as a new lease of life granted to him.

See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,IX .

2. Second Biblical Sense (Spiritual): This sense is undoubtedly included in the full Biblical conception of the former meaning, for it is unthinkable that a regeneration in the eschatological sense can exist without a spiritual regeneration of humanity or the individual. It is, however, quite evident that this latter conception has arisen rather late, from an analysis of the former meaning. It is found in Titus 3:5 which, without absolute certainty as to its meaning, is generally interpreted in agreement with the numerous nouns and verbs which have given the dogmatical setting to the doctrine of regeneration in Christian theology. Clement of Alexandria is the first to differentiate this meaning from the former by the addition of the adjective pneumatike, "spiritual" (compare anapsuxis, Acts 3:20; see REFRESHING ). In this latter sense the word is typically Christian, though the Old Testament contains many adumbrations of the spiritual process expressed thereby.

II. The Biblical Doctrine of Regeneration. 1. In the Old Testament: It is well known that in the earlier portions of the Old Testament, and to a certain degree all through the Old Testament, religion is looked at and spoken of more as a national possession, the benefits of which are largely visible and tangible blessings. The idea of regeneration here occurs therefore--though no technical expression has as yet been coined for the process--in the first meaning of the word elucidated above. Whether the divine promises refer to the Messianic end of times, or are to be realized at an earlier date, they all refer to the nation of Israel as such, and to individuals only as far as they are partakers in the benefits bestowed upon the commonwealth. This is even true where the blessings prophesied are only spiritual, as in Isaiah 60:21-22. The mass of the people of Israel are therefore as yet scarcely aware of the fact that the conditions on which these divine promises are to be attained are more than ceremonial and ritual ones. Soon, however, great disasters, threatening to overthrow the national entity, and finally the captivity and dispersion which caused national functions to be almost, if not altogether, discontinued, assisted in the growth of a sense of individual or personal responsibility before God. The sin of Israel is recognized as the sin of the individual, which can be removed only by individual repentance and cleansing. This is best seen from the stirring appeals of the prophets of the exile, where frequently the necessity of a change of attitude toward Yahweh is preached as a means to such regeneration. This cannot be understood otherwise than as a turning of the individual to the Lord. Here, too, no ceremony or sacrifice is sufficient, but an interposition of divine grace, which is represented under the figure of a washing and sprinkling from all iniquity and sin (Isaiah 1:18; Jeremiah 13:23). It is not possible now to follow in full the development of this idea of cleansing, but already in Isaiah 52:15 the sprinkling of many nations is mentioned and is soon understood in the sense of the "baptism" which proselytes had to undergo before their reception into the covenant of Israel. It was the symbol of a radical cleansing like that of a "new-born babe," which was one of the designations of the proselyte (compare Psalms 87:5; see also the tractate Yebhamoth 62a). Would it be surprising that Israel, which had been guilty of many sins of the Gentiles, needed a similar baptism and sprinkling? This is what Ezekiel 36:25 suggests: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." In other passages the cleansing and refining power of fire is alluded to (e.g. Malachi 3:2), and there is no doubt that John the Baptist found in such passages the ground for his practice of baptizing the Jews who came to him (John 1:25-28 and parallel's).

The turning of Israel to God was necessarily meant to be an inward change of attitude toward Him, in other words, the sprinkling with clean water, as an outward sign, was the emblem of a pure heart. It was Isaiah and Jeremiah who drew attention to this (Isaiah 57:15; Jeremiah 24:7; Jeremiah 31:33-35; Jeremiah 32:38-40, et passim). Here again reference is made to individuals, not only to the people in general (Jeremiah 31:34). This promised regeneration, so lovingly offered by Yahweh, is to be the token of a new covenant between God and His people (Jeremiah 31:31; Ezekiel 11:19-21; Ezekiel 18:31-32; Ezekiel 37:23-24).

The renewing and cleansing here spoken of is in reality nothing else than what Deuteronomy 30:6 had promised, a circumcision of the heart in contradistinction to the flesh, the token of the former (Abrahamic) covenant (of circumcision, Jeremiah 4:4). As God takes the initiative in making the covenant, the conviction takes root that human sin and depravity can be effectually eliminated only by the act of God Himself renewing and transforming the heart of man (Hosea 14:4). This we see from the testimony of some of Israel's best sons and daughters, who also knew that this grace was found in the way of repentance and humiliation before God. The classical expression of this conviction is found in the prayer of David: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right (margin "stedfast") spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit" (Psalms 51:10-12). Jeremiah puts the following words into the mouth of Ephraim: "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned" (Jeremiah 31:18). Clearer than any passages of the Old Testament, John the Baptist, forerunner of Christ and last flaming torch of the time of the earlier covenant, spoke of the baptism, not of water, but of the Holy Spirit and of fire (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33), leading thus to the realization of Old Testament foreshadowings which became possible by faith in Christ.

2. In the Teaching of Jesus: In the teaching of Jesus the need of regeneration has a prominent place, though nowhere are the reasons given. The Old Testament had succeeded--and even the Gentile conscience agreed with it--in convincing the people of this need. The clearest assertion of it and the explanation of the doctrine of regeneration is found in the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus (John 3:1-36). It is based upon (1) the observation that man, even the most punctilious in the observance of the Law, is dead and therefore unable to "live up" to the demands of God. Only He who gave life at the beginning can give the (spiritual) life necessary to do God's will. (2) Man has fallen from his virginal and divinely-appointed sphere, the realm of the spirit, the Kingdom of God, living now the perishing earthly life. Only by having a new spiritual nature imparted to him, by being "born anew" (John 3:3, the Revised Version margin "from above," Greek anothen), by being "born of the Spirit" (John 3:6, 8), can he live the spiritual life which God requires of man.

These words are a New Testament exegesis of Ezekiel's vision of the dead bones (Ezekiel 37:1-10). It is the "breath from Yahweh," the Spirit of God, who alone can give life to the spiritually dead.

But regeneration, according to Jesus, is more than life, it is also purity. As God is pure and sinless, none but the pure in heart can see God (Matthew 5:8). This was always recognized as impossible to mere human endeavor. Bildad the Shuhite declared, and his friends, each in his turn, expressed very similar thoughts (Job 4:17; 14:4): "How then can man be just with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold, even the moon hath no brightness, and the stars are not pure in his sight: how much less man, that is a worm! and the son of man, that is a worm!" (Job 25:4-6).

To change this lost condition, to impart this new life, Jesus claims as His God-appointed task: "The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10); "I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly" (John 10:10). This life is eternal, imperishable: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:28). This life is imparted by Jesus Himself: "It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life" (John 6:63). This life can be received on the condition of faith in Christ or by coming to Him (John 14:6). By faith power is received which enables the sinner to overcome sin, to "sin no more" (John 8:11).

The parables of Jesus further illustrate this doctrine. The prodigal is declared to have been "dead" and to be "alive again" (Luke 15:24). The new life from God is compared to a wedding garment in the parable of the Marriage of the King's Son (Matthew 22:11). The garment, the gift of the inviting king, had been refused by the unhappy guest, who, in consequence, was `cast out into the outer darkness' (Matthew 22:13).

Finally, this regeneration, this new life, is explained as the knowledge of God and His Christ: "And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ" (John 17:3). This seems to be an allusion to the passage in Hosea (John 4:6): "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me."

3. In Apostolic Teaching: It may be said in general that the teaching of the apostles on the subject of regeneration is a development of the teaching of Jesus on the lines of the adumbrations of the Old Testament. Considering the differences in the personal character of these writers, it is remarkable that such concord of views should exist among them. Paul, indeed, lays more stress on the specific facts of justification and sanctification by faith than on the more comprehensive head of regeneration. Still the need of it is plainly stated by Paul. It is necessary to salvation for all men. "The body is dead because of sin" (Romans 8:3-11; Ephesians 2:1). The flesh is at enmity with God (Ephesians 2:15); all mankind is "darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God" (Ephesians 4:18). Similar passages might be multiplied. Paul then distinctly teaches that thus is a new life in store for those who have been spiritually dead. To the Ephesians he writes: "And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1), and later on: "God, being rich in mercy, .... made us alive together with Christ" (Ephesians 2:4-5). A spiritual resurrection has taken place. This regeneration causes a complete revolution in man. He has thereby passed from under the law of sin and death and has come under "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:2). The change is so radical that it is possible now to speak of a "new creature" (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15, margin "new creation"), of a "new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth" (Ephesians 4:24), and of "the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Colossians 3:10). All "old things are passed away; behold, they are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Paul is equally explicit regarding the author of this change. The "Spirit of God," the "Spirit of Christ" has been given from above to be the source of all new life (Romans 8:1-39); by Him we are proved to be the "sons" of God (Galatians 4:6); we have been adopted into the family of God (huiothesia, Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5). Thus Paul speaks of the "second Adam," by whom the life of righteousness is initiated in us; just as the "first Adam" became the leader in transgression, He is "a life-giving spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45). Paul himself experienced this change, and henceforth exhibited the powers of the unseen world in his life of service. "It is no longer I that live," he exclaims, "but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me" (Galatians 2:20).

Regeneration is to Paul, no less than to Jesus, connected with the conception of purity and knowledge. We have already noted the second New Testament passage in which the word "regeneration" occurs (Titus 3:5): "According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing (margin "laver") of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." In 1 Corinthians 12:13 such cleansing is called the baptism of the Spirit in agreement with the oft-repeated promise (Joel 2:28 (in the Hebrew text Joel 3:1); Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16). There is, of course, in these passages no reference to mere water baptism, any more than in Ezekiel 36:25. Water is but the tertium comparationis. As water cleanseth the outer body, so the spirit purifies the inner man (compare 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21).

The doctrine that regeneration redounds in true knowledge of Christ is seen from Ephesians 3:15-19 and Ephesians 4:17-24, where the darkened understanding and ignorance of natural man are placed in contradistinction to the enlightenment of the new life (see also Colossians 3:10). The church redeemed and regenerated is to be a special "possession," an "heritage" of the Lord (Ephesians 1:11, 14), and the whole creation is to participate in the final redemption and adoption (Romans 8:21-23).

James finds less occasion to touch this subject than the other writers of the New Testament. His Epistle is rather ethical than dogmatical in tone, still his ethics are based on the dogmatical presuppositions which fully agree with the teaching of other apostles. Faith to him is the human response to God's desire to impart His nature to mankind, and therefore the indispensable means to be employed in securing the full benefits of the new life, i.e. the sin-conquering power (1:2-4), the spiritual enlightenment (1:5) and purity (1:27). There seems, however, to be little doubt that James directly refers to regeneration in the words: "Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (1:18). It is supposed by some that these words, being addressed "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (1:1), do not refer to individual regeneration, but to an election of Israel as a nation and so to a Christian Israel. In this case the aftermath would be the redemption of the Gentiles. I understand the expression "first-fruits" in the sense in which we have noticed Paul's final hope in Romans 8:21-32, where the regeneration of the believing people of God (regardless of nationality) is the first stage in the regeneration or restoration of all creation. The "implanted (the Revised Version margin "inborn") word" (James 1:21; compare 1 Peter 1:23) stands parallel to the Pauline expression, "law of the Spirit" (Romans 8:2).

Peter uses, in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, the words "refreshing" (Acts 3:19) and "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21) of the final completion of God's plans concerning the whole creation, and accordingly looks here at God's people as a whole. In a similar sense he says in his Second Epistle, after mentioning "the day of God": "We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13). Still he alludes very plainly to the regeneration of individuals (1 Peter 1:3, 13). The idea of a second birth of the believers is clearly suggested in the expression, "newborn babes" (1 Peter 2:2), and in the explicit statement of 1 Peter 1:23: "having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth." It is in this sense that the apostle calls God "Father" (1 Peter 1:17) and the believers "children of obedience" (1 Peter 1:14), i.e. obedient children, or children who ought to obey. We have seen above that the agent by which regeneration is wrought, the incorruptible seed of the word of God, finds a parallel in Paul's and James's theology. All these expressions go back probably to a word of the Master in John 15:3. We are made partakers of the word by having received the spirit. This spirit (compare the Pauline "lifegiving spirit," 1 Corinthians 15:45), the "mind" of Christ (1 Peter 4:1), is the power of the resurrected Christ active in the life of the believer. Peter refers to the same thought in 1 Peter 3:15, 21. By regeneration we become "an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession" in whom divine virtues, "the excellencies of him who called you" (1 Peter 2:9), are manifested. Here the apostle uses well-known Old Testament expressions foreshadowing New Testament graces (Isaiah 61:6; 66:21; Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 7:6), but he individualizes the process of regeneration in full agreement with the increased light which the teaching of Jesus has brought. The theology of Peter also points out the contact of regeneration with purity and holiness (1 Peter 1:15-16) and true knowledge (1 Peter 1:14) or obedience (1 Peter 1:14; 3:16). It is not surprising that the idea of purity should invite the Old Testament parallel of "cleansing by water." The flood washed away the iniquity of the world "in the days of Noah," when "eight souls were saved through water: which also after a true likeness (the Revised Version margin "in the antitype") doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation (the Revised Version margin "inquiry," "appeal") of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection (-life) of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:20-21).

The teaching of John is very closely allied with that of Jesus, as we have already seen from the multitude of quotations we had to select from John's Gospel to illustrate the teaching of the Master. It is especially interesting to note the cases where the apostle didactically elucidates certain of these pronouncements of Jesus. The most remarkable apostolic gloss or commentary on the subject is found in John 7:39. Jesus had spoken of the change which faith in Him ("coming to him") would cause in the lives of His disciples; how divine energies like "rivers of water" should issue forth from them; and the evangelist continues in explanation: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." This recognition of a special manifestation of divine power, transcending the experience of Old Testament believers, was based on the declaration of Christ, that He would send "another Comforter (the Revised Version (British and American) "advocate," "helper," Greek Parakletos), that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16-17).

In his Epistles, John shows that this Spirit bestows the elements of a Godlike character which makes us to be "sons of God," who before were "children of the devil" (1 John 3:10, 24; 4:13, etc.). This regeneration is "eternal life" (1 John 5:13) and moral similarity with God, the very character of God in man. As "God is love," the children of God will love (1 John 5:2). At the same time it is the life of God in man, also called fellowship with Christ, victorious life which overcomes the world (1 John 5:4); it is purity (1 John 3:3-6) and knowledge (1 John 2:20).

The subject of regeneration lies outside of the scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews, so that we look in vain for a clear dogmatical statement of it. Still the epistle does in no place contradict the dogma, which, on the other hand, underlies many of the statements made. Christ, "the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises" (8:6), has made "purification of sins" (1:3). In contradistinction to the first covenant, in which the people approached God by means of outward forms and ordinances, the "new covenant" (8:13) brought an "eternal redemption" (9:12) by means of a divine cleansing (9:14). Christ brings "many sons unto glory" and is "author of their salvation" (2:10). Immature Christians are spoken of (as were the proselytes of the Old Testament) as babies, who were to grow to the stature, character and knowledge of "full-grown men" (5:13,14).

III. Later Development of the Doctrine. Very soon the high spiritual meaning of regeneration was obscured by the development of priestcraft within the Christian church. When the initiation into the church was thought of as accomplished by the mediation of ministers thereto appointed, the ceremonies hereby employed became means to which magic powers were of necessity ascribed. This we see plainly in the view of baptismal regeneration, which, based upon half-understood passages of Scripture quoted above, was taught at an early date. While in the post-apostolic days we frequently find traces of a proper appreciation of an underlying spiritual value in baptism (compare Didache vii) many of the expressions used are highly misleading. Thus Gregory Nazianzen (Orations, xi.2) calls baptism the second of the three births a child of God must experience (the first is the natural birth, the third the resurrection). This birth is "of the day, free, delivering from passions, taking away every veil of our nature or birth, i.e. everything hiding the divine image in which we are created, and leading up to the life above" (Ullmann, Gregor v. Nazienz, 323). Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat., xvii, c. 37) ascribes to baptism the power of absolution from sin and the power of endowment with heavenly virtues. According to Augustine baptism is essential to salvation, though the baptism of blood (martyrdom) may take the place of water baptism, as in the case of the thief at the cross (Augustine, De Anima et Eius Origine, i.11, c. 9; ii.14, c. 10; ii.16, c. 12). Leo the Great compares the spirit-filled water of baptism with the spirit-filled womb of the virgin Mary, in which the Holy Spirit engenders a sinless child of God (Serm. xxiv.3; xxv.5; see Hagenbach, Dogmengeschichte, section 137).

In general this is still the opinion of pronounced sacrmentarians, while evangelical Christianity has gone back to the teaching of the New Testament.

IV. Present Significance. Although a clear distinction is not always maintained between regeneration and other experiences of the spiritual life, we may summarize our belief in the following theses:

(1) Regeneration implies not merely an addition of certain gifts or graces, a strengthening of certain innate good qualities, but a radical change, which revolutionizes our whole being, contradicts and overcomes our old fallen nature, and places our spiritual center of gravity wholly outside of our own powers in the realm of God's causation.

(2) It is the will of God that all men be made partakers of this new life (1 Timothy 2:4) and, as it is clearly stated that some fall short of it (John 5:40), it is plain that the fault thereof lies with man. God requires all men to repent and turn unto Him (Acts 17:30) before He will or can effect regeneration. Conversion, consisting in repentance and faith in Christ, is therefore the human response to the offer of salvation which God makes. This response gives occasion to and is synchronous with the divine act of renewal (regeneration). The Spirit of God enters into union with the believing, accepting spirit of man. This is fellowship with Christ (Romans 8:10; 1 Corinthians 6:17; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 3:3).

(3) The process of regeneration is outside of our observation and beyond the scope of psychological analysis. It takes place in the sphere of subconsciousness. Recent psychological investigations have thrown a flood of light on the psychic states which precede, accompany and follow the work of the Holy Spirit. "He handles psychical powers; He works upon psychical energies and states; and this work of regeneration lies somewhere within the psychical field." The study of religious psychology is of highest value and greatest importance. The facts of Christian experience cannot be changed, nor do they lose in value by the most searching psychological scrutiny.

Psychological analysis does not eliminate the direct workings of the Holy Spirit. Nor can it disclose its process; the "underlying laboratory where are wrought radical remedial processes and structural changes in the psychical being as portrayed in explicit scriptural utterances: `Create in me a clean heart' (Psalms 51:10); `Ye must be born again' (John 3:7 the King James Version); `If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new' (2 Corinthians 5:17 the King James Version), is in the region of subconsciousness. To look in the region of consciousness for this Person or for His work is fruitless and an effort fraught with endless confusion. Christian psychology thus traces to its deep-lying retreat the divine elaboration of the regenerated life. Here God works in the depths of the soul as silently and securely as if on the remotest world of the stellar universe" (H. E. Warner, Psychology of the Christian Life, 117).

(4) Regeneration manifests itself in the conscious soul by its effects on the will, the intelligence and the affections. At the same time regeneration supplies a new life-power of divine origin, which enables the component parts of human nature to fulfill the law of God, to strive for the coming of God's kingdom, and to accept the teachings of God's spirit. Thus regenerate man is made conscious of the facts of justification and adoption. The former is a judicial act of God, which frees man from the law of sin and absolves him from the state of enmity against God; the latter an enduement with the Spirit, which is an earnest of his inheritance (Ephesians 1:14). The Spirit of God, dwelling in man, witnesses to the state of sonship (Romans 8:2, 15-16; Galatians 4:6).

(5) Regeneration, being a new birth, is the starting-point of spiritual growth. The regenerated man needs nurture and training. He receives it not merely from outside experiences, but from an immanent power in himself, which is recognized as the power of the life of the indwelling Christ (Colossians 1:26-27). Apart from the mediate dealings of God with man through word and sacraments, there is therefore an immediate communication of life from God to the regenerate.

(6) The truth which is mentioned as the agent by whom regeneration is made possible (John 8:32; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23), is nothing else than the Divine Spirit, not only the spoken or written word of God, which may convince people of right or wrong, but which cannot enable the will of man to forsake the wrong and to do the right, but He who calls Himself the Truth (John 14:6) and who has become the motive power of regenerated life (Galatians 2:20).

(7) Recent philosophy expressive of the reaction from the mechanical view of bare materialism, and also from the depreciation of personality as seen in socialism, has again brought into prominence the reality and need of personal life. Johannes Muller and Rudolf Eucken among others emphasize that a new life of the spirit, independent of outward conditions, is not only possible, but necessary for the attainment of the highest development. This new life is not a fruit of the free play of the tendencies and powers of natural life, but is in sharp conflict with them. Man as he is by nature stands in direct contrast to the demands of the spiritual life. Spiritual life, as Professor Eucken says, can be implanted in man by some superior power only and must constantly be sustained by superior life. It breaks through the order of causes and effects; it severs the continuity of the outer world; it makes impossible a rational joining together of realities; it prohibits a monastic view of the immediate condition of the world. This new life derives its power not from mere Nature; it is a manifestation of divine life within us (Hauptprobleme der Religionsphilosophie, Leipzig, 1912, 17 ff; Der Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt, Leipzig, 1907; Grundlinien einer neuen Lebensanschauung, Leipzig, 1907; Johannes Muller, Bausteine fur personliche Kultur, 3 volumes, Munchen, 1908). Thus the latest development of idealistic philosophy corroborates in a remarkable way the Christian truth of regeneration.

Regeneration, Baptismal

Regeneration, Baptismal - See BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

Region

Region - re'-jun: A "district," as in modern English. The word "region" is used by English Versions of the Bible interchangeably with "country," "coasts," etc., for various Hebrew and Greek terms, but "region round about" is usually in the King James Version and invariably in the Revised Version (British and American) the translation of perichoros, "surrounding country." For a possible technical use of "region" in Acts 16:6 and the Revised Version (British and American) Acts 18:23.

See GALATIA.

Register

Register - rej'-is-ter.

See GENEALOGY; QUIRINIUS.

Rehabiah

Rehabiah - re-ha-bi'-a (rechabhyah, rechabhyahu, "Yah is wide"): Son of Eliezer, and grandson of Moses. Eponym of a Levitical family (1 Chronicles 23:17; 1 Chronicles 24:1-31, 1 Chronicles 21:1-30; 26:25).

Rehearse

Rehearse - re-hurs' (sum, dabhar, naghadh, tanah; anaggello): Usually means simply "to relate," "to tell," "to declare" (Exodus 17:14; Judges 5:11; 1 Samuel 8:21; 17:31; Acts 14:27); with "rehearse from the beginning" in Acts 11:4 for archomai, "begin" (so the Revised Version (British and American)). the Revised Version (British and American) has preserved uniformity by translating anaggello by "rehearse" also in Acts 15:4, and has introduced "rehearse" as the translation of exegeomai, throughout (Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 12, 14; 21:19), except in John 1:18 ("declare"). Sirach 19:7, the King James Version has "rehearse" for deuteroo, "repeat" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).

Rehob

Rehob - re'-hob (rechobh; Rhoob, Rhaab):

(1) Etymologically the word means "broad" and might be applied either to a road or a plain. Rehob is given (Numbers 13:21) as the northern limit of Israel as reached by the spies. This agrees with the position assigned to Beth-rehob in the narrative of the settlement of the Danites (Judges 18:28). It is mentioned again along with the kingdom of Zobah in connection with the wars of Saul (1 Samuel 14:47 Septuagint Lag.), and as having been associated with, Zobah and Maacah against David in the Ammonite war and as having been defeated by him (2 Samuel 10:6). Robinson sought to identify it with Hunin, but it hardly suits the references. Buhl (GAP, 240) following Thomson (LB, II, 547) seeks it at Paneas (modern Banias). This would suit all the requirements of the capital, Beth-rehob, which might then be the second Rehob, assigned as part of the territory of Sidon to the tribe Asher (Joshua 19:28, 30; Judges 18:28). We must, however, assign to the kingdom of Rehob a territory extending from the settlements of the Danites to the "entering in of Hamath" or to Libo (modern Leboue), i.e. the Great Plain of Coele-Syria bounded by Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon and within the limits indicated.

(2) Two separate towns belonging to Asher (Joshua 19:28, 30). One of them was given to the Gershonite Levites (Joshua 21:31), and one is mentioned as remaining in the hands of the Canaanites (Judges 1:31).

(3) Father of Hadadezer, king of Aram Zobah, who was overwhelmed by David at the Euphrates (2 Samuel 8:3, 12).

(4) One of the Levites who sealed Nehemiah's covenant on the 24th Tishri, 444 BC (Nehemiah 10:11).

W. M. Christie

Rehoboam

Rehoboam - re-ho-bo'-am (rechabh`am, "the people is enlarged," or perhaps "Am is wide" Rhoboam; "Roboam," Matthew 1:7 the King James Version):

1. The Disruption of the Kingdom

2. Underlying Causes of Disruption

3. Shemaiah Forbids Civil War

4. Rehoboam's Prosperity

5. Shishak's Invasion

6. His Death

The son and successor of Solomon, the last king to claim the throne of old Israel and the first king of Judah after the division of the kingdom. He was born circa 978 BC. His mother was Naamah, an Ammonitess. The account of his reign is contained in 1 Kings 14:21-31; 2 Chronicles 10:1-19 through 2 Chronicles 12:1-16. The incidents leading to the disruption of the kingdom are told in 1 Kings 11:43 through 1 Kings 12:24; 2 Chronicles 9:31 through 2 Chronicles 11:4.

1. The Disruption of the Kingdom: Rehoboam was 41 years old (2 Chronicles 12:13) when he began to reign Septuagint 1 Kings 122:24a says 16 years). He ascended the throne at Jerusalem immediately upon his father's death with apparently no opposition. North Israel, however, was dissatisfied, and the people demanded that the king meet them in popular assembly at Shechem, the leading city of Northern Israel. True, Israel was no longer, if ever, an elective monarchy. Nevertheless, the people claimed a constitutional privilege, based perhaps on the transaction of Samuel in the election of Saul (1 Samuel 10:25), to be a party to the conditions under which they would serve a new king and he become their ruler: David, in making Solomon his successor, had ignored this wise provision, and the people, having lost such a privilege by default, naturally deemed their negligence the cause of Solomon's burdensome taxes and forced labor. Consequently, they would be more jealous of their rights for the future, and Rehoboam accordingly would have to accede to their demand. Having come together at Shechem, the people agreed to accept Rehoboam as their king on condition that he would lighten the grievous service and burdensome taxes of his father. Rehoboam asked for three days' time in which to consider the request. Against the advice of men of riper judgment, who assured him that he might win the people by becoming their servant, he chose the counsel of the younger men, who were of his own age, to rule by sternness rather than by kindness, and returned the people a rough answer, saying: "My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions" (1 Kings 12:14). Rehoboam, however, misjudged the temper of the people, as well as his own ability. The people, led by Jeroboam, a leader more able than himself, were ready for rebellion, and so force lost the day where kindness might have won. The threat of the king was met by the Marseillaise of the people: "What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David" (1 Kings 12:16). Thus the ten tribes dethroned Rehoboam, and elected Jeroboam, their champion and spokesman, their king (see JEROBOAM). Rehoboam, believing in his ability to carry out his threat (1 Kings 12:14), sent Adoram, his taskmaster, who no doubt had quelled other disturbances, to subdue the populace, which, insulted by indignities and enraged by Rehoboam's renewed insolence, stoned his messenger to death. Realizing, for the first time, the seriousness of the revolt, Rehoboam fled ignominiously back to Jerusalem, king only of Judah and of the adjacent territory of the tribe of Benjamin. The mistake of Rehoboam, was the common mistake of despots. He presumed too much on privilege not earned by service, and on power for which he was not willing to render adequate compensation.

2. Underlying Causes of Disruption: It is a mistake, however, to see in the disruption the shattering of a kingdom that had long been a harmonious whole. From the earliest times the confederation of tribes was imperfectly cemented. They seldom united against their common foe. No mention is made of Judah in the list of tribes who fought with Deborah against Sisera. A chain of cities held by the Canaanites, stretching across the country from East to West, kept the North and the South apart. Different physical characteristics produced different types of life in the two sections. Old jealousies repeatedly fanned into new flame intensified the divisions due to natural and artificial causes. David labored hard to break down the old antagonisms, but even in his reign Israel rebelled twice. Northern Israel had produced many of the strongest leaders of the nation, and it was not easy for them to submit to a ruler from the Judean dynasty. Solomon, following David's policy of unification, drew the tribes closely together through the centralization of worship at Jerusalem and through the general splendor of his reign, but he, more than any other, finally widened the gulf between the North and the South, through his unjust discriminations, his heavy taxes, his forced labor and the general extravagances of his reign. The religion of Yahweh was the only bond capable of holding the nation together. The apostasy of Solomon severed this bond. The prophets, with their profound knowledge of religious and political values, saw less danger to the true worship of Yahweh in a divided kingdom than in a united nation ruled over by Rehoboam, who had neither political sagacity nor an adequate conception of the greatness of the religion of Yahweh. Accordingly, Ahijah openly encouraged the revolution, while Shemaiah gave it passive support.

3. Shemaiah Forbids Civil War: Immediately upon his return to Jerusalem, Rehoboam collected a large army of 180,000 men (reduced to 120,000 in the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus), for the purpose of making war against Israel. The expedition, however, was forbidden by Shemaiah the prophet on the ground that they should not fight against their brethren, and that the division of the kingdom was from God. Notwithstanding the prohibition, we are informed that "there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually" (1 Kings 14:30; 2 Chronicles 12:15).

4. Rehoboam's Prosperity: Rehoboam next occupied himself in strengthening the territory which still remained to him by fortifying a number of cities (2 Chronicles 11:5-12). These cities were on the roads to Egypt, or on the western hills of the Judean Shephelah, and were doubtless fortifled as a protection against Egypt. According to 2 Chronicles 11:13-17, Rehoboam's prosperity was augmented by an immigration of priests and Levites from Israel, who came to Jerusalem because of their opposition to the idolatrous worship instituted by Jeroboam. All who were loyal to Yahweh in the Northern Kingdom are represented as following the example of the priests and Levites in going to Jerusalem, not simply to sacrifice, but to reside there permanently, thus strengthening Rehoboam's kingdom. In view of the fact that Rehoboam added to the innovations of his father, erected pillars of Baal in Jerusalem long before they were common in Northern Israel, and that he permitted other heathen abominations and immoralities, it seems that the true worship of Yahweh received little encouragement from the king himself. As a further evidence of his prosperity, Chronicles gives an account of Rehoboam's family. Evidently he was of luxurious habit and followed his father in the possession of a considerable harem (2 Chronicles 11:18-23). He is said to have had 18 wives and 60 concubines, (2 Chronicles 11:21; the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus and Josephus, Ant, VIII, x, 1 give "2 Chronicles 30:1-27 concubines").

5. Shishak's Invasion: One of the direct results of the disruption of the kingdom was the invasion of Palestine by Shishak, king of Egypt, in the 5th year of Rehoboam. Shishak is Sheshonk. I, the first king of the XXIId or Bubastite Dynasty. He is the same ruler who granted hospitality to Jeroboam when he was obliged to flee from Solomon (1 Kings 11:40). The Septuagint (1 Kings 122:21Ki 4:1-34e) informs us that Jeroboam married Ano, the sister of Shishak's wife, thus becoming brother-in-law to the king of Egypt. It is therefore easy to suppose that Jeroboam, finding himself in straits in holding his own against his rival, Rehoboam, called in the aid of his former protector. The results of this invasion, however, are inscribed on the temple at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where a list of some 180 (Curtis, "Chronicles," ICC) towns captured by Shishak is given. These belong to Northern Israel as well as Judah, showing that Shishak exacted tribute there as well as in Judah, which seems scarcely reconcilable with the view that he invaded Palestine as Jeroboam's ally. However, the king of Israel, imploring the aid of Shishak against his rival, thereby made himself vassal to Egypt. This would suffice to make his towns figure at Karnak among the cities subjected in the course of the campaign. The Chronicler saw in Shishak an instrument in the hand of God for the punishment of R. and the people for the national apostasy. According to 2 Chronicles 12:3, Shishak had a force of 2 Chronicles 1:1-17;, 200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen to which Josephus adds 400,000 foot-soldiers, composed of Lubim, Sukkum and Ethiopians. No resistance appears to have been offered to the advance of the invading army. Not even Jerusalem seems to have stood a siege. The palace and the temple were robbed of all their treasures, including the shields of gold which Solomon had made. For these Rehoboam later substituted shields of brass (2 Chronicles 12:9-10).

6. His Death: Rehoboam died at the age of fifty-eight, after having reigned in Jerusalem for 17 years. His son Abijah became his successor. He was buried in Jerusalem. Josephus says that in disposition he was a proud and foolish man, and that he "despised the worship of God, till the people themselves imitated his wicked actions" (Ant., VIII, x, 2).

S. K. Mosiman

Rehoboth

Rehoboth - re-ho'-both, re-ho'-both (rehobhoth, "broad places"; Euruchoria): One of the wells dug by Isaac (Genesis 26:22). It is probably the Rubuta of the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Petrie, numbers 256, 260; see also The Expository Times,XI , 239 (Konig), 377 (Sayce)), and it is almost certainly identical with the ruin Ruchaibeh, 8 hours Southwest of Beersheba. Robinson (BR, I, 196-97) describes the ruins of the ancient city as thickly covering a "level tract of 10 to 12 acres in extent"; "many of the dwellings had each its cistern, cut in the solid rock"; "once this must have been a city of not less than 12,000 or 15,000 inhabitants. Now it is a perfect field of ruins, a scene of unutterable desolation, across which the passing stranger can with difficulty find his way." Huntington (Palestine and Its Transformation, 124) describes considerable remains of a suburban population extending both to the North and to the South of this once important place.

E. W. G. Masterman

Rehoboth By the River

Rehoboth By the River - (rehobhoth ha-nahar; Codex Vaticanus Rhooboth (Rhoboth in Chronicles) he para potamon; Codex Alexandrinus Rhoboth): This city is mentioned only as the residence of Shaul, one of the rulers of Edom (Genesis 36:37; 1 Chronicles 1:48). There is nothing to guide us with certainty as to the situation of the city. Eusebius (Onomasticon) places it in Idumaea (Gebalene), but no trace of a name resembling this has been found in the district. "The river" usually means the Euphrates. If the city could have been so far from Edom, it might be identified with Rahaba on the West of the river, 8 miles South of its confluence with the Khabur. Winckler thinks it might possibly be on the boundary between Palestine and Egypt, "the river" being Wady el-`Arish, "the brook of Egypt" (Numbers 5:1-31; Joshua 15:4, etc.).

W. Ewing

Rehoboth-ir

Rehoboth-ir - r.-ur, r.-ir (rehobhoth `ir, "Rehoboth City"; Septuagint he Rhohbos (Rhooboth) polis, "the city Rhoobos, Rhooboth"):

1. Probably Rebit Ninua: The second of the cities built by Asshur (the Revised Version (British and American) by Nimrod) in Assyria (Genesis 10:11-12). Unlike the other three, the exact equivalent of this name is not found in Assyrian literature Fried. Delitzsch points out (Wo lag das Paradies? 260 f) that rechobhoth is the equivalent of the Assyrian rebite, "streets," and suggests that the site referred to may be the Rebit Ninua, "streets of Nineveh," mentioned by Sargon of Assyria in connection with the peopling of Maganubba (Khorsabad or Dur-Sarru-kin; see NINEVEH); and it was through this tract that Esar-haddon, his grandson, caused the heads of the kings of Kundi and Sidon to be carried in procession when he returned from his expedition to the Mediterranean.

2. Or, Possibly, the Old Capital, Assur: Though the probabilities in favor of Rebit Ninua are great, it is doubtful whether a suburb could have been regarded as a foundation worthy of a primitive ruler, and that a very important city, Assur, the old capital of Assyria, would rather be expected. One of the groups expressing its name is composed of the characters Sag-uru, or, dialectically, Sab-eri, the second element being the original of the Hebrew `ir. As the "center-city," Assur may have been regarded as the city of broad spaces (rechobhoth)--its ruins are of considerable extent. The German explorers there have made many important discoveries of temples, temple- towers, palaces and streets, the most picturesque in ancient times being the twin tower-temples of Anu (the sky) and Adad (Hadad). The ruins lie on the Tigris, about 50 miles South of Nineveh. It practically ceased to be the capital about the middle of the 8th century BC.

See NINEVEH.

T. G. Pinches

Rehum

Rehum - re'-hum (rechum, or rechum):

(1) One of the twelve heads of the Jewish community returning from captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7 (by a copyist's error "Nehum"); 12:3; 1 Esdras 5:8, "Roimus").

(2) A Persian officer of high rank (literally, "master of judgment, taste, reason") who with others wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:8-9, 17, 23).

(3) Son of Bani, a Levite, one of the wall-builders under Nehemiah (Nehemiah 3:17).

(4) One of the signers of the covenant in Nehemiah 10:25.

(5) In Nehemiah 12:3 (omitted in the Septuagint) one Rehum is mentioned with those who went up with Zerubbabel. It is probable that we should read here "Harim" (charim for rechum of Nehemiah 12:15).

W. N. Stearns

Rei

Rei - re'-i (re`i, "friendly"; Rhesei): Rei, Shimei and the Gibborim who belonged to David are listed among those who did not join Adonijah in his attempt on the throne (1 Kings 1:8). The name is very uncertain. Winckler (Geschichte, II, 247) identifies him with Ira, the Jairite, who was a "priest to David" (2 Samuel 20:26 the Revised Version margin); he tries to prove that this Ira (or Jair) was a priest of Bethlehem. Stade (GVI, I, 293, note 1) holds that Shimei and Rei were two officers of David's bodyguard. Josephus (Ant., VII, xiv, 4) has ho Daouidou philos, thus making Shimei a "friend," the courtier of 2 Samuel 15:37; 16:16, and omitting Rei entirely. This would call for an original reading re`h ha-melekh, or re`eh ha-melekh, and is too wide a variant from the Massoretic Text. Assuming that Rei belongs in the text, it is safe to conjecture that he was an officer of the royal guard.

Horace J. Wolf

Reign

Reign - ran: The Hebrew word malekhuth, may be rendered "kinghood," "royal dignity," "kingdom," "government" ("reign"). The verb is malakh, "to be king" ("to reign as king"), "to become king," "to accede to the throne," "to assume royal power publicly" and, generally speaking, "to become powerful." In the New Testament hegemonia, basileia, basileuein. The word is used, either as a noun or as a verb, of Yahweh (God), the Messiah (Christ) and men (kings, etc.); then of such terms as sin, death, grace; of the woman in Revelation and, conditionally, of the Christians; once, ironically, of the Corinthians. "Reign" as a noun referring to the time of reigning occurs in 1 Kings 6:1 (Solomon); 2 Kings 24:12 (Nebuchadnezzar); 1 Chronicles 4:31 (David; compare 1 Chronicles 29:30); 2 Chronicles 36:20 ("until the reign of the kingdom of Persia"); Nehemiah 12:22 (Darius); Esther 2:16 (Ahasuerus); Luke 3:1 (Tiberius Caesar). More often occurs the verb "to reign," malakh, basileuein. It is applied to: (1) Yahweh at the close of the song of Moses (Exodus 15:18); "Yahweh reigneth" (1 Chronicles 16:31; compare Psalms 93:1; 96:10; 99:1; Revelation 19:6); "God reigneth over the nations" (Psalms 47:8); "Yahweh of hosts will reign in mount Zion" (Isaiah 24:23; compare Micah 4:7); "Thy God reigneth" (Isaiah 52:7); "Thou hast taken thy great power and didst reign" (Revelation 11:17, meaning probably "thou didst assume thy might"); (2) the Messiah (Christ) as a just and righteous king (Jeremiah 23:5); an eternal king (Luke 1:33; compare Revelation 11:15); punishing and subduing His enemies (Luke 19:14, 27; 1 Corinthians 15:25).

(3) Men (kings, etc.), in regard to the source of their power ("By me (i.e. the wisdom of God), kings reign" (Proverbs 8:15)); respecting legitimate succession (2 Chronicles 23:3); meaning "to have power or dominion" (Genesis 37:8 and Job 34:30); in regard to an essential characteristic (Isaiah 32:1); in connection with the covenant of Yahweh with David (Jeremiah 33:21); then the word is used in 1 Samuel 12:12, where Samuel reminds the children of Israel of their demanding a king of him (compare verse 14); of Saul (1 Samuel 13:1; compare 1 Samuel 11:12); of Saul's son Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2:10); of David (2 Samuel 5:4 f; compare 2 Samuel 3:21); of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:11, 24; compare 1 Kings 2:15); of Solomon (1 Kings 1:13); quite frequently of the kings of Judah and Israel (in the Books of Kings and Chronicles); of the kings of Edom (Genesis 36:31); of Jabin, king of Canaan, in Razor (Judges 4:2); of Abimelech, Jerubbaal's son, in Jotham's fable (Judges 9:8-15); of Hanun, king of the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10:1); of Rezon and his men in Damascus (1 Kings 11:24); of Hazael and Ben-hadad, kings of Syria (2 Kings 8:15 and 2 Kings 13:24); of Esar-haddon, king of Assyria (2 Kings 19:37); of Ahasuerus, king of Persia (Esther 1:1); of Archelaus (Matthew 2:22).

(4) In the New Testament the term basileuein, "to reign," is used to illustrate and emphasize the power of sin, death and grace (Romans 5:14, 17, 21 and Romans 6:12). Sin, the vitiating mental factor, is to be looked upon as being constantly and resolutely bent on maintaining or regaining its hold upon man, its power being exercised and reinforced by the lusts of the body. Death, the logical outcome of sin, at once testifies to the power of sin and its inherent corruption, while grace is the restoring spiritual factor following up and combating everywhere and always the pernicious influence of sin. It strives to dethrone sin, and to establish itself in man as the only dominating force. (5) In describing the future glorious state of the believers, the New Testament uses the expression of those who endure (in faith; compare 2 Timothy 2:12); of those `purchased unto God with the blood of the Lamb' (Revelation 5:10); of those partaking in the first resurrection (Revelation 20:6); of the servants of God, "they shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 22:5); on the other hand, it teaches us not to anticipate the privileges of heaven, while our Christian life is anything but satisfactory (1 Corinthians 4:8), and Revelation 17:18 shows us the terrible fate of the woman, the great city (the corrupt church), "which reigneth over the kings of the earth."

See further KING, KINGDOM.

William Baur

Reins

Reins - ranz (kilyah; nephros, words promiscuously translated "heart," "inward parts," "kidneys" or "reins." The latter word, which is derived from Latin "renes" through Old French "reins", has given place in modern English to the word "kidneys" (see Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 398). the Revised Version (British and American) has, however, retained the older word, at least in the margin, in all passages in which it is found in the King James Version): According to Hebrew psychology the reins are the seat of the deepest emotions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know. Thus the Revised Version (British and American) has substituted "heart" for "reins" in the text of Job 19:27; Psalms 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; 73:21; Proverbs 23:16; Jeremiah 11:20; 12:2; 17:10; 20:12; the translation "inward parts" is found but once (Psalms 139:13). In one passage the King James Version has translated the Hebrew [~halac ("loins") with "reins" (Isaiah 11:5), where the Revised Version (British and American) has rightly substituted "waist" (which see). The Greek word nephros (which is etymologically allied to the Middle English nere, Get. Niere; see Skeat, ibid, 231, under the word "Kidney") is found in 1 Maccabees 2:24; Revelation 2:23.

See KIDNEYS.

H. L. E. Luering

Rekem

Rekem - re'-kem (rekem, "friendship"):

(1) One of the five kings of Midian slain by the Israelites under Moses (Numbers 31:8; Joshua 13:21 (Codex Vaticanus Rhobok; Codex Alexandrinus Rhokom)). Like his companions, he is called a "king" in Numbers, but a "prince" or "chieftain" in the passage in Josh. The two references are hardly related; both are based on an earlier tradition.glish Language, 398). the Revised Version (British and American) has, however, retained the older word, at least in the margin, in all passages in which it is found in the King James Version): According to Hebrew psychology the reins are the seat of the deepest emotions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know. Thus the Revised Version (British and American) has substituted "heart" for "reins" in the text of Job 19:27; Psalms 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; 73:21; Proverbs 23:16; Jeremiah 11:20; 12:2; 17:10; 20:12; the translation "inward parts" is found but once (Psalms 139:13). In one passage the King James Version has translated the Hebrew halac ("loins") with "reins" (Isaiah 11:5), where the Revised Version (British and American) has rightly substituted "waist" (which see). The Greek word nephros (which is etymologically allied to the Middle English nere, Get. Niere; see Skeat, ibid, 231, under the word "Kidney") is found in 1 Maccabees 2:24; Revelation 2:23. compare Micah 4:7); "Thy God reigneth" (Isaiah 52:7); "Thou hast taken thy great power and didst reign" (Revelation 11:17, meaning probably "thou didst assume thy might"); (2) the Messiah (Christ) as a just and righteous king (Jeremiah 23:5); an eternal king (Luke 1:33; compare Revelation 11:15); punishing and subduing His enemies (Luke 19:14, 27; 1 Corinthians 15:25).

(2) Eponym of a Calebite family (1 Chronicles 2:43 (Rhekom). Probably a town in Southern Judah. A town of this name is given as belonging to Benjamin (Joshua 18:27).

(3) A city of Benjamin, mentioned with Irpeel and Taralah (Joshua 18:27); the site is unknown.

Relationships, Family

Relationships, Family - re-la'-shun-ships:

I. CONSANGUINITY

1. In General

2. Parents and Children

3. Brothers and Sisters

4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen

II. AFFINITY

1. Husband and Wife

2. Father-in-Law, etc.

3. Brother-in-Law, etc.

III. OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS

1. Foster-Father

2. Master and Servants

3. Host and Guest

4. The Dependent Stranger

The family or domestic relations of the Bible include (1) those of consanguinity or blood relationship, (2) affinity or marriage relationship, and (3) legal convention. Those of consanguinity may be divided into lineal and collateral groups; the former are those of parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and ancestors and descendants in general; the latter are those of brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts in relation to nephews and nieces, cousins of various degrees, including mere tribesmen and even remoter kinsfolk. The relations of affinity include besides that of husband and wife or concubine, the relations among rival wives, and their children, those of father-in-law and mother-in-law in relation to son-in-law and daughter-in-law, and those of brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. The domestic relations based on legal convention are either legal fictions or the results of agreement: among the former we must include those of foster-father or mother and foster-children; among the latter the relations between master and the various classes of servants and slaves held by the ancient Hebrews, those between host and guest, especially where they became covenant brothers, and between the citizen and the stranger who had attached himself to him for his protection.

I. Consanguinity. 1. In General: Genealogies were carefully kept by the ancient Hebrews (compare those of Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke), not only because they formed the basis of a man's title to his property (Numbers 27:8-11; exceptional case, Numbers 36:1-12), but also because on one's pedigree depended the right of his family to intermarry with the priestly caste. Descent was traced through the father; a man's closest association was therefore with his father's family, and he was ordinarily referred to as the son of his father, thus Isaac the son of Abraham (Genesis 25:19), Joshua the son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh (Numbers 14:6). Still there are instances of men named for their mothers (Joab the son of Zeruiah), and a man's relation with his mother's family was fully recognized in the laws forbidding incest. No lineal relatives were permitted to intermarry (Leviticus 18:7, 10). The relations of ancestors and descendants were considered so close that the ordinary terms of relationship between children and parents are used constantly in relation to grandparents and remoter ancestors. The wishes of a great-grandfather are respected long after his death as the wishes of a father (Jeremiah 35:16).

2. Parents and Children: The father ('abh; pater) was the head of the family (mishpachah) or household (bayith), which was a religious (1 Samuel 20:6, 29; Exodus 12:3; Job 1:5) as well as a social and political unit, consisting usually of a combination of families in the modern sense. As long as polygamy prevailed a family would include at least the several groups of children of the wives and concubines. The Bible represents the Hebrew father as commanding (Genesis 50:16; Jeremiah 35:6 ff; Proverbs 6:20), instructing (Proverbs 1:8; 4:1), and rebuking (Genesis 37:10; Numbers 12:14); at the same time, as loving (Genesis 25:28; 37:4; 44:20), pitying (Psalms 103:13), and blessing his household (Genesis 27:41), rejoicing over its triumphs (Proverbs 10:1; 15:20), or grieving over its misfortunes (Genesis 37:35). The mother, too ('em; meter), naturally displays love and care (Genesis 25:28; Proverbs 4:3; Isaiah 49:15; 66:13). To the Hebrew woman childlessness was considered the greatest of misfortunes (1 Samuel 1:10 ff, of Hannah; Genesis 30:23, of Rachel). Children were looked upon as a blessing from God (Psalms 127:3) and the defenders of the home (Psalms 127:4-5). In early life a child was more directly under the control of the mother than the father; the mother was its first teacher (Proverbs 1:8). Thereafter the father was expected to direct the training of the son (ben; huios, teknon) (Genesis 18:19; Exodus 12:26; Exodus 13:8, 14-15; Deuteronomy 6:7), while the daughter (bath; thugater) probably remained with the mother until her marriage (Micah 7:6). Both parents are looked upon in the Law as objects of honor (Exodus 20:12 parallel Deuteronomy 5:16 (the Fifth Commandment); Exodus 21:15; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 27:16; Proverbs 20:20; Ezekiel 22:7; Micah 7:6), obedience (Genesis 28:7; Leviticus 19:3; Deuteronomy 21:18 ff; Proverbs 1:8; 30:17) and love (1 Kings 19:20; Proverbs 28:24; 30:11). The control of parents was so great as to include the right to sell daughters in marriage, but not, without restrictions, into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11; compare Exodus 22:16 ff; Nehemiah 5:5), and never into a life of shame (Leviticus 19:29); they could chastise children (Deuteronomy 8:5; 21:18; Proverbs 13:24; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:1-13), and in the early days even exerted the power of life and death over them (Genesis 22:1-24; Judges 11:39; Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; compare Matthew 15:4). This power, at least for sacrificial purposes, was entirely removed by the Law, and changed, even for punishment, in the case of a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and disobedient son to a mere right of complaint to the proper authorities (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), who were to put him to death. Infanticide by exposure, such as was common among other ancient peoples, seems never to have been practiced by the Hebrews. That the children were nevertheless the chattels of the parents seems to be attested from the fact that they could be seized for the debts of the father (2 Kings 4:1). The father could annul the vows of his daughter (Numbers 30:3-5), and damages for wrongs done to her were paid to him, as in English law "for loss of services" (Deuteronomy 22:29). A widowed or divorced daughter could return to her father (Genesis 38:11; Leviticus 22:13; Ruth 1:15). At his death the mother would become the actual, if not the legal, head of the household (2 Kings 8:1-6, the Shunammite woman; Tobit 1:8, Tobit's grandmother; compare the position of the mother of Jesus). This was especially true of the queen mother (gebhirah), whose name is usually given in the accounts of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 1:11; 2:19, where a throne at the king's right hand was set for the king's mother; 1 Kings 11:26; 21, 31; 2, 10, 13; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26; 10:13; 14:2; 2, 33; 18:2; 1, 19; 22:1; 31, 36; 8, 12, 15, 18; 2 Chronicles 22:2; Jeremiah 13:18; 22:26; see QUEEN MOTHER). While it is true that the position of the widowed mother depended to some extent on the will of her son (1 Kings 2:18 ff), it must be remembered that the sense of filial duty was highly developed among all classes in Palestine (Joshua 2:13, 18; 6:23; 1 Samuel 22:3; 2 Samuel 19:37; 1 Kings 19:20). The rebellion of children marked the acme of social degeneration (Micah 7:6; Proverbs 30:11); on the other hand the "great day" according to Malachi (Proverbs 4:5 (Hebrews 3:19)) is one of conciliation of parents and children.

3. Brothers and Sisters: The terms "brother" ('ach; adelphos) and "sister" ('ahoth; adelphe) apply to children of the same father and mother (Genesis 4:2), and also to children of one father (Genesis 20:12) or of one mother (Genesis 43:7; Leviticus 18:9; 20:17). The brother as well as the father was the natural protector of the honor of his sister; thus, the sons of Jacob speak of Dinah as "our daughter" (Genesis 34:17). Absalom feels more deeply aggrieved over the crime against Tamar than does David himself (2 Samuel 13:21). The brother's other duties toward a sister were very much like those of a father (Song of Solomon 8:8). The Law strictly forbids the intermarriage of brother and sister, whether of the same father and mother or not, whether born at home or born abroad, as a "disgraceful thing" (chesedh, a different word from checedh, "kindness" (Leviticus 18:9, 11; 20:17). In earlier times marriage between half-brother and sister was allowable (Genesis 20:12; compare 2 Samuel 13:13). In fact, we are expressly told that the laws against incest were not obeyed by the Egyptians or the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:3 ff; Leviticus 20:23). Brotherly sentiment was highly developed (Genesis 24:60; Joshua 2:13; Proverbs 17:17; compare Leviticus 25:35; Deuteronomy 15:11 f; Deuteronomy 25:3); the dwelling of brothers together in unity is considered good and pleasant (Psalms 133:1). Brothers were ever ready to protect or avenge each other (2 Samuel 3:27). Indeed, it is part of the unwritten, common law, recognized though not necessarily approved in the Bible, that the brother or next of kin, the go'el, is expected to avenge a death (Numbers 35:19 ff; Deuteronomy 19:6; Joshua 20:3; 2 Samuel 14:11), and no punishment is meted out to prevent such self-help, unless it occurs in a refuge-city. A brother was also expected to ransom a captive or slave (Leviticus 25:48; Psalms 49:7). Half-brothers were of course not so near as brothers of the full blood (compare Joseph and his brothers), and it is not surprising to find the sons of a wife despising and driving out the son of a harlot (Judges 11:1, Jephthah). The words "brother" and "sister" are used frequently of more distant relationships (see below) and figuratively of a friend.

4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen: The Hebrew dodh (Leviticus 10:4, "uncles"; Numbers 36:11, "cousins"; 1 Samuel 14:50), coming from a primitive caressing word, possibly indicating "dandle" "fondle" "love" means both "uncle" and "beloved." It is used of the father's and also of the mother's brother, and the corresponding feminine form (dodhah) is used of the father's sister (Exodus 6:20; compare Numbers 26:59) and even of the father's brother's wife (Leviticus 18:14; 20:20). Intermarriage between nephew and aunt (i.e. father's sister, mother's sister, or father's brother's wife, or, in general, uncle's wife) was prohibited (Leviticus 18:12-13, 14; Leviticus 20:19-20), though nothing is said of intermarriage between uncle and niece nor between cousins (compare Numbers 36:11). On the relations between uncle and nephew compare the Bible accounts of Jacob and Laban, Abraham and Lot, David and Joab, etc. In a more general sense the word [~dodh is used of kinsmen, Amos 6:10 (where the dodh, "even he that burneth him" (mecarepho, perhaps "maternal uncle"; the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word "Cremation"), takes charge of a dead body); ben dodh is used of cousin (compare ben 'ahi 'immo, brother of his mother," etc.) and bath dodh of a female cousin. For other relations of this and remoter degrees the word for brother is loosely used (e.g. of nephews, Genesis 13:8; 14:14, etc.; of tribesmen, Leviticus 21:10; and of more distant relatives, Deuteronomy 2:4, 8; 23:7).

II. Affinity. 1. Husband and Wife: The husband ('ish; compare ba`al, Hosea 2:16; aner), though in a sense leaving father and mother for his wife ('ishshah; gune) (Genesis 2:24), under normal conditions remained a member of his father's family. If such passages as Genesis 2:24; 21:10; 5, 67; 30:3; 31:31; Judges 4:17 ff; Judges 5:24 ff; Judges 8:19; 9:3, indicate the existence in pre-Biblical times of a matriarchate, the allusions are at least too vague to justify the predication of its persistence in Biblical times. The wife was "taken" by her husband, or "given" by her father or, in the case of a servant, by her master or mistress (Genesis 2:22; 16:3; 9, 21), and although the contract was between the men (Genesis 29:1-35; 34:16; Exodus 22:16; Deuteronomy 22:29; Ruth 4:10) or the parents (Genesis 21:21; Genesis 24:1-67), it is probable that the consent of the girl was usually asked (Genesis 24:58). Love between the young people was given due consideration (as in the case of Samson, Shechem, Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 29:18), David and Michal (1 Samuel 18:20)); at least it developed among married people, so that Hosea could compare the attitude of husband toward wife to that of Yahweh toward Israel. As a matter of legal right, it is probable that throughout the Orient long before the events narrated in the Book of Esther, every man did "bear rule in his own house" (Esther 1:22). In fact a precedent for the Persian decree has been traced as far back as the first human pair (Genesis 3:16). Nevertheless, we find many instances in which the wife seems to take the lead in the affairs of the household, as in the case of Samson's parents (Judges 13:23), of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:1-44), of Jael (Judges 4:18 ff; Judges 5:24 ff), of Achsah (Joshua 15:18 f; Judges 1:12 f), and in less pleasant matters of Jezebel (1 Kings 18:4; 1 Kings 21:1-29), Sapphira (Acts 5:2), and Zeresh (Esther 5:14), who were at least consulted in the affairs of their several households. Abraham is even commanded by the voice of God, "In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice" (Genesis 21:12). That most women were not so fortunate is probably best attested by the fact that at least in the earlier times the best of them had to resort to stratagem to accomplish their purposes (as in the cases of Rebekah (Genesis 27:6 ff), Rachel (Genesis 31:34), Leah (Genesis 30:16) and Abigail (1 Samuel 25:18 ff), and even to get information as to their husband's affairs (Sarah, Genesis 18:10; Rebekah, Genesis 27:5)). Perhaps their humbler sisters in later days accomplished their ends by being so contentious as to attract the notice of two proverb-collectors (Proverbs 21:9; 25:24). Though we have no instance of the exercise of the right of life and death over the wife by the husband, and though it is clear that the Hebrew husband had no power of sale (compare Exodus 21:8), it is frequently asserted on the basis of the one-sided divorce doctrine of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 24:1), and on the basis of analogy with other ancient laws, as well as because the wife is spoken of in conjunction with property (Exodus 20:17) and because the husband exercised the right to annul the wife's vows (Numbers 30:6), that the wife occupied in the ordinary Hebrew home a very subordinate position. It must not be forgotten, however, that the husband owed duties to the wife (Exodus 21:10). It must also be borne in mind that great divergence existed at different times and places, and in different stations of society. Most of our Old Testament evidence pertains to the wealthier classes. The two extremes of the women that are "at ease in Zion" (Isaiah 32:9-20; compare Amos 4:1 ff; Amos 6:1 ff) and the busy "good wife" described in Proverbs 31:10 ff are hardly exceeded in the most complex society today. The latter probably gives the fairer as well as the more wholesome picture of the functions of the wife in the home, and it is significant that her husband as well as her sons are expected to call her blessed (Proverbs 31:28).

It is difficult to estimate the extent to which polygamy and concubinage were practiced in ancient Palestine, but it is clear that the former practice was discouraged even among kings (Deuteronomy 17:17), and the latter, an outgrowth of slavery, was not held in high repute (compare Deuteronomy 21:10-14). The position of a less-favored wife (Deuteronomy 21:15, "hated") was naturally unpleasant, and her relations with other wives of her husband decidedly bitter--they were called each other's tsaroth, literally, "vexers" (the Revised Version (British and American) "rivals," Leviticus 18:18; 1 Samuel 1:6, the King James Version "adversary"; compare Ecclesiasticus 37:11)--even when they were sisters (as in the case of Rachel and Leah, Genesis 30:1). Hence, the Law forbade the marrying of two sisters (Leviticus 18:18). On the other hand so strong was the desire of a Hebrew mother for children that the childless wife welcomed the children of a maidservant born to her husband as her own (Genesis 30:1-12, etc.).

2. Father-in-Law, etc.:

In normal Hebrew society, for reasons already explained, the relations of a family with the husband's parents (cham, from chamoth) were closer than those with the wife's parents (chothen, feminine chotheneth; pentheros, penthera. Where under special conditions a man remained with his wife's tribe after marriage, as in the case of Jacob, serving out his mohar, or Moses fleeing from the wrath of the Egyptians, or the sons of Elimelech sojourning in the land of Moab because of the famine in Palestine, his identity with his own tribe was not destroyed, and at the first opportunity the natural impulse was to return to his own country. The bride, on the other hand, leaving her people, would become a member of her husband's family, with all the rights and duties of a daughter (Micah 7:6). Thus Judah can order Tamar burned for violation of the obligations of a widow (Genesis 38:24). No doubt the position of the daughter-in-law varied in the Hebrew home between the extremes of those who vexed their parents-in-law unto-the death (Genesis 26:35; 27:46; 28:8) and the one who said to her mother-in-law, "Yahweh do so to me .... if aught but death part thee and me" (Ruth 1:17). Parents-in-law and children-in-law were considered too closely related to intermarry (Leviticus 18:15; 12, 14).

3. Brother-in-Law, etc.:

A woman's brother acting in loco parentis might perform all the offices of a father-in-law and possibly be called chothen (Genesis 24:50, 55; 34:11 ff). Naturally, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would be considered too closely related to intermarry (Leviticus 18:16, 18; 20:21). Nevertheless the husband's brother (yabham) was expected to marry the childless widow to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). This custom dated back to Canaanitic practice (Genesis 38:8), and from the connection between marrying the childless widow and the redemption of land may be called a part of the land law of Palestine (Ruth 4:1-12; compare Jeremiah 32:6 ff). In practice the Levirate was probably considered more in the nature of a moral duty than a privilege (Deuteronomy 25:7; Ruth 4:6), and devolved not only on the brother, but on other members of a deceased husband's family in the order of the nearness of their relationship to him (Ruth 3:12). In the Hebrew family brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would form part of the same household. In this relation as in others we find both ideal friendship (David and Jonathan, 1 Samuel 18:3; 2 Samuel 1:26) and petty jealousies (in the matter of Moses' wife, Numbers 12:1).

III. Other Domestic Relations. 1. Foster-father: The Hebrew 'omen, feminine 'omeneth (participle of 'aman), literally, "nourishing," is translated "nursing father" (Numbers 11:12; Isaiah 49:23), nursing mother" (Isaiah 49:23), "nurse" (Ruth 4:16; 2 Samuel 4:4), or simply as the equivalent of "bringing up" (2 Kings 10:1, 5; Esther 2:7). In the case of Esther and of Ahab's children, and possibly in the other instances referred to, the relation of foster-parents is suggested. The foster-children under such conditions obeyed the words of the foster-father as the words of a father (Esther 2:20). Michal is spoken of as the mother of Merab's two children (2 Samuel 21:8) because she reared them (Sanhedhrin 19b). Adoption in the Roman sense was, however, hardly to be expected in a polygamous society where the childless father could remarry. Nevertheless, Jacob adopts Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 48:5), and thereby makes them the fathers of tribes. According to Josephus, while Abraham was childless he adopted Lot (Ant., I, vii, 1), and the daughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses (Ant., II, ix, 7; compare Exodus 2:10). In New Testament times the notion of adoption was so familiar that Paul uses the word figuratively of conversion (huiothesia, Romans 8:15; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5).

2. Master and Servants: The "family" as the word is used of ancient peoples included dependents. The Hebrew mishpachah is connected with the word shiphchah, "maidservant," as the Latin familia is connected with famulus, "servant." For a discussion of the various classes of servants and slaves, Hebrew and foreign, male and female, see SLAVERY .

3. Host and Guest: When Lot protested against betraying his visitors to the men of Sodom, forasmuch as they had come under the shadow of his roof, and he even preferred to give his daughters to the mob rather than fail in his duties as a host (Genesis 19:8), he was acting on the ancient principle of guest-friendship (compare Greek xenia), which bound host and guest by sacred ties. In the light of this principle the act of Jael, who receives Sisera as a guest, and then betrays him, becomes startling and capable of explanation only on the basis of the intense hatred existing at the time, and justifiable, if at all, only on theory that all is fair in war (Judges 4:18-21; Judges 5:24-27). The nomads of ancient times and even the post-exilic Hebrews, like the Arabs of today, were bound by a temporary covenant whenever there was "salt between them," that is, in the relation of host and guest (Ezra 4:14; compare the expression "covenant of salt," 2 Chronicles 13:5; Numbers 18:19). In the early Christian church breaking bread together served as a sort of a berith 'ahim, or covenant of brothers. In large households such as those of a king, those that ate at the table were members of the household (2 Samuel 9:11, compared to sons; compare also 2 Samuel 9:7, 10, 13; 19:28; 1 Kings 2:7; 4:27; 18:19).

See HOSPITALITY.

4. The Dependent Stranger: The ger or stranger (as indicated by the expression "thy stranger" (Exodus 20:10; Leviticus 25:6; Deuteronomy 5:14; 29:11; 31:12; compare Deuteronomy 1:16), Hebrew gero, literally, "his stranger") attached himself to an influential Hebrew for protection. Thus we read of a "sojourner of the priest's" (Leviticus 22:10, toschabh; compare Leviticus 25:6) who was in many respects a dependent, but still to be distinguished from a servant (Leviticus 22:11). The Mosaic Law commands that such strangers be treated with consideration (Exodus 12:49; 20:10; 22:21 ff; Exodus 23:9; Leviticus 19:33; Deuteronomy 1:16; 10:18; 14:21, etc.; Psalms 146:9) and even with love (Deuteronomy 16:14; Leviticus 19:34).

See STRANGER AND SOJOURNER.

Nathan Isaacs and Ella Davis Isaacs

Release

Release - re-les': (1) The forgiveness of a debt (shemiTTah (Deuteronomy 15:1-2, 9; 31:10; see JUBILEE YEAR)), with verb shamaT, "to release," Deuteronomy 31:2-3. (2) To exempt from taxation or military service (hanachah, "release," "rest" (Esther 2:18)). Some would render "granted a holiday." (3) To set a prisoner or slave at liberty (apoluo, "to let go free" (Matthew 27:15 parallel John 19:10), etc.).

Religion

Religion - re-lij'-un: "Religion" and "religious" in Elizabethan English were used frequently to denote the outward expression of worship. This is the force of threskeia, translated "religion" in Acts 26:5; James 1:26-27 (with adjective threskos, "religious"), while the same noun in Colossians 2:18 is rendered "worshipping" ("cult" would give the exact meaning). And in the same external sense "religion" is used by the King James Version for latreia, "worship" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), in I Macc 1:43; 2:19,22. Otherwise "Jews' religion" (or "religion of the Jews") appears in 2 Maccabees 8:1; 14:38 (the Revised Version (British and American) bis); Galatians 1:13-14 (Ioudaismos, "Judaism"); and "an alien religion" in 2 Maccabees 6:24 (allophulismos, "that belonging to another tribe"). The neglect of the external force of "religion" has led to much reckless misquoting of James 1:26-27. Compare Acts 17:22.

See SUPERSTITION.

Burton Scott Easton

Religion, Comparative

Religion, Comparative - See COMPARATIVE RELIGION.

Religion, Science of

Religion, Science of - See COMPARATIVE RELIGION.

Remainder

Remainder - re-man'-der (yathar, "to be left," she'erith, "remnant"): In 2 Samuel 14:7 "residue" would have been clearer (compare Psalms 76:10), but the changes of the Revised Version (British and American) in Leviticus 6:16; Leviticus 7:16-17 are pointless (contrast Exodus 29:34).

Remaliah

Remaliah - rem-a-li'-a (remalyahu, "whom Yahweh has adorned"): The father of Pekah (2 Kings 15:25 ff; Isaiah 7:4 ff; Isaiah 8:6). The contemptuous allusion to Pekah as "the son of Remaliah" in Isaiah 7:4 (similarly "the son of Kish," 1 Samuel 10:11) may be a slur on Remaliah's humble origin.

Remember; Remembrance

Remember; Remembrance - re-mem'-ber, re-mem'-brans: "Remember" is mostly the translation, in the Old Testament, of zakhar, and in the New Testament of mnaomai (Matthew 5:23; 26:75; John 2:17, etc.), and of [@mnemoneuo (Matthew 16:9; Mark 8:18; Luke 17:32, etc.), and "remembrance" the translation of derivatives of these (zekher, anamnesis, etc.). There are a few other words. "To remember" is used of God in remembering persons (Genesis 8:1; 19:29, etc.), His covenant (Genesis 9:15; Exodus 2:24; Ezekiel 16:60, etc.), in answering prayer (Judges 16:28; Nehemiah 13:14, 22; Psalms 20:3, etc.), and in other ways. Men are exhorted to "remember" God's dealings with them, His commandments (Deuteronomy 8:2, 18; Judges 8:34; 1 Chronicles 16:12, etc.), the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8), etc. A specially solemn command is that relating to the Lord's Supper in Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, "This do in remembrance of me." "Remembrancer" (writer of chronicles) occurs in the King James Version margin of 2 Samuel 8:16; 20:24; 1 Kings 4:3; 1 Chronicles 18:15 (text "recorder," the Revised Version margin "chronicler"). In Isaiah 62:6, the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "ye that are Yahweh's remembrancers." the Revised Version (British and American) has frequent changes on the King James Version text, as "have marked" (1 Samuel 15:2); "make mention of" (Psalms 20:7; 77:11; Song of Solomon 1:4); "remember" for "be ye mindful of" (1 Chronicles 16:15); "memorial" for "remembrance" (Isaiah 57:8); in the American Standard Revised Version, "to his holy memorial name" (Psalms 30:4; 97:12, the English Revised Version "to his holy name," margin "Hebrew `memorial' "); in 2 Timothy 1:5, "having been reminded of" for the King James Version "call to remembrance," etc.

W. L. Walker

Remeth

Remeth - re'-meth, rem'-eth (remeth; Codex Vaticanus Rhemmas; Codex Alexandrinus Rhamath): A place in the territory of Issachar named with En-gannim (Joshua 19:21). It is probably identical with Ramoth of 1 Chronicles 6:73, and Jarmuth of Joshua 21:29. It is represented today by the village er-Rameh, situated on a hill which rises abruptly from the green plain about 11 miles Southwest of Jenin (Engannim). While the southern boundary of Issachar was, roughly, the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, the possessions of the tribes seem sometimes to have overlapped.

See JARMUTH; RAMOTH.

Remission of Sins

Remission of Sins - re-mish'-un (aphesis, paresis): The two Greek words, of which the latter occurs only in Romans 3:25, were translated by the same English word in the King James Version. In the Revised Version (British and American), paresis is translation "passing over." It is contrasted with the other term as pretermission with remission. Remission is exemption from the consequences of an offense, forgiveness; pretermission is the suspension of the penalty (Philippi, Ellicott, Trench (Synonyms, XXXIII), Weiss; compare Acts 17:30). Cremer (Lexicon of N T Gr) regards the meaning of the two words as identical, except that the one refers to the Old Testament and the other to the New Testament. Sins are remitted when the offender is treated as though the offense had never been committed. Remission is restricted to the penalty, while forgiveness refers more particularly to the person, although it may be used also of the sin itself. Remission also is used of offenses against God's law; forgiveness, against either divine or human law.

See ABSOLUTION; FORGIVENESS.

H. E. Jacobs

Remmon

Remmon - rem'-on (rimmon, Joshua 19:7).

See RIMMON.

Remmon-methoar

Remmon-methoar - rem'-on-meth'-o-ar, rem'-on-me-tho'-ar (rimmon ha-metho'-ar (Joshua 19:13)).

See RIMMON, (3).

Remnant

Remnant - rem'-nant: Remnant is the translation of yether, "what is left over" (Deuteronomy 3:11; 28:54; Joshua 12:4, etc.); of she'-ar, "the rest" (Ezra 3:8 the King James Version; Isaiah 10:20-21, 22; 11:16, etc.; Zephaniah 1:4); more frequently of she'-erith, "residue," etc. (2 Kings 19:4, 31; 2 Chronicles 34:9; Ezra 9:14; Isaiah 14:30, etc.). As the translation of the last-mentioned two words, "remnant" has a special significance in the prophecies of Isaiah, as denoting "a holy seed," or spiritual kernel, of the nation which should survive impending judgment and become the germ of the people of God, being blessed of God and made a blessing (compare Micah 2:12; 4:7; Micah 5:7-8; 7:18; also Zephaniah 2:7; 3:13; Haggai 1:12, 14; Zechariah 8:6; Joel 2:32). Paul, in Romans 9:27, quotes from Isaiah 10:22 f, "the remnant (kataleimma, "what is left over"] shall be saved"; compare also Romans 11:5 (where the word is leimma) with 2 Kings 19:4. Several other Hebrew words are less frequently translated "remnant": 'ahar, "after"; yathar, "to be left over," etc.; in the New Testament (the King James Version) we have also loipos, "left," "remaining" (Matthew 22:6; Revelation 11:13, etc.).

For "remnant" the Revised Version (British and American) has "overhanging part" (Exodus 26:12), "rest" (Leviticus 14:18, etc.); on the other hand gives "remnant" for "posterity" (Genesis 45:7), for "rest" (Joshua 10:20; 1 Chronicles 4:43; Isaiah 10:19), for "residue" (Haggai 2:2; Zechariah 8:11), etc.

W. L. Walker

Remphan

Remphan - rem'-fan.

See REPHAN.

Rending of Garments

Rending of Garments - ren'-ding.

See BURIAL,IV ; DRESS.

Renew

Renew - re-nu': The word is used in various senses: (1) of material things, e.g. Psalms 104:30; here it means to give a new appearance, to refresh, to restore the face of the earth; (2) in 1 Samuel 11:14, to establish more firmly the kingdom by reinstalling King Saul; (3) in 2 Chronicles 15:8, to rebuild or repair the broken altar; (4) in Lamentations 5:21, "renew our days," restore the favors of former days; (5) in Isaiah 41:1, `let them gather together, or marshal their strongest arguments for answer'; (6) in Psalms 103:5; Isaiah 40:31, it refers to the restoring of spiritual strength; (7) in the New Testament it invariably refers to spiritual renewal, e.g. Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:23; Colossians 3:10; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 6:6; all derivatives of kainos, "new."

G. H. Gerberding

Repair

Repair - re-par' (machceh, "refuge"): In Joel 3:16, for the King James Version The Lord will be the hope of his people" the King James Version margin renders "place of repair," or, "harbour" = haven of repair. the Revised Version (British and American) gives "refuge." Other words are chazaq, "to strengthen," "harden," "fix" (2 Kings 12:5 and often; Nehemiah 3:1-32); rapha' "to heal" (1 Kings 18:30); `amadh, "to cause to stand still" (Ezra 9:9); chayah, "to revive" (1 Chronicles 11:8); caghar, "to close up" (1 Kings 11:27).

In the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha for huporrapto, "to patch up" (Sirach 50:1); episkeuazo, "to get ready" (1 Maccabees 12:37). In 1 Maccabees 14:34 occurs "reparation" (modern English "repairs") for epanorthosis, "straightening up."

M. O. Evans

Repentance

Repentance - re-pen'-tans:

I. OLD TESTAMENT TERMS

1. To Repent--"to Pant," "to Sigh"

2. To Repent--"to Turn" or "Return"

II. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS

1. Repent--"to Care," "Be Concerned"

2. Repent--"to Change the Mind"

3. Repent--"to Turn Over," "to Turn Upon," "to Turn Unto"

III. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

1. The Intellectual Element

2. The Emotional Element

3. The Volitional Element

LITERATURE

To get an accurate idea of the precise New Testament meaning of this highly important word it is necessary to consider its approximate synonyms in the original Hebrew and Greek The psychological elements of repentance should be considered in the light of the general teaching of Scripture.

I. Old Testament Terms. 1. To Repent--"to Pant," "to Sigh": The Hebrew word naham, is an onomatopoetic term which implies difficulty in breathing, hence, "to pant," "to sigh," "to groan." Naturally it came to signify "to lament" or "to grieve," and when the emotion was produced by the desire of good for others, it merged into compassion and sympathy, and when incited by a consideration of one's own character and deeds it means "to rue," "to repent." To adapt language to our understanding, God is represented as repenting when delayed penalties are at last to be inflicted, or when threatened evils have been averted by genuine reformation (Genesis 6:6; Jonah 3:10). This word is translated "repent" about 40 times in the Old Testament, and in nearly all cases it refers to God. The principal idea is not personal relation to sin, either in its experience of grief or in turning from an evil course. Yet the results of sin are manifest in its use. God's heart is grieved at man's iniquity, and in love He bestows His grace, or in justice He terminates His mercy. It indicates the aroused emotions of God which prompt Him to a different course of dealing with the people. Similarly when used with reference to man, only in this case the consciousness of personal transgression is evident. This distinction in the application of the word is intended by such declarations as God "is not a man, that he should repent" (1 Samuel 15:29; Job 42:6; Jeremiah 8:6).

2. To Repent--"to Turn" or "Return": The term shubh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man's turning away from sin to righteousness (Deuteronomy 4:30; Nehemiah 1:9; Psalms 7:12; Jeremiah 3:14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man (Exodus 32:12; Joshua 7:26). It is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Psalms 85:4). When the term is translated by "return" it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man (1 Samuel 7:3; Psalms 90:13 (both terms, nacham and shubh; Isaiah 21:12; 55:7). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are translated by "repent" and "return" (Ezekiel 14:6; Hosea 12:6; Jonah 3:8).

II. New Testament Terms. 1. Repent--"to Care," "Be Concerned": The term metamelomai, literally signifies to have a feeling or care, concern or regret; like nacham, it expresses the emotional aspect of repentance. The feeling indicated by the word may issue in genuine repentance, or it may degenerate into mere remorse (Matthew 21:29, 32; 27:3). Judas repented only in the sense of regret, remorse, and not in the sense of the abandonment of sin. The word is used with reference to Paul's feeling concerning a certain course of conduct, and with reference to God in His attitude toward His purposes of grace (2 Corinthians 7:8 the King James Version; Hebrews 7:21).

2. Repent--"to Change the Mind": The word metanoeo, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner's return to God. The term signifies "to have another mind," to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word "turn." Thus, it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38). The idea expressed by the word is intimately associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as faith (Acts 20:21), and as conversion (Acts 3:19); also with those experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as remission and forgiveness of sin (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31). It is sometimes conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed relation to sin and God (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4). As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life (Matthew 3:8).

3. Repent--"to Turn Over," "to Turn Upon," "to Turn Unto":

The word epistrepho, is used to bring out more clearly the distinct change wrought in repentance. It is employed quite frequently in Acts to express the positive side of a change involved in New Testament repentance, or to indicate the return to God of which the turning from sin is the negative aspect. The two conceptions are inseparable and complementary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from sin to God (Acts 9:35; 1 Thessalonians 1:9); to strengthen the idea of faith (Acts 11:21); and to complete and emphasize the change required by New Testament repentance (Acts 26:20).

There is great difficulty in expressing the true idea of a change of thought with reference to sin when we translate the New Testament "repentance" into other languages. The Latin version renders it "exercise penitence" (poenitentiam agere). But "penitence" etymologically signifies pain, grief, distress, rather than a change of thought and purpose. Thus Latin Christianity has been corrupted by the pernicious error of presenting grief over sin rather than abandonment of sin as the primary idea of New Testament repentance. It was easy to make the transition from penitence to penance, consequently the Romanists represent Jesus and the apostles as urging people to do penance (poenitentiam agite). The English word "repent" is derived from the Latin repoenitere, and inherits the fault of the Latin, making grief the principal idea and keeping it in the background, if not altogether out of sight, the fundamental New Testament conception of a change of mind with reference to sin. But the exhortations of the ancient prophets, of Jesus, and of the apostles show that the change of mind is the dominant idea of the words employed, while the accompanying grief and consequent reformation enter into one's experience from the very nature of the case.

III. The Psychological Elements. 1. The Intellectual Element: Repentance is that change of a sinner's mind which leads him to turn from his evil ways and live. The change wrought in repentance is so deep and radical as to affect the whole spiritual nature and to involve the entire personality. The intellect must function, the emotions must be aroused, and the will must act. Psychology shows repentance to be profound, personal and all-pervasive. The intellectual element is manifest from the nature of man as an intelligent being, and from the demands of God who desires only rational service. Man must apprehend sin as unutterably heinous, the divine law as perfect and inexorable, and himself as coming short or falling below the requirements of a holy God (Job 42:5-6; Psalms 51:3; Romans 3:20).

2. The Emotional Element: There may be a knowledge of sin without turning from it as an awful thing which dishonors God and ruins man. The change of view may lead only to a dread of punishment and not to the hatred and abandonment of sin (Exodus 9:27; Numbers 22:34; Joshua 7:20; 1 Samuel 15:24; Matthew 27:4). An emotional element is necessarily involved in repentance. While feeling is not the equivalent of repentance, it nevertheless may be a powerful impulse to a genuine turning from sin. A penitent cannot from the nature of the case be stolid and indifferent. The emotional attitude must be altered if New Testament repentance be experienced. There is a type of grief that issues in repentance and another which plunges into remorse. There is a godly sorrow and also a sorrow of the world. The former brings life; the latter, death (Matthew 27:3; Luke 18:23; 2 Corinthians 7:9-10). There must be a consciousness of sin in its effect on man and in its relation to God before there can be a hearty turning away from unrighteousness. The feeling naturally accompanying repentance implies a conviction of personal sin and sinfulness and an earnest appeal to God to forgive according to His mercy (Psalms 51:1-2, 10-14).

3. The Volitional Element: The most prominent element in the psychology of repentance is the voluntary, or volitional. This aspect of the penitent's experience is expressed in the Old Testament by "turn", or "return," and in the New Testament by "repent" or "turn." The words employed in the Hebrew and Greek place chief emphasis on the will, the change of mind, or of purpose, because a complete and sincere turning to God involves both the apprehension of the nature of sin and the consciousness of personal guilt (Jeremiah 25:5; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; 2 Corinthians 7:9-10). The demand for repentance implies free will and individual responsibility. That men are called upon to repent there can be no doubt, and that God is represented as taking the initiative in repentance is equally clear. The solution of the problem belongs to the spiritual sphere. The psychical phenomena have their origin in the mysterious relations of the human and the divine personalities. There can be no external substitute for the internal change. Sackcloth for the body and remorse for the soul are not to be confused with a determined abandonment of sin and return to God. Not material sacrifice, but a spiritual change, is the inexorable demand of God in both dispensations (Psalms 51:17; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 6:20; Hosea 6:6).

Repentance is only a condition of salvation and not its meritorious ground. The motives for repentance are chiefly found in the goodness of God, in divine love, in the pleading desire to have sinners saved, in the inevitable consequences of sin, in the universal demands of the gospel, and in the hope of spiritual life and membership in the kingdom of heaven (Ezekiel 33:11; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:1-5; John 3:16; Acts 17:30; Romans 2:4; 1 Timothy 2:4). The first four beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-6) form a heavenly ladder by which penitent souls pass from the dominion of Satan into the Kingdom of God. A consciousness of spiritual poverty dethroning pride, a sense of personal unworthiness producing grief, a willingness to surrender to God in genuine humility, and a strong spiritual desire developing into hunger and thirst, enter into the experience of one who wholly abandons sin and heartily turns to Him who grants repentance unto life.

LITERATURE.

Various theological works and commentaries Note especially Strong, Systematic Theology, III, 832-36; Broadus on Matthew 3:2, American Comm.; article "Busse" (Penance). Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche.

Byron H. Dement

Repetitions

Repetitions - rep-e-tish'-unz: In Matthew 6:7 only, "Use not vain repetitions," for battalogeo (so Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), a word found nowhere else and spelled variously in the manuscripts, battologeo in Codices K, L, M; etc., batologeo in Codices F G, blattologeo in Codex Bezae (probably influenced by the Latin blatero, "talk idly"); presumably connected with battarizo, "stammer," and perhaps formed under the influence of the Aramaic beta', "speak carelessly," or baTel, "useless." Whether, however battalogeo means the constant repetition of the same phrase or the mechanical recitation of a long series of obscure or meaningless formulas (if, indeed, a distinction between the acts was thought of) cannot be determined. Either practice is abundantly evidenced as a "heathen" custom of the day, and either can be classed as "much speaking."

See PRAYER.

Burton Scott Easton

Rephael

Rephael - re'-fa-el, ref'-a-el (repha'el, "God has healed"; Rhaphael): The eponym of a family of gatekeepers (1 Chronicles 26:7). The name occurs in Tobit and Enoch ("Raphael"); it probably belongs to a group of late formations. See Gray,HPN , 225, 311.

Rephah

Rephah - re'-fa (rephach (the form is corrupt); Rhaphe): The eponym of an Ephraimite family (1 Chronicles 7:25).

Rephaiah

Rephaiah - re-fa'-ya, re-fi'-a (rephayah, probably "Yah is healing"; Septuagint Rhaphaia(s)) :

(1) In David's family, Septuagint also Rhaphal (1 Chronicles 3:21).

(2) A captain of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:42).

(3) A grandson of Issachar, Septuagint also Rhaphara (1 Chronicles 7:2).

(4) A descendant of Saul (1 Chronicles 9:43; in 1 Chronicles 8:37 called "Raphah" (raphah); Septuagint also Raphai).

(5) One of the repairers of the wall under Nehemiah (Nehemiah 3:9).

Rephaim

Rephaim - ref'-a-im, re-fa'-im (repha'-im, from rapha', "a terrible one "hence "giant," in 1 Chronicles 20:4, yelidhe ha-rapha', "sons of the giant"; the King James Version, Rephaims): A race of aboriginal or early inhabitants East of the Jordan in Ashterothkarnaim (Genesis 14:5) and in the valley of Rephaim Southwest of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8). They associated with other giant races, as the Emim and Anakim (Deuteronomy 2:10-11) and the Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2:20). It is probable that they were all of the same stock, being given different names by the different tribes who came in contact with them. The same Hebrew word is rendered "the dead," or "the shades" in various passages (Job 26:5 margin; Psalms 88:10 margin; Proverbs 2:18 margin; Proverbs 9:18 margin; Proverbs 21:16 margin; Isaiah 14:9 margin; Isaiah 26:14, 19 margin). In these instances the word is derived from rapheh, "weak," "powerless," "a shadow" or "shade."

H. Porter

Rephaim, Vale of

Rephaim, Vale of - (`emeq repha'-im; koilas Rhaphaeim, koilas ton Titanon): This was a fertile vale (Isaiah 17:5), to the Southwest of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8; 18:16; the King James Version "Valley of the Giants"), on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Here David repeatedly defeated the invading Philistines (2 Samuel 5:18, 22; 23:13; 1 Chronicles 11:15; 14:9). It is located by Josephus between Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Ant., VII, iv, i; xii, 4). It corresponds to the modern el-Biqa`, which falls away to the Southwest from the lip of the valley of Hinnom. The name in ancient times may perhaps have covered a larger area, including practically all the land between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, where the head-waters of Nahr Ruben are collected.

W. Ewing

Rephan

Rephan - re'-fan: A name for Chiun, the planet Saturn.

See ASTROLOGY, 7; CHIUN.

Rephidim

Rephidim - ref'-i-dim (rephidhim, "rests"; Rhaphidin): A station in the Wanderings, between the wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai (Exodus 17:1, 8; 19:2; Numbers 33:14). The host expected to find water here; to their distress the streams were dry, and water was miraculously provided. Palmer (Desert of the Exodus, 158 ff) states cogent reasons for identifying Rephidim with Wady Feiran. It is the most fertile part of the peninsula, well watered, with a palm grove stretching for miles along the valley. Palmer speaks of passing through the palm grove as a "most delightful" walk; "the tall, graceful trees afforded a delicious shade, fresh water ran at our feet, and, above all, bulbuls flitted from branch to branch uttering their sweet notes." His camp was pitched at "the mouth of Wady `Aleyat, a large open space completely surrounded by steep, shelving mountains of gneiss, the fantastic cleavage of which added greatly to the beauty of the scene. Palms and tamarisks were dotted all around, and on every knoll and mountain slope were ruined houses, churches, and walls, the relics of the ancient monastic city of Paran. Behind our tents rose the majestic mass of Serbal, and beneath the rocky wall opposite ran a purling brook, only a few inches in depth, but still sufficiently cool, clear, and refreshing."

Such a place as this the Amalekites would naturally wish to preserve for themselves against an invading people. For these desert dwellers, indeed, the possession of this watered vale may well have been a matter of life and death.

If this identification is correct, then Jebel Tachuneh, "Mount of the mill," a height that rises on the North of the valley, may have been the hill from which Moses, with Aaron and Hur, viewed the battle.

W. Ewing

Reprobate

Reprobate - rep'-ro-bat: This word occurs in the English Bible in the following passages: Jeremiah 6:30 (the Revised Version (British and American) "refuse"); Romans 1:28; 2 Corinthians 13:5-6, 7; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16. In all these cases the Greek has adokimos. The same Greek word, however, is found with other renderings in Isaiah 1:22 ("dross"); Proverbs 25:4 ("dross"); 1 Corinthians 9:27 ("castaway," the Revised Version (British and American) "rejected"). The primary meaning of adokimos is "not-received," "not-acknowledged." This is applied to precious metals or money, in the sense of "not-current," to which, however, the connotation "not-genuine" easily attaches itself. It is also applied to persons who do not or ought not to receive honor or recognition. This purely negative conception frequently passes over into the positive one of that which is or ought to be rejected, either by God or men. Of the above passages 1 Corinthians 9:27 uses the word in this meaning. Probably Romans 1:28, "God gave them up unto a reprobate mind" must be explained on the same principle: the nous of the idolatrous heathen is permitted by God to fall into such extreme forms of evil as to meet with the universal rejection and reprobation of men. Wettstein's interpretation, "an unfit mind," i.e. incapable of properly performing its function of moral discrimination, has no linguistic warrant, and obliterates the wordplay between "they refused to have God in their knowledge (ouk edokimasan)," and "God gave them up to a reprobate (= unacknowledged, adokimos) mind." Even Titus 1:16, "unto every good work reprobate," affords no instance of the meaning unfit, but belongs to the following rubric.

The close phonetic resemblance and etymological affinity of dokimos to the verb dokimazo, "to try," "test," has caused the notion of "being tested," "tried," and its opposite of "being found wanting in the test" to associate itself more or less distinctly with the adjectives dokimos and adokimos. Thus the more complex meaning results of that which is acknowledged or rejected, because it has approved or not approved itself in testing. This connotation is present in 2 Corinthians 13:5-6, 7; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16; Hebrews 6:8. In the first two of these passages the word is used of Christians who ostensibly were in the true faith, but either hypothetically or actually are represented as having failed to meet the test. "Reprobate unto every good work" (Titus 1:16) are they who by their life have disappointed the expectation of good works. The "reprobate (rejected) land" of Hebrews 6:8 is land that by bearing thorns and thistles has failed to meet the test of the husband man. It should be noticed, however, that adokimos, even in these cases, always retains the meaning of rejection because of failure in trial; compare in the last-named passage: "rejected and nigh unto cursing."

LITERATURE.

Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gracitat(10), 356-57.

Geerhardus Vos

Reproof; Reprove

Reproof; Reprove - re-proof', re-proov': "Reprove" in Elizabethan English had a variety of meanings ("reject" "disprove" "convince," "rebuke"), with "put to the proof" (see 2 Timothy 4:2 the Revised Version margin) as the force common to all, although in modern English the word means only "rebuke" (with a connotation of deliberateness). the King James Version uses the word chiefly (and the Revised Version (British and American) exclusively, except in 2 Esdras 12:32; 14:13; 2 Maccabees 4:33) for yakhach, and elegcho, words that have very much the same ambiguities of meaning. Hence, a fairly easy rendition into English was possible, but the result included all the ambiguities of the original, and to modern readers such a passage as "But your reproof, what doth it reprove? Do ye think to reprove words" (Job 6:25-26 the American Standard Revised Version) is virtually incomprehensible. The meaning is, approximately: "What do your rebukes prove? Are you quibbling about words?" In John 16:8 no single word in modern English will translate elegcho, and "reprove" (the King James Version), "convince" (King James Version margin), and "convict" (Revised Version) are all unsatisfactory. The sense is: "The Spirit will teach men the true meaning of these three words: sin, righteousness, judgment."

Burton Scott Easton

Reptile

Reptile - rep'-til, -til: Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) in Micah 7:17 has reptilis for zohale, "crawling things," the American Standard Revised Version "worms of the earth," the King James Version margin "creeping things."

See LEVIATHAN; LIZARD; SERPENT; TORTOISE.

Reputation

Reputation - rep-u-ta'-shun: the King James Version uses "reputation" where modern English would use "repute," as connoting prominence rather than moral character. Hence, the Revised Version's change to "repute" in Galatians 2:2 (for dokeo, "seem," perhaps with a slightly sarcastic touch). The Revised Version's alteration of "reputation" into "have in honor" (Acts 5:34; Philippians 2:29) is to secure uniformity of translation for the derivatives of time, "honor," but the Revised Version (British and American) retains "reputation" in Susanna, verse 64. The King James Version's "made himself of no reputation" in Philippians 2:7 is a gloss. See KENOSIS. On Ecclesiastes 10:1 see the commentaries.

Require

Require - re-kwir': "Require" meant originally "seek after," whence "ask," and so (as in modern English) "demand." All meanings are common in the King James Version (e.g. 1 Samuel 21:8; Ecclesiastes 3:15; Ezra 8:22; 1 Corinthians 4:2), and the Revised Version (British and American) has made little change.

Rereward

Rereward - rer'-word.

See REARWARD.

Resaias

Resaias - re-sa'-yas, re-si'-as (Rhesaias; the King James Version Reesaias): One of the "leaders" with Zerubbabel in the return (1 Esdras 5:8) = "Reelaiah" in Ezra 2:2, "Raamiah" in Nehemiah 7:7. The name is apparently duplicated in 1 Esdras 5:8 in the form "Reelias."

Resen

Resen - re'-sen (recen; Septuagint Dasen, Dasem):

1. The Name and Its Native Equivalent: The Greek forms show that the Septuagint translators had "d", for "r", but the reading of the Massoretic Text is to be preferred. Resen--the last of the four cities mentioned in Genesis 10:11-12 as having been founded by Nimrod (the King James Version by Asshur)--probably represents the Assyrian pronunciation of the place-name Res-eni, "fountainhead." The only town so named in the inscriptions is one of 18 mentioned by Sennacherib in the Bavian inscription as places from which he dug canals connecting with the river Khosr--in fact, it was one of the sources of Nineveh's water supply. It probably lay too far North, however, to be the city here intended. Naturally the name "Resen" could exist in any place where there was a spring.

2. Possibly the Modern Selamiyeh: As the Biblical text requires a site lying between Nineveh and Calah (Kouyunjik and Nimroud), it is generally thought to be represented by the ruins at Selamiyeh, about 3 miles North of the latter city. It is noteworthy that Xenophon (Anab. iii.4) mentions a "great" city called Larissa as occupying this position, and Bochart has suggested that it is the same place. He supposes that when the inhabitants were asked to what city the ruins belonged, they answered la Resen, "to Resen," which was reproduced by the Greeks as Larissa. Xenophon describes its walls as being 25 ft. wide, 100 ft. high, and 2 parasangs in circuit. Except for the stone plinth 20 ft. high, they were of brick. He speaks of a stone-built pyramid near the city--possibly the temple-tower at Nimroud.

See CALAH; NINEVEH, 10.

T. G. Pinches

Reservoir

Reservoir - rez'-er-vwor, -vwar (miqwah; the King James Version ditch (Isaiah 22:11)).

See DITCH; CISTERN; POOL.

Resh

Resh - resh, rash "r": The 20th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "r". It came also to be used for the number 200. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

Resheph

Resheph - re'-shef (resheph, "flame" or "fire-bolt"): Personal name found in Phoenician as a divine name. In the Old Testament the name of a descendant of Ephraim, the eponym of an Ephraimite family or clan (1 Chronicles 7:25).

Residue

Residue - rez'-i-du.

See REMNANT.

Respect of Persons

Respect of Persons - re-spekt': The phrase nasa' phanim, means literally, "lift up the face," and, among other translations, is rendered indifferently "accept" or "respect the person" in the King James Version (contrast Proverbs 18:5 and Proverbs 24:23). As applied to a (prostrate) suppliant, the phrase means "receive him with favor," and is so used in 1 Samuel 25:35; Malachi 1:8-9 (compare Genesis 19:21, etc.). By a shift in force the phrase came to mean "accept the person instead of the cause" or "show partiality" (Job 13:8, 10 the American Standard Revised Version), and is so used commonly. A literal translation into Greek gave lambano prosopon (Sirach 35:13 (32:16); Luke 20:21; Galatians 2:6), with the noun prosopolempsia, "face-taking" (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; James 2:1), rendered uniformly "respect of persons" in English Versions of the Bible. A noun prosopolemptes, "respecter of persons," and a verb prosopolempteo, are found Acts 10:34; James 2:9. God's judgment rests solely on the character of the man and will be influenced by no worldly (Ephesians 6:9) or national (Romans 2:11) considerations.

Rest

Rest - (nuach, menuchah, "cessation from motion," "peace," "quiet," etc.; anapausis, [@katapausis): "Rest" in the above sense is of frequent occurrence, and is the translation of several words with various applications and shades of meaning, chiefly of the words given above. It is applied to God as ceasing from the work of creating on the 7th day (Genesis 2:2 f) ; as having His place of rest in the midst of His people in the temple (1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalms 132:8, 14); as resting in His love among His people (Zephaniah 3:17, the Revised Version margin "Hebrew, `be silent' "). The 7th day was to be one of rest (Exodus 16:23; 31:15; see SABBATH); the land also was to have its rest in the 7th year (Leviticus 25:4 f). Yahweh promised His people rest in the land He should give them; this they looked forward to and enjoyed (Deuteronomy 12:9; Joshua 11:23). "To rest on" often means to come upon to abide, as of the Spirit of Yahweh (Numbers 11:25 f; Isaiah 11:2), of wisdom (Proverbs 14:33), of anger (Ecclesiastes 7:9). There is again the "rest" of the grave (Job 3:13, 17-18; Isaiah 57:2; Daniel 12:13). Rest is sometimes equivalent to trust, reliance (2 Chronicles 14:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "rely"). Hence, rest in Yahweh (Psalms 37:7, etc.); "rest" in the spiritual sense is not, however, prominent in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Christ's great offer is rest to the soul (Matthew 11:28). In Hebrews 4:1 ff, it is argued from God's having promised His people a "rest"--a promise not realized in Canaan (Hebrews 4:8)--that there remains for the people of God "a Sabbath rest" (sabbatismos, Hebrews 4:9). For "rest" the Revised Version (British and American) has "solemn rest" (Exodus 16:23; 31:15, etc.), "resting-place" (Psalms 132:8, 14; Isaiah 11:10), "peace" (Acts 9:31), "relief" (2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:5), etc.

Restitution; Restoration

Restitution; Restoration - res-ti-tu'-shun.

See PUNISHMENTS.

Restoration

Restoration - res-to-ra'-shun: The idea of a restoration of the world had its origin in the preaching of the Old Testament prophets. Their faith in the unique position and mission of Israel as the chosen people of God inspired in them the conviction that the destruction of the nation would eventually be followed by a restoration under conditions that would insure the realization of the original divine purpose. When the restoration came and passed without fulfillment of this hope, the Messianic era was projected into the future. By the time of Jesus the conception became more or less spiritualized, and the anticipation of a new order in which the consequences of sin would no longer appear was a prominent feature of the Messianic conception. In the teaching of Jesus and the apostles such a restoration is taken for granted as a matter of course.

In Matthew 17:11 (compare Mark 9:12), the moral and spiritual regeneration preached by John the Baptist is described as a restoration and viewed as a fulfillment of Malachi 4:6. It is "to be observed, however, that the work of John could be characterized as restoration only in the sense of an inception of the regeneration that was to be completed by Jesus. In Matthew 19:28 Jesus speaks of a regeneration (palingenesia) of the world in terms that ascribe to the saints a state of special felicity. Perhaps the most pointed expression of the idea of restoration as a special event or crisis is found in the address of Peter (Acts 3:21), where the restoration is described as an apokatastasis panton, and is viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy.

In all the passages cited the restoration is assumed as a matter with which the hearers are familiar, and consequently its nature is not unfolded. The evidence is, therefore, too limited to justify any attempt to outline its special features. Under such circumstances there is grave danger of reading into the language of the Scriptures one's own conception of what the restoration is to embody. We are probably expressing the full warrant of the Scripture when we say that the reconstruction mentioned in these passages contemplates the restoration of man, under the reign of Christ, to a life in which the consequences of sin are no longer present, and that this reconstruction is to include in some measure a regeneration of both the physical and the spiritual world.

Whether the benefits of the restoration are to accrue to all men is also left undefined in the Scriptures. In the passages already cited only the disciples of Christ appear in the field of vision. Certain sayings of Jesus are sometimes regarded as favorable to the more inclusive view. In John 12:32 Jesus speaks of drawing all men to Himself, but here, as in John 3:14-15, it is to be observed that while Christ's sacrifice includes all men in its scope, its benefits will doubtless accrue to those only who respond willingly to His drawing power. The saying of Caiaphas (John 11:52) is irrelevant, for the phrase, "the children of God that are scattered abroad," probably refers only to the worthy Jews of the dispersion. Neither can the statements of Paul (Romans 11:32; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 1:9-10; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10; Titus 2:11) be pressed in favor of the restorationist view. They affirm only that God's plan makes provision for the redemption of all, and that His saving will is universal. But men have wills of their own, and whether they share in the benefits of the salvation provided depends on their availing themselves of its privileges. The doctrine of the restoration of all can hardly be deduced from the New Testament.

Resurrection

Resurrection - rez-u-rek'-shun (in the New Testament anastasis, with verbs anistemi, "stand up," and egeiro, "raise." There is no technical term in the Old Testament, but in Isaiah 26:19 are found the verbs chayah, "live," kum "rise," kic "awake").

I. ISRAEL AND IMMORTALITY

1. Nationalism

2. Speculation

3. Religious Danger

4. Belief in Immortality

5. Resurrection

6. Greek Concepts

II. RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE

1. The Old Testament

2. The Righteous

3. The Unrighteous

4. Complete Denial

III. TEACHING OF CHRIST

1. Mark 12:18-27

2. In General

IV. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE

1. References

2. Pauline Doctrine

3. Continuity

4. 2 Corinthians 5

V. SUMMARY

1. New Testament Data

2. Interpretation

LITERATURE

I. Israel and Immortality. 1. Nationalism: It is very remarkable that a doctrine of life after death as an essential part of religion was of very late development in Israel, although this doctrine, often highly elaborated, was commonly held among the surrounding nations. The chief cause of this lateness was that Israel's religion centered predominantly in the ideal of a holy nation. Consequently the individual was a secondary object of consideration, and the future of the man who died before the national promises were fulfilled either was merged in the future of his descendants or else was disregarded altogether.

2. Speculation: Much speculation about life after death evidently existed, but it was not in direct connection with the nation's religion. Therefore, the Old Testament data are scanty and point, as might be expected, to non-homogeneous concepts. Still, certain ideas are clear. The living individual was composed of "flesh" and nephesh, or ruach (a trichotomy appears to be post-Biblical, despite 1 Thessalonians 5:23; see PSYCHOLOGY). In the individual nephesh and ruach seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily "breath," as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in Psalms 104:29-30). But nephesh came to be used to denote the "inner man" or "self" (Deuteronomy 12:20, etc.; see HEART), and so in English Versions of the Bible is usually rendered "soul." But there are only a very few cases where nephesh is used for the seat of the personality after death (Psalms 30:3; compare Psalms 16:10; 38:17; Job 33:18, etc.), and nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the nephesh of a dead man is unmistakably his corpse (Leviticus 19:28; Numbers 5:2; Haggai 2:13, etc.). It seems the question of what survives death was hardly raised; whatever existed then was thought of as something quite new. On the one hand the dead man could be called a "god" (1 Samuel 28:13), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship. But more commonly the dead are thought of as "shades," repha'im (Job 26:5 margin, etc.), weak copies of the original man in all regards (Ezekiel 32:25). But, whatever existence such "shades" might have, they had passed out of relation to Yahweh, whom the "dead praise not" (Psalms 115:17-18; Isaiah 38:18-19), and there was no religious interest in them.

3. Religious Danger: Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely to be anti-religious, as connected with necromancy, etc. (Deuteronomy 14:1; 26:14; Isaiah 8:19; Psalms 106:28, etc.; see SORCERY ), or as connected with foreign religions. Here, probably, the very fact that the surrounding nations taught immortality was a strong reason for Israel's refusing to consider it. That Egypt held an elaborate doctrine of individual judgment at death, or that Persia taught the resurrection of the body, would actually tend to render these doctrines suspicious, and it was not until the danger of syncretism seemed past that such beliefs could be considered on their own merits. Hence, it is not surprising that the prophets virtually disregard the idea or that Ecclesiastes denies any immortality doctrine categorically.

4. Belief in Immortality: Nonetheless, with a fuller knowledge of God, wider experience, and deeper reflection, the doctrine was bound to come. But it came slowly. Individualism reaches explicit statement in Ezekiel 14:1-23; Ezekiel 18:1-32; Ezekiel 33:1-33 (compare Deuteronomy 24:16; Jeremiah 31:29-30), but the national point of view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of this world only (Ezekiel 14:14; Psalms 37:1-40, etc.), a doctrine that had surprising vitality and that is found as late as Sirach (1:13; 11:26). But as this does not square with the facts of life (Job), a doctrine of immortality, already hinted at (II, 1, below), was inevitable. It appears in full force in the post-Maccabean period, but why just then is hard to say; perhaps because it was then that there had been witnessed the spectacle of martyrdoms on a large scale (1 Maccabees 1:60-64).

5. Resurrection: Resurrection of the body was the form immortality took, in accord with the religious premises. As the saint was to find his happiness in the nation, he must be restored to the nation; and the older views did not point toward pure soul-immortality. The "shades" led a wretched existence at the best; and Paul himself shudders at the thought of "nakedness" (2 Corinthians 5:3). The nephesh and ruach were uncertain quantities, and even the New Testament has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man ("soul," Revelation 6:9; 20:4; "spirit," Hebrews 12:23; 1 Peter 3:19; Paul avoids any term in 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, and in 2 Corinthians 5:1-21 says: "I"). In the Talmud a common view is that the old bodies will receive new souls (Ber. R. 2 7; 6 7; Vayy. R. 12 2; 15 1, etc.; compare Sib Or 4:187).

6. Greek Concepts: Where direct Greek influence, however, can be predicated, pure soul-immortality is found (compare Wisdom of Solomon 8:19, 20; 9:15 (but Wisd's true teaching is very uncertain); Enoch 102:4 through 105; 108; Slavonic Enoch; 4 Macc; Josephus, and especially Philo). According to Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Josephus graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast Ant, XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note, moreover, how Luke 6:9; 9:25; Luke 12:4-5 has re-worded Mark 3:4; 8:36; Matthew 10:28 for Greek readers. In a vague way even Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2 Esdras 7:88; 2 Corinthians 4:16; 12:2), while it is commonly held that the souls in the intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a statement first appearing in Enoch 22 (Jubilees 23:31 is hardly serious).

II. Resurrection in the Old Testament and Intermediate Literature.

1. The Old Testament: For the reasons given above, references in the Old Testament to the resurrection doctrine are few. Probably it is to be found in Psalms 17:15; 16:11; 49:15; 73:24, and in each case with increased probability, but for exact discussions the student must consult the commentaries. Of course no exact dating of these Psalm passages is possible. With still higher probability the doctrine is expressed in Job 14:13-15; Job 19:25-29, but again alternative explanations are just possible, and, again, Job is a notoriously hard book to date (see JOB, BOOK OF). The two certain passages are Isaiah 26:19 margin and Daniel 12:2. In the former (to be dated about 332 (?)) it is promised that the "dew of light" shall fall on the earth and so the (righteous) dead shall revive. But this resurrection is confined to Palestine and does not include the unrighteous. For Daniel 12:2 see below.

2. The Righteous: Indeed, resurrection for the righteous only was thought of much more naturally than a general resurrection. And still more naturally a resurrection of martyrs was thought of, such simply receiving back what they had given up for God. So in Enoch 90:33 (prior to 107 BC) and 2 Maccabees 7:9, 11, 23; 14:46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2 Macc); compare Revelation 20:4. But of course the idea once given could not be restricted to martyrs only, and the intermediate literature contains so many references to the resurrection of the righteous as to debar citation. Early passages are Enoch 91:10 (perhaps pre-Maccabean); Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Judah 25:4 (before 107). A very curious passage is Enoch 25:6, where the risen saints merely live longer than did their fathers, i.e. resurrection does not imply immortality. This passage seems to be unique.

3. The Unrighteous: For a resurrection of unrighteous men (Daniel 12:2; Enoch 22:11; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8, Armenian text--in none of these cases a general resurrection), a motive is given in Enoch 22:13: for such men the mere condition of Sheol is not punishment enough. For a general resurrection the motive is always the final judgment, so that all human history may be summed up in one supreme act. The idea is not very common, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8 (Greek text); Baruch 50:2; Enoch 51:1; Sib Or 4:178-90; Life of Adam (Greek) 10, and 2 Esdras 5:45; 7:32; 14:35 about account for all the unequivocal passages. It is not found in the earliest part of the Talmud, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8 (Greek) has two resurrections.

4. Complete Denial: Finally, much of the literature knows no immortality at all. Eccl, Sirach and 1 Maccabees are the most familiar examples, but there are many others. It is especially interesting that the very spiritual author of 2esdras did not think it worth while to modify the categorical denial in the source used in 13:20. Of course, the Jewish party that persisted most in a denial of any resurrection was the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23 and parallel's; Acts 23:8), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats.

III. Teaching of Christ. 1. Mark 12:18-27: The question is discussed explicitly in the familiar passage Mark 12:18-27 parallel Matthew 22:23-33 parallel Luke 20:27-38. The Sadducees assumed that resurrection implies simply a resuscitation to a resumption of human functions, including the physical side of marriage. Their error lay in the low idea of God. For the Scriptures teach a God whose ability and willingness to care for His creatures are so unlimited that the destiny He has prepared for them is caricatured if conceived in any terms but the absolutely highest. Hence, there follows not only the truth of the resurrection, but a resurrection to a state as far above the sexual sphere as that of the angels. (The possibility of mutual recognition by husband and wife is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are asexual) Luke (20:36) adds the explanation that, as there are to be no deaths, marriage (in its relation to births) will not exist. It may be thought that Christ's argument would support equally well the immortality of the soul only, and, as a matter of fact, the same argument is used for the latter doctrine in 4 Maccabees 7:18, 19; 16:25. But in Jerusalem and under the given circumstances this is quite impossible. And, moreover, it would seem that any such dualism would be a violation of Christ's teaching as to God's care.

2. In General: However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the righteous, especially in the form given in Lk (compare Luke 14:14). (But that Luke thought of so limiting the resurrection is disproved by Acts 24:15.) Similarly in Matthew 8:11 parallel Luke 13:28; Mark 13:27 parallel Matthew 24:31. But, as a feature in the Judgment, the resurrection of all men is taught. Then the men of sodom, Tyre, Nineveh appear (Matthew 11:22, 24; Matthew 12:41-42 parallel Luke 10:14; 11:32), and those cast into Gehenna are represented as having a body (Mark 9:43-47; Matthew 5:29-30; 10:28; Matthew 18:8-9). And at the great final assize (Matthew 25:31-46) all men appear. In the Fourth Gospel a similar distinction is made (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:25), the resurrection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ and heir present possession of this union, and (in John 5:28-29) the general resurrection to judgment. Whether these passages imply two resurrections or emphasize only the extreme difference in conditions at the one cannot be determined.

The passages in 4 Maccabees referred to above read: "They who care for piety with their whole heart, they alone are able to conquer the impulses of the flesh, believing that like our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, they do not die to God but live to God" (7:18,19); and "They knew that dying for God they would live to God, even as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs" (16:25). It is distinctly possible that our Lord's words rnay have been known to the author of 4 Maccabees, although the possibility that Christ approved and broadened the tenets of some spiritually-minded few is not to be disregarded. More possible is it that 4 Maccabees influenced Luke's Greek phraseology.

See MACCABEES, BOOKS OF,IV .

IV. The Apostolic Doctrine. 1. References: For the apostles, Christ's victory over death took the resurrection doctrine out of the realm of speculative eschatology. Henceforth, it is a fact of experience, basic for Christianity. Direct references in the New Testament are found in Acts 4:2; 18, 32; 23:6; 15, 21; Romans 4:17; 5:17; 5, 8; 8:11; 11:15; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 15:1-58; 2 Corinthians 1:9; 4:14; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Philippians 3:10-11, 21; Colossians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Timothy 2:18; Hebrews 6:2; 19, 35; Revelation 20:4-5 (martyrs only); Revelation 20:12-13. Of these only Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:12-13, refer to a general resurrection with absolute unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly contained in others and in 2 Timothy 4:1 besides.

2. Pauline Doctrine: A theology of the resurrection is given fully by Paul. Basic is the conception of the union of the believer with Christ, so that our resurrection follows from His (especially Romans 6:5-11; Philippians 3:10-11). Every deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (2 Corinthians 4:10-11). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accomplished (Ephesians 2:6). From another standpoint, the resurrection is simply part of God's general redemption of Nature at the consummation (Romans 8:11, 18-25). As the believer then passes into a condition of glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (1 Corinthians 15:50; Philippians 3:21); it becomes a "spiritual" body, belonging to the realm of the spirit (not "spiritual" in opposition to "material"). Nature shows us how different "bodies" can be--from the "body" of the sun to the bodies of the lowest animals the kind depends merely on the creative will of God (1 Corinthians 15:38-41). Nor is the idea of a change in the body of the same thing unfamiliar: look at the difference in the "body" of a grain of wheat at its sowing and after it is grown! (1 Corinthians 15:37). Just so, I am "sown" or sent into the world (probably not "buried") with one kind of body, but my resurrection will see me with a body adapted to my life with Christ and God (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body shall be clothed upon my present body (1 Corinthians 15:53-54; 2 Corinthians 5:2-4) otherwise I shall be raised in it (1 Corinthians 15:52). This body exists already in the heavens (2 Corinthians 5:1-2), and when it is clothed upon me the natural functions of the present body will be abolished (1 Corinthians 6:13). Yet a motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that is to rise (1 Corinthians 6:13-14).

3. Continuity: The relation of the matter in the present body to that in the resurrection body was a question Paul never raised. In 1 Corinthians 6:13, 14 it appears that he thought of the body as something more than the sum of its organs, for the organs perish, but the body is raised. Nor does he discuss the eventual fate of the dead body. The imagery of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:52 is that of leaving the graves, and in the case of Christ's resurrection, the type of ours, that which was buried was that which was raised (1 Corinthians 15:4). Perhaps the thought is that the touch of the resurrection body destroys all things in the old body that are unadapted to the new state; perhaps there is an idea that the essence of the old body is what we might call "non-material," so that decay simply anticipates the work the resurrection will do. At all events, such reflections are "beyond what is written."

4. 2 Corinthians 5: A partial parallel to the idea of the resurrection body being already in heaven is found in Slavonic Enoch 22:8,9, where the soul receives clothing laid up for it (compare Ascension of Isaiah 7:22-23 and possibly Revelation 6:11). But Christ also speaks of a reward being already in heaven (Matthew 5:12). A more important question is the time of the clothing in 2 Corinthians 5:1-5. A group of scholars (Heinrici, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, Clemen, Charles, etc.) consider that Paul has here changed his views from those of 1 Corinthians; that he now considers the resurrection body to be assumed immediately at death, and they translate 2 Corinthians 5:2-3 " `we groan (at the burdens of life), longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven': because, when we shall be clothed with it, we shall have no more nakedness to experience" (Weizsacker's translation of the New Testament). But 2 Corinthians would have been a most awkward place to announce a change of views, for it was written in part as a defense against inconsistency (1:17, etc.). The willingness to be absent from the body (5:8) loses all its point if another and better body is to be given at once. The grammatical reasons for the interpretation above (best stated by Heinrici) are very weak. And the translation given reads into the verse something that simply is not there. Consequently it is far better to follow the older interpretation of Meyer (B. Weiss, Bousset, Lietzmann, Bachmann, Menzies, etc.; Bachmann is especially good) and the obvious sense of the passage: Paul dreads being left naked by death, but finds immediate consolation at the thought of being with Christ, and eventual consolation at the thought of the body to be received at the Parousia. (In Philippians 1:21-24 this dread is overcome.)

Of a resurrection of the wicked, Paul has little to say. The doctrine seems clearly stated in 2 Corinthians 5:10 (and in 2 Timothy 4:1, unless the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy is denied). But Paul is willing to treat the fate of the unrighteous with silence.

V. Summary. 1. New Testament Data: The points in the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous, then, seem to be these: The personality of the believer survives after death and is with Christ. But it is lacking in something that will be supplied at the consummation, when a body will be given in which there is nothing to hinder perfect intercourse with God. The connection of this body with the present body is not discussed, except for saying that some connection exists, with the necessity of a transformation for those alive at the end. In this state nothing remains that is inconsistent with the height to which man is raised, and in particular sexual relations (Mark 12:25) and the processes of nutrition (1 Corinthians 6:13) cease. For this end the whole power of God is available. And it is insured by the perfect trust the believer may put in God and by the resurrection of Christ, with whom the believer has become intimately united. The unrighteous are raised for the final vindication of God's dealings in history. Two resurrections are found in Revelation 20:5, 13 and quite possibly in 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. Hence, the phrase first resurrection.

See JUDGMENT, LAST.

2. Interpretation: Into the "blanks" of this scheme the believer is naturally entitled to insert such matter as may seem to him best compatible with his other concepts of Christianity and of philosophy. As is so often the case with passages in the Bible, the student marvels at the way the sacred writers were restrained from committing Christianity to metaphysical schemes that growth in human knowledge might afterward show to be false. But theologian must take care to distinguish between the revealed facts and the interpretation given them in any system that he constructs to make the doctrine conform to the ideas of his own time or circle--a distinction too often forgotten in the past and sometimes with lamentable results. Especially is it well to remember that such a phrase as "a purely spiritual immortality" rests on a metaphysical dualism that is today obsolete, and that such a phrase is hardly less naive than the expectation that the resurrection body will contain identically the material of the present body. We are still quite in the dark as to the relations of what we call "soul" and "body," and so, naturally, it is quite impossible to dogmatize. A. Meyer in his RGG article ("Auferstehung, dogmatisch") has some interesting suggestions. For an idealistic metaphysic, where soul and body are only two forms of God's thought, the resurrection offers no difficulties. If the body be regarded as the web of forces that proceed from the soul, the resurrection would take the form of the return of those forces to their center at the consummation. If "body" be considered to embrace the totality of effects that proceed from the individual, at the end the individual will find in these effects the exact expression of himself (Fechner's theory). Or resurrection may be considered as the end of evolution--the reunion in God of all that has been differentiated and so evolved and enriched. Such lines must be followed cautiously, but may be found to lead to results of great value.

In recent years the attention of scholars has been directed to the problem of how far the teachings of other religions assisted the Jews in attaining a resurrection doctrine. Practically only the Persian system comes into question, and here the facts seem to be these: A belief among the Persians in the resurrection of the body is attested for the pre-Christian period by the fragments of Theopompus (4th century BC), preserved by Diogenes Laertius and Aeneas of Gaza. That this doctrine was taught by Zoroaster himself is not capable of exact proof, but is probable. But on the precise details we are in great uncertainty. In the Avesta the doctrine is not found in the oldest part (the Gathas), but is mentioned in the 19th Yasht, a document that has certainly undergone post-Christian redaction of an extent that is not determinable. The fullest Persian source is the Bundahesh (30), written in the 9th Christian century. It certainly contains much very ancient matter, but the age of any given passage in it is always a problem. Consequently the sources must be used with great caution. It may be noted that late Judaism certainly was affected to some degree by the Persian religion (see Tob, especially), but there are so many native Jewish elements that were leading to a resurrection doctrine that familiarity with the Persian belief could have been an assistance only. Especially is it to be noted that the great acceptance of the doctrine lies in the post-Maccabean period, when direct Persian influence is hardly to be thought of.

See ZOROASTRIANISM.

LITERATURE.

The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the presuppositions, but Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, is always useful. Brown, The Christian Hope, 1912, is excellent and contains a full bibliography. Charles, Eschatology, and article "Eschatology" in Encyclopedia Biblica are invaluable, but must be used critically by the thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoon's article "Resurrection" in DCG is good; Bernard's in HDB is not so good. On 1 Corinthians, Findlay or (better) Edwards; on 2 Corinthians, Menzies. In German the New Testament Theologies of Weiss, Holtzmann, Feine; Schaeder's "Auferstehung" in PRE3. On 1 Cor, Heinrici and J. Weiss in Meyer (editions 8 and 9); on 2 Corinthians, Bachmann in the Zahn series. On both Corinthian epistles Bousset in the Schriften des New Testament of J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology), and Lietzmann in his Handbuch.

See BODY; ESCHATOLOGY(OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT ); FLESH; SOUL; SPIRIT.

Burton Scott Easton

Resurrection of Jesus Christ, The

Resurrection of Jesus Christ, The - 1. First Proof: The Life of Jesus

2. Second Proof: The Empty Grave

3. Third Proof: Transformation of the Disciples

4. Fourth Proof: Existence of the Primitive Church

5. Fifth Proof: The Witness of Paul

6. Sixth Proof: The Gospel Record

7. Summary and ConClusion

8. Theology of the Resurrection

LITERATURE

The Resurrection has always been felt to be vital in connection with Christianity. As a consequence, opponents have almost always concentrated their attacks, and Christians have centered their defense, upon it. It is therefore of the utmost importance to give attention to the subject, as it appears in the New Testament. There are several converging lines of evidence, and none can be overlooked. Each must have its place and weight. The issues at stake are so serious that nothing must be omitted.

1. First Proof: The Life of Jesus: The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a disappointment when a life which commenced well finishes badly. We have this feeling even in fiction; instinct demands that a story should end well. Much more is this true of Jesus Christ. A perfect life characterized by divine claims ends in its prime in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a fitting close? Surely death could not end everything after such a noble career. The Gospels give the resurrection as the completion of the picture of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that Christ anticipated His own resurrection. At first He used only vague terms, such as, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up." But later on He spoke plainly, and whenever He mentioned His death, He added, "The Son of man .... must be raised the third day." These references are too numerous to be overlooked, and, in spite of difficulties of detail, they are, in any proper treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim made for Himself by Jesus Christ (Matthew 12:38-40; 16:21; 9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9, 31; 10:34; 14:58; Luke 9:22; 18:33; John 2:19-21). His veracity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a One must be given due credence. We are therefore compelled to face the fact that the resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resurrection of no ordinary man, but of Jesus--that is of One whose life and character had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable (Denhey, Jesus and the Gospel, 122 f). Is it possible that, in view of His perfect truthfulness of word and deed, there should be such an anti-climax as is involved in a denial of His assurance that He would rise again (C.H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, 30)? Consider, too, the death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If that death was the close of a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so Godlike, we are faced with an insoluble mystery--the permanent triumph of wrong over right, and the impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world (C.H. Robinson, op. cit., 36). So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated event, a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken in close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is to be found in that estimate of Christ which "most entirely fits in with the totality of the facts" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 14).

2. Second Proof: The Empty Grave: Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance of the body. That Jesus died and was buried, and that on the third morning the tomb was empty, is not now seriously challenged. The theory of a swoon and a recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss "practically gives its deathblow" (Orr, op. cit., 43). At Christ's burial a stone was rolled before the tomb, the tomb was sealed, and a guard was placed before it. Yet on the third morning the body had disappeared, and the tomb was empty. There are only two alternatives. His body must have been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power. If the hands were human, they must have been those of His friends or of His foes. If His friends had wished to take out His body, the question at once arises whether they could have done so in the face of the stone, the seal and the guard. If His foes had contemplated this action, the question arises whether they would seriously have considered it. It is extremely improbable that any effort should have been made to remove the body out of the reach of the disciples. Why should His enemies do the very thing that would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? As Chrysostom said, "If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it" (quoted in Day, Evidence for the Resurrection, 35). Besides, the position of the grave-clothes proves the impossibility of the theft of the body (see Greek of John 20:6-7; 11:44; Grimley, Temple of Humanity, 69, 70; Latham, The Risen Master; The Expository Times, XIII, 293 f; XIV, 510). How, too, is it possible to account for the failure of the Jews to disprove the resurrection? Not more than seven weeks afterward Peter preached in that city the fact that Jesus had been raised. What would have been easier or more conclusive than for the Jews to have produced the dead body and silenced Peter forever? "The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians" (Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 357).

The fact of the empty tomb with the disappearance of the body remains a problem to be faced. It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty tomb is adequate, and that it was part of the primitive belief (Foundations, 134, 154). It is important to realize the force of this admission, because it is a testimony to Paul's use of the term "third day" (see below) and to the Christian observance of the first day of the week. And yet in spite of this we are told that a belief in the empty tomb is impossible. By some writers the idea of resurrection is interpreted to mean the revival of Christ's spiritual influence on the disciples, which had been brought to a close by His death. It is thought that the essential idea and value of Christ's resurrection can be conserved, even while the belief in His bodily rising from the grave is surrendered (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 23). But how can we believe in the resurrection while we regard the basis of the primitive belief in it as a mistake, not to say a fraud? The disciples found the tomb empty, and on the strength of this they believed He had risen. How can the belief be true if the foundation be false? Besides, the various forms of the vision-theory are now gradually but surely being regarded as inadequate and impossible. They involve the change of almost every fact in the Gospel history, and the invention of new scenes and conditions of which the Gospels know nothing (Orr, op. cit., 222). It has never been satisfactorily shown why the disciples should have had this abundant experience of visions; nor why they should have had it so soon after the death of Christ and within a strictly limited period; nor why it suddenly ceased. The disciples were familiar with the apparition of a spirit, like Samuel's, and with the resuscitation of a body, like Lazarus', but what they had not experienced or imagined was the fact of a spiritual body, the combination of body and spirit in an entirely novel way. So the old theory of a vision is now virtually set aside, and for it is substituted theory of a real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ. The question at once arises whether this is not prompted by an unconscious but real desire to get rid of anything like a physical resurrection. Whatever may be true of unbelievers, this is an impossible position for those who believe Christ is alive.

Even though we may be ready to admit the reality of telepathic communication, it is impossible to argue that this is equivalent to the idea of resurrection. Psychical research has not proceeded far enough as yet to warrant arguments being built on it, though in any case it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain material from this quarter which will answer to the conditions of the physical resurrection recorded in the New Testament. "The survival of the soul is not resurrection." "Whoever heard of a spirit being buried?" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 229).

In view of the records of the Gospels and the general testimony of the New Testament, it is impossible to be "agnostic" as to what happened at the grave of Jesus, even though we are quite sure that He who died now lives and reigns. It is sometimes said that faith is not bound up with, holding a particular view of the relations of Christ's present glory with the body that was once in Joseph's tomb, that faithis to be exercised in the exalted Lord, and that belief in a resuscitation of the human body is no vital part of it. It is no doubt true that faith today is to be exercised solely in the exalted and glorified Lord, but faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it is difficult to understand how Christian faith can really be "agnostic" with regard to the facts about the empty tomb and the risen body, which are so prominent in the New Testament, and which form an essential part of the apostolic witness. The attempt to set faith and historical evidence in opposition to each other, which is so marked a characteristic of much modern thought will never satisfy general Christian intelligence, and if there is to be any real belief in the historical character of the New Testament, it is impossible to be "agnostic" about facts that are writ so large on the face of the records. When once the evidence for the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the impossibility of any other explanation than that indicated in the New Testament is at once seen. The evidence must be accounted for and adequately explained. And so we come again to the insuperable barrier of the empty tomb, which, together with the apostolic witness, stands impregnable against all the attacks of visional and apparitional theories. It is becoming more evident that these theories are entirely inadequate to account for the records in the Gospels, as well as for the place and power of those Gospels in the early church and in all subsequent ages. The force of the evidence for the empty grave and the disappearance of the body is clearly seen by the explanations suggested by various modern writers (those of Oscar Holtzmann, K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, chapter viii, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 69; see also the article by Streeter in Foundations). Not one of them is tenable without doing violence to the Gospel story, and also without putting forth new theories which are not only improbable in themselves, but are without a shred of real historical or literary evidence. The one outstanding fact which baffles all these writers is the empty grave.

Others suggest that resurrection means a real objective appearance of the risen Christ without implying any physical reanimation, that the "resurrection of Christ was an objective reality, but was not a physical resuscitation" (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 12). But the difficulty here is as to the meaning of the term "resurrection." If it means a return from the dead, a rising again (re-), must there not have been some identity between that which was put in the tomb and the "objective reality" which appeared to the disciples? Wherein lies the essential difference between an objective vision and an objective appearance? If we believe the apostolic testimony to the empty tomb, why may we not accept their evidence to the actual resurrection? They evidently recognized their Master, and this recognition must have been due to some familiarity with His bodily appearance. No difficulty of conceiving of the resurrection of mankind hereafter must be allowed to set aside the plain facts of the record about Christ. It is, of course, quite clear that the resurrection body of Jesus was not exactly the same as when it was put in the tomb, but it is equally clear that there was definite identity as well as definite dissimilarity, and both elements must be faced and accounted for. There need be no insuperable difficulty if we believe that in the very nature of things Christ's resurrection must be unique, and, since the life and work of Jesus Christ transcend our experience (as they certainly should do), we must not expect to bring them within the limitations of natural law and human history. How the resurrection body was sustained is a problem quite outside our ken, though the reference to "flesh and bones," compared with Paul's words about "flesh and blood" not being able to enter the kingdom of God, may suggest that while the resurrection body was not constituted upon a natural basis through blood, yet that it possessed "all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature" (Church of England Article IV). We may not be able to solve the problem, but we must hold fast to all the facts, and these may be summed up by saying that the body was the same though different, different though the same. The true description of the resurrection seems to be that "it was an objective reality, but, that it was not merely a physical resuscitation." We are therefore brought back to a consideration of the facts recorded in the Gospels as to the empty tomb and the disappearance of the body, and we only ask for an explanation which will take into consideration all the facts recorded, and will do no violence to any part of the evidence. To predicate a new resurrection body in which Christ appeared to His disciples does not explain how in three days' time the body which had been placed in the tomb was disposed of. Does not this theory demand a new miracle of its own (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 271)?

3. Third Proof: Transformation of the Disciples: The next line of proof to be considered is the transformation of the disciples caused by the resurrection. They had seen their Master die, and through that death they lost all hope. Yet hope returned three days after. On the day of the crucifixion they were filled with sadness; on the first day of the week with gladness. At the crucifixion they were hopeless; on the first day of the week their hearts glowed with certainty. When the message of the resurrection first came they were incredulous and hard to be convinced, but when once they became assured they never doubted again. What could account for the astonishing change in these men in so short a time? The mere removal of the body from the grave could never have transformed their spirits and characters. Three days are not enough for a legend to spring up which should so affect them. Time is needed for a process of legendary growth. There is nothing more striking in the history of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in the disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological fact that demands a full explanation. The disciples were prepared to believe in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of a resurrection (see Mark 16:11). Men do not imagine what they do not believe, and the women's intention to embalm a corpse shows they did not expect His resurrection. Besides, a hallucination involving five hundred people at once, and repeated several times during forty days, is unthinkable.

4. Fourth Proof: Existence of the Primitive Church:

From this fact of the transformation of personal life in so incredibly short a space of time, we proceed to the next line of proof, the existence of the primitive church. "There is no doubt that the church of the apostles believed in the resurrection of their Lord" (Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, 74).

It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into existence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts: (1) the Christian society was gathered together by preaching; (2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be rejected by Jews as accursed of God (Deuteronomy 21:23). Yet multitudes of Jews were led to worship Him (Acts 2:41), and a great company of priests to obey Him (Acts 6:7). The only explanation of these facts is God's act of resurrection (Acts 2:36), for nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The apostolic church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the marks of primitive documents, and their evidence is unmistakable. It is impossible to allege that the early church did not know its own history, that myths and legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received, and that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience for principle, but manipulated their material at will, for any modern church could easily give an account of its history for the past fifty years or more (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 144). And it is simply absurd to think that the earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing vague or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other members of the church. "As the church is too holy for a foundation of rottenness, so she is too real for a foundation of mist" (Archbishop Alexander, The Great Question, 10).

5. Fifth Proof: The Witness of Paul: One man in the apostolic church must, however, be singled out as a special witness to the resurrection. The conversion and work of Saul of Tarsus is our next line of proof. Attention is first called to the evidence of his life and writings to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some years ago an article appeared (E. Medley, The Expositor, V, iv, 359). inquiring as to the conception of Christ which would be suggested to a heathen inquirer by a perusal of Paul's earliest extant writing, 1 Thessalonians. One point at least would stand out clearly--that Jesus Christ was killed (2:15; 4:14) and was raised from the dead (4:14). As this Epistle is usually dated about 51 AD--that is, only about 22 years after the resurrection--and as the same Epistle plainly attributes to Jesus Christ the functions of God in relation to men (1:1,6; 2:14; 3:11), we can readily see the force of this testimony to the resurrection. Then a few years later, in an epistle which is universally accepted as one of Paul's, we have a much fuller reference to the event. In the well-known chapter (1 Corinthians 15:1-58) where he is concerned to prove (not Christ's resurrection, but) the resurrection of Christians, he naturally adduces Christ's resurrection as his greatest evidence, and so gives a list of the various appearances of Christ, ending with one to himself, which he puts on an exact level with the others: "Last of all he was seen of me also." Now it is essential to give special attention to the nature and particularity of this testimony. "I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3 f). This, as it has often been pointed out, is our earliest authority for the appearances of Christ after the resurrection, and dates from within 30 years of the event itself. But there is much more than this: "He affirms that within 5 years of the crucifixion of Jesus he was taught that `Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures' " (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 267). And if we seek to appreciate the full bearing of this act and testimony we have a right to draw the same conclusion: "That within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was, in the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 267).

Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition--the mention of "the third day." A reference to the passage in the Gospels where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and persistent was this note of time. Why, then, should Paul have introduced it in his statement? Was it part of the teaching which he had "received"? What is the significance of this plain emphasis on the date of the resurrection? Is it not that it bears absolute testimony to the empty tomb? From all this it may be argued that Paul believed the story of the empty tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh, when he could examine it for himself, when he could make the fullest possible inquiry of others, and when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made it impossible for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was not absolutely true. "Surely common sense requires us to believe that that for which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibility of doubt" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 271).

In view, therefore, of Paul's personal testimony to his own conversion, his interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after His resurrection, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the apostle's own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence for the resurrection. It is well known that Lord Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each determining to give attention respectively during the long vacation to the conversion of Paul and the resurrection of Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both. They met again in the autumn and compared experiences. Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the truth of Paul's conversion, and Gilbert West was convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, Paul's 25 years of suffering and service for Christ were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began with that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to the sight of the risen Christ.

6. Sixth Proof: The Gospel Record: The next line of proof of the resurrection is the record in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen Christ, and it is the last in order to be considered. By some writers it is put first, but this is in forgetfulness of the dates when the Gospels were written. The resurrection was believed in by the Christian church for a number of years before our Gospels were written, and it is therefore impossible for these records to be our primary and most important evidence. We must get behind them if we are to appreciate fully the force and variety of the evidence. It is for this reason that, following the proper logical order, we have reserved to the last our consideration of the appearances of the risen Christ as given in the Gospels. The point is one of great importance (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 111).

Now, with this made clear, we proceed to consider the evidence afforded by the records of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Modern criticism of the Gospels during recent years has tended to adopt the view that Mark is the earliest, and that Matthew and Luke are dependent on it. This is said to be "the one solid result" (W. C. Allen, "St. Matthew," International Critical Commentary, Preface, vii; Burkitt, The Gospel History, 37) of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If this is so, the question of the records of the resurrection becomes involved in the difficult problem about the supposed lost ending of Mark, which, according to modern criticism, would thus close without any record of an appearance of the risen Christ. On this point, however, two things may be said at the present juncture: (1) There are some indications that the entire question of the criticism of the Gospels is to be reopened (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, chapter ii; see also Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 63 ff). (2) Even if the current theory be accepted, it would not seriously weaken the intrinsic force of the evidence for the resurrection, because, after all, Mark does not invent or "doctor" his material, but embodies the common apostolic tradition of his time (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 62).

We may, therefore, meanwhile examine the record of the appearances without finding them essentially affected by any particular theory of the origin and relations of the Gospels. There are two sets of appearances, one in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee, and their number, and the amplitude and weight of their testimony should be carefully estimated. While we are precluded by our space from examining each appearance minutely, and indeed it is unnecessary for our purpose to do so, it is impossible to avoid calling attention to two of them. No one can read the story of the walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:1-53), or of the visit of Peter and John to the tomb (John 20:1-31), without observing the striking marks of reality and personal testimony in the accounts. As to the former incident: "It carries with it, as great literary critics have pointed out, the deepest inward evidences of its own literal truthfulness. For it so narrates the intercourse of `a risen God' with commonplace men as to set natural and supernatural side by side in perfect harmony. And to do this has always been the difficulty, the despair of imagination. The alternative has been put reasonably thus: Luke was either a greater poet, a more creative genius, than Shakespeare, or--he did not create the record. He had an advantage over Shakespeare. The ghost in Hamlet was an effort of laborious imagination. The risen Christ on the road was a fact supreme, and the Evangelist did but tell it as it was" (Bishop Moule, Meditations for the Church's Year, 108). Other writers whose attitude to the Gospel records is very different bear the same testimony to the impression of truth and reality made upon them by the Emmaus narrative (A. Meyer and K. Lake, quoted in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 176 f).

It is well known that there are difficulties connected with the number and order of these appearances, but they are probably due largely to the summary character of the story, and certainly are not sufficient to invalidate the uniform testimony to the two facts: (1) the empty grave, (2) the appearances of Christ on the third day. These are the main facts of the combined witness (Orr, op. cit., 212).

The very difficulties which have been observed in the Gospels for nearly nineteen centuries are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the narratives on the part of the whole Christian church. The church has not been afraid to leave these records as they are because of the facts that they embody and express. If there had been no difficulties men might have said that everything had been artificially arranged, whereas the differences bear testimony to the reality of the event recorded. The fact that we possess these two sets of appearances--one in Jerusalem and one in Galilee--is really an argument in favor of their credibility, for if it had been recorded that Christ appeared in Galilee only, or Jerusalem only, it is not unlikely that the account might have been rejected for lack of support. It is well known that records of eyewitnesses often vary in details, while there is no question as to the events themselves. The various books recording the story of the Indian mutiny, or the surrender of Napoleon III at Sedan are cases in point, and Sir William Ramsay has shown the entire compatibility of certainty as to the main fact with great uncertainty as to precise details (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 29). We believe, therefore, that a careful examination of these appearances will afford evidence of a chain of circumstances extending from the empty grave to the day of the ascension.

7. Summary and Conclusion: When we examine carefully all these converging lines of evidence and endeavor to give weight to all the facts of the case, it seems impossible to escape from the problem of a physical miracle. That the prima facie view of the evidence afforded by the New Testament suggests a miracle and that the apostles really believed in a true physical resurrection are surely beyond all question. And yet very much of present-day thought refuses to accept the miraculous. The scientific doctrine of the uniformity and continuity of Nature bars the way, so that from the outset it is concluded that miracles are impossible. We are either not allowed to believe (see Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 44), or else we are told that we are not required to believe (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, chapter ii), margin, the reanimation of a dead body. If we take this view, "there is no need, really, for investigation of evidence: the question is decided before the evidence is looked at" (Orr, op. cit., 46).

We challenge the tenableness of this position. It proves too much. We are not at all concerned by the charge of believing in the abnormal or unusual. New things have happened from the beginning of the present natural order, and the Christian faith teaches that Christ Himself was a "new thing," and that His coming as "God manifest in the flesh" was something absolutely unique. If we are not allowed to believe in any divine intervention which we may call supernatural or miraculous, it is impossible to account for the Person of Christ at all. "A Sinless Personality would be a miracle in time." Arising out of this, Christianity itself was unique, inaugurating a new era in human affairs. No Christian, therefore, can have any difficulty in accepting the abnormal, the unusual, the miraculous. If it be said that no amount of evidence can establish a fact which is miraculous, we have still to account for the moral miracles which are really involved and associated with the resurrection, especially the deception of the disciples, who could have found out the truth of the case; a deception, too, that has proved so great a blessing to the world. Surely to those who hold a true theistic view of the world this a priori view is impossible. Are we to refuse to allow to God at least as much liberty as we possess ourselves? Is it really thinkable that God has less spontaneity of action than we have? We may like or dislike, give or withhold, will or not will, but the course of Nature must flow on unbrokenly. Surely God cannot be conceived of as having given such a constitution to the universe as limits His power to intervene if necessary and for sufficient purpose with the work of His own hands. Not only are all things of Him, but all things are through Him, and to Him. The resurrection means the presence of miracle, and "there is no evading the issue with which this confronts us" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 53). Unless, therefore, we are prepared to accept the possibility of the miraculous, all explanation of the New Testament evidence is a pure waste of time.

Of recent years attempts have been made to account for the resurrection by means of ideas derived from Babylonian and other Eastern sources. It is argued that mythology provides the key to the problem, that not only analogy but derivation is to be found. But apart from the remarkable variety of conclusions of Babylonian archaeologists there is nothing in the way of historical proof worthy of the name. The whole idea is arbitrary and baseless, and prejudiced by the attitude to the supernatural. There is literally no link of connection between these oriental cults and the Jewish and Christian beliefs in the resurrection.

And so we return to a consideration of the various lines of proof. Taking them singly, they must be admitted to be strong, but taking them altogether, the argument is cumulative and sufficient. Every effect must have its adequate cause, and the only proper explanation of Christianity today is the resurrection of Christ. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, no ordinary judge of historical evidence, said that the resurrection was the "best-attested fact in human history." Christianity welcomes all possible sifting, testing, and use by those who honestly desire to arrive at the truth, and if they will give proper attention to all the facts and factors involved, we believe they will come to the conclusion expressed years ago by the Archbishop of Armagh, that the resurrection is the rock from which all the hammers of criticism have never chipped a single fragment (The Great Question, 24).

8. Theology of the Resurrection: The theology of the resurrection is very important and calls for special attention. Indeed, the prominence given to it in the New Testament affords a strong confirmation of the fact itself, for it seems incredible that such varied and important truths should not rest on historic fact. The doctrine may briefly be summarized: (1) evidential: the resurrection is the proof of the atoning character of the death of Christ, and of His Deity and divine exaltation (Romans 1:4); (2) evangelistic: the primitive gospel included testimony to the resurrection as one of its characteristic features, thereby proving to the hearers the assurance of the divine redemption (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 4:25); (3) spiritual: the resurrection is regarded as the source and standard of the holiness of the believer. Every aspect of the Christian life from the beginning to the end is somehow associated therewith (Romans 6:1-23); (4) eschatological: the resurrection is the guaranty and model of the believer's resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-58). As the bodies of the saints arose (Matthew 27:52), so ours are to be quickened (Romans 8:11), and made like Christ's glorified body (Philippians 3:21), thereby becoming spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44), that is, bodies ruled by their spirits and yet bodies. These points offer only the barest outline of the fullness of New Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ.

LITERATURE.

Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 1908; W. J. Sparrow Simpson, The Resurrection and Modern Thought; Westcott, The Historic Faith and The Gospel of the Resurrection. Very full literary references in Bowen, The Resurrection in the New Testament, 1911, which, although negative in its own conclusions, contains a valuable refutation of many negative arguments.

W. H. Griffith Thomas

Resurrection, Gospel of The

Resurrection, Gospel of The - See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

Retain

Retain - re-tan': Several Hebrew words are thus translated: chazaq, "to hold fast" (Judges 7:8; 19:4; Job 2:9 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "hold fast"); Micah 7:18); `atsar, "to shut up" (only in Daniel 10:8, 16; 11:6); tamakh, "to hold" (Proverbs 3:18; 4:4; 11:16 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "obtain")); in one case kala' (Ecclesiastes 8:8). In the New Testament krateo, is used in John 20:23 of the "retaining" of sins by the apostles (see RETENTION OF SINS); in Romans 1:28, the Revised Version (British and American) has "refused to have," margin "Greek, `did not approve,' " for the King James Version "did not like to retain" (echo); and in Philemon 1:13, substitutes "fain have kept" for "retained" (katecho). Sirach 41:16 has "retain" for diaphulasso, "keep."

Retaliation

Retaliation - re-tal-i-a'-shun, re-.

See LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT; PUNISHMENTS; RETRIBUTION.

Retention of Sins

Retention of Sins - re-ten'-shun, (krateo, "to lay fast hold of" (John 20:23)): The opposite of "the remission of sins." Where there was no evidence of repentance and faith, the community of believers were unauthorized to give assurance of forgiveness, and, therefore, could only warn that the guilt of sin was retained, and that the sinner remained beneath God's judgment.

While such retention has its place in connection with all preaching of the gospel, since the offers of grace are conditional, it is especially exercised, like the absolution, in the personal dealing of a pastor with a communicant, preparatory to the reception of the Lord's Supper. As the absolution is properly an assurance of individual forgiveness, so the retention is an assurance of individual non-forgiveness. That the retention is exercised by the ministry, not as an order, but as the representatives of the congregation of believers to which Christ gave the power of the keys, is shown by Alford, Greek Testament, on above passage. See also Melanchthon, Appendix to the "Schmalkald Articles."

H. E. Jacobs

Retribution

Retribution - ret-ri-bu'-shun:

1. New Testament Terms

2. A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace

3. Witness of Natural Theology

4. Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin

5. Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath

6. Instances of Use of Orge and Thumos

7. Instances of Use of Greek Words for "Vengeance"

8. Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent

9. Judgment Implies Retribution

10. Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God's Righteousness

11. Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication

LITERATURE

1. New Testament Terms: The word as applied to the divine administration is not used in Scripture, but undoubtedly the idea is commonly enough expressed. The words which come nearest to it are orge, and thumos wrath attributed to God; ekdikeo, ekdikesis, ekdikos, and dike, all giving the idea of vengeance; kolasis, and timoria, "punishment"; besides krino, and its derivatives, words expressive of judgment.

2. A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace: Romans 2:1-29 is full of the thought of retribution. The apostle, in Romans 2:5-6, comes very near to using the word itself, and gives indeed a good description of the thing: the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, "who will render to every man according to his works." It is well in approaching the subject to remind ourselves that there is undoubtedly, as the apostle says, a Revelation of wrath. We are so accustomed to think of the gracious revelation which the gospel brings us, and to approach the subject of the doom of the impenitent under the influence of the kindly sentiments engendered thereby, and with a view of God's gracious character as revealed in salvation, that we are apt to overlook somewhat the sterner facts of sin, and to misconceive the divine attitude toward the impenitent sinner. It is certainly well that we should let the grace of the gospel have full influence upon all our thinking, but we must beware of being too fully engrossed with one phase of the divine character. It is an infirmity of human nature that we find it difficult to let two seemingly conflicting conceptions find a place in our thought. We are apt to surrender ourselves to the sway of one or the other of them according to the pressure of the moment.

3. Witness of Natural Theology: Putting ourselves back into the position of those who have only the light of natural theology, we find that all deductions from the perfections of God, as revealed in His works, combined with a consideration of man's sin and want of harmony with the Holy One, lead to the conclusion announced by the apostle: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Romans 1:18). Wrath implies punishment, punishment is decreed, punishment is denounced. The word of God but confirms the verdict which conscience forecasts. Nature teaches that punishment, retribution, must follow sin. Within the sphere of physical law this is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of Nature is tolerated. Strictly speaking, the laws of Nature cannot be broken, but let a man fail to keep in harmony with them, and the natural consequences will be trouble, punishment, retribution. Harmony with law is blessing; collision with law is loss. Thus law in Nature "worketh wrath" to the neglecters of it. Punishment necessarily results. So we may well expect that in the higher sphere, God's moral laws cannot be neglected or violated with impunity, and Scripture fully justifies the expectation and shows that sin must be punished. All things considered, the fact of punishment for sinners need not surprise; the fact of pardon is the surprising thing. The surprise of pardon has ceased to surprise us because we are so familiar with the thought. We know the "how" of it because of the revelation of grace. Grace, however, saves on certain conditions, and there is no such thing known in Scripture as indiscriminate, necessary, universal grace. It is only from the Bible that we know of the salvation by grace. That same revelation shows that the grace does not come to all, in the sense of saving all; though, of course, it may be considered as presented to all. Those who are not touched and saved by grace remain shut up in their sins. They are, and must be, in the nature of the case, left to the consequences of their sins, with the added guilt of rejecting the offered grace. "Except ye believe that I am he," said Incarnate Grace, "ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

4. Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin: Another conclusion we may draw from the general Scriptural representation is that the future retribution is one aspect of the natural consequence of sin, yet it is also in another aspect the positive infliction of divine wrath. It is shown to be the natural outcome of sin in such passages as "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7); "He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption" (Galatians 6:8). It is not without suggestiveness that the Hebrew word `awon means both iniquity and punishment, and when Cain said "My punishment is greater than I can bear" (Genesis 4:13), he really said "My iniquity is greater than I can bear"; his iniquity became his punishment. A due consideration of this thought goes a long way toward meeting many of the objections brought against the doctrine of future punishment.

5. Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath: The other statement, however, remains true and must be emphasized, that there is an actual infliction of divine wrath. All the great statements about the divine judgment imply this, and while it is wrong not to take account of the natural working out of sin in its terrible consequences, it is equally wrong, perhaps more so, to refuse to recognize this positive divine infliction of punishment. This, indeed, is the outstanding feature of retribution as it assumes form in Scripture. Even the natural consequences of sin, rightly viewed, are part of the divine infliction, since God, in the nature of things, has conjoined sin and its consequences, and part of the positive infliction is the judicial shutting up of the sinner to the consequences of his sin. So in the case of Cain, his iniquity became his punishment, inasmuch as God sentenced him to bear the consequences of that iniquity. On the other hand, we might say that even the terribly positive outpourings of God's wrath upon the sinner are the natural consequences of sin, since sin in its very nature calls down the divine displeasure. Indeed, these two phases of future punishment are so very closely connected that a right view of the matter compels us to keep both before us, and no full explanation of the punishment is possible when either phase is ignored.

6. Instances of the Use of Orge and Thumos: The terms in Scripture applied to the doom of sinners all imply divine displeasure, punitive action, retribution. The two outstanding Greek words for "wrath," orge and thumos, are both freely applied to God. Orge indicates settled displeasure, whereas thumos is rather the blazing out of the anger. The former is, as we should expect, more frequently applied to God, and, of course, all that is capricious and reprehensible in human wrath must be eliminated from the word as used of God. It indicates the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin. It was an affection found in the sinless Saviour Himself, for "he looked round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5). In the Baptist's warning "to flee from the wrath to come" (Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7), it is unquestionably the wrath of God that is meant, the manifestation of that being further described as the burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:12). In John 3:36 it is said of the unbeliever that "the wrath of God" abideth on him. In Romans it is used at least 9 times in reference to God, first in Romans 1:18, the great passage we have already quoted about "the wrath of God revealed from heaven." The connection is a suggestive one and is often overlooked. In the passage Paul has quite a chain of reasons; he is ready to preach the gospel at Rome for he is not ashamed of the gospel; he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation; it is the "power of God" for therein is revealed the righteousness of God by faith; and this salvation by faith is a necessity "for the wrath of God is revealed," etc. Thus the divine wrath on account of sin is the dark background of the gospel message. Had there been no such just wrath upon men, there had been no need for the divine salvation. The despising of God's goodness by the impenitent means a treasuring up of "wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (Romans 2:3-5). God "visiteth with wrath" (Romans 3:5).

In Romans 4:15 the apostle shows that "the law worketh wrath" (i.e. brings down the divine displeasure), while in Romans 5:9 he shows that believers are saved from wrath--undoubted wrath of God. The other two instances are in Romans 9:22. Men are "by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3); surely not "wrathful children," but liable to the wrath of God, and because of evil deeds cometh "the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6). Christ "delivereth us from the wrath to come" (1 Thessalonians 1:10); wrath has come upon the opposing Jews (1 Thessalonians 2:16); but believers are not appointed unto wrath (1 Thessalonians 5:9). With all these specific passages in view, to say nothing of the general teaching of the apostle on the question of coming judgment and punishment, it is utterly impossible to eliminate the idea of the divine displeasure against sinners, and His consequent retributive action toward them. Even Ritschl, who absolutely denies the great principle of retribution, of positive displeasure, admits that Paul teaches it; hence, the only way for him out of the difficulty is to reject Paul's teaching as unauthoritative. Other references to the "wrath of God" are in Hebrews 3:11; 4:3; and 6 passages in the Apocalypse--Revelation 6:16 f; Revelation 11:18; 14:10; 16:19; 19:15. Two of these refer to the "wrath of the Lamb," one of the most terrible phrases in the whole of the New Testament. Thumos is only used in the Apocalypse concerning God (Revelation 14:10-19; Revelation 15:1-7; Revelation 16:1-19; 19:15). In each case it refers to the manifestation, the blazing forth of the wrath; in the last two passages it is used in combination with orge, and is rendered "fierceness," the fierceness of His wrath.

7. Instances of Use of Greek Words for "Vengeance":

Ekdikeo, which means to avenge, is twice used of God (Revelation 6:10; 19:2); and ekdikesis, "vengeance," 6 times Luke 18:7 ff; Romans 12:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 10:30). In the first two instances it is used by Jesus concerning the divine action; ekdikos, "avenger," occurs once in application to God (1 Thessalonians 4:6); dike, "judgment" or "vengeance" is twice used of God (2 Thessalonians 1:9; Jude 1:7). The use of these terms shows that the punishment inflicted on sinful men is strictly punishment of the vindicatory sort, the vindication of outraged justice, the infliction of deserved penalty. Very significant is the passage in 2 Thessalonians 1:6, "It is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you." There is no question of bettering the offender.

8. Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent:

It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering it," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoria is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (Hebrews 10:29).

9. Judgment Implies Retribution: All the representations of the coming day of judgment tell of the fact of retribution, and Christ Himself distinctly asserts it. Apart from His great eschatological discourses, concerning which criticism still hesitates and stammers, we have the solemn close of the Sermon on the Mount, and the pregnant statement of Matthew 16:27, "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds," and all the apostolic teaching upon the solemn theme is but the unfolding of the same great thought.

10. Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God's Righteousness:

The conception of God as a perfect moral governor demands that His righteousness shall be fully vindicated. Looking at the course of history as it unfolds itself before us, we cannot fail to be struck with the anomalies which are presented. Righteousness does not always triumph, goodness is often put to shame, wickedness appears to be profitable, and wicked men often prosper while good men are under a cloud. Sometimes signal divine interpositions proclaim that God is indeed on the side of righteousness, but too often it seems as if He were unmindful, and men are tempted to ask the old question, "How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the Most High?" (Psalms 73:11), while the righteous say in their distress, "Yahweh, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?" (Psalms 94:3). The moral sense cries out for some divine vindication, and the Scriptures, in harmony with this feeling, indicate that the final judgment will bring such vindication.

11. Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication: In the Old Testament it is frequently presented as the solution of the baffling problems which beset the ethical sphere, as for instance in that fine utterance of religious philosophy in Psalms 73:1-28; the Psalmist has before him all the puzzling elements of the problem; the prosperity, the insolent and aggressive prosperity of the wicked, the non-success, the oppression, the misery of the righteous; he is well-nigh overwhelmed by the contemplation, and nearly loses his footing on the eternal verities, until he carries the whole problem into the light of God's presence and revelation, and then he understands that the end will bring the true solution.

So too the somber ruminations of the Preacher upon the contradictions arid anomalies and mysteries of human life, "under the sun," close in the reflection which throws its searchlight upon all the blackness: "This is the end of the matter: .... Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:13 f). In the light of the same truth, the apostles labored, believing that when the Lord comes He "will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts" (1 Corinthians 4:5). The more fully the subject is considered, the more we must feel that for the vindication of righteousness, the justification of the divine procedure, the rectification of wrongs, the explanation of mysteries, the reward and triumph of the righteous and the confession and punishment of the wicked, a great final, retributive judgment is Scriptural, reasonable, necessary.

LITERATURE.

See the articles on PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING; JUDGMENT; SHEOL, etc., and the works cited there.

Archibald M'Caig

Reu

Reu - re'-u, roo (re`u, Rhagau): A son of Peleg, a descendant of Shem (Genesis 11:18 ff; 1 Chronicles 1:25; Luke 3:35).

Reuben

Reuben - roo'-ben, ru'-ben (re'ubhen; Rhouben): The eldest son of Jacob, born to him by Leah in Paddan-aram (Genesis 29:32).

1. Jacob's Oldest Son: This verse seems to suggest two derivations of the name. As it stands in Massoretic Text it means "behold a son"; but the reason given for so calling him is "The Lord hath looked upon my affliction," which in Hebrew is ra'ah be`onyi, literally, "He hath seen my affliction." Of his boyhood we have only the story of the mandrakes (Genesis 30:14). As the firstborn he should really have been leader among his father's sons. His birthright was forfeited by a deed of peculiar infamy (Genesis 35:22), and as far as we know his tribe never took the lead in Israel. It is named first, indeed, in Numbers 1:5, 20, but thereafter it falls to the fourth place, Judah taking the first (Numbers 2:10, etc.). To Reuben's intervention Joseph owed his escape from the fate proposed by his other brethren (Genesis 37:29). Some have thought Reuben designed to set him free, from a desire to rehabilitate himself with his father. But there is no need to deny to Reuben certain noble and chivalrous qualities. Jacob seems to have appreciated these, and, perhaps, therefore all the more deeply lamented the lapse that spoiled his life (Genesis 49:3 f). It was Reuben who felt that their perils and anxieties in Egypt were a fit recompense for the unbrotherly conduct (Genesis 42:22). To assure his father of Benjamin's safe return from Egypt, whither Joseph required him to be taken, Reuben was ready to pledge his own two sons (Genesis 42:37). Four sons born to him in Canaan went down with Reuben at the descent of Israel into Egypt (Genesis 46:8 f).

The incidents recorded are regarded by a certain school of Old Testament scholars as the vague and fragmentary traditions of the tribe, wrought into the form of a biography of the supposed ancestor of the tribe. This interpretation raises more difficulties than it solves, and depends for coherence upon too many assumptions and conjectures. The narrative as it stands is quite intelligible and self-consistent. There is no good reason to doubt that, as far as it goes, it is an authentic record of the life of Jacob's son.

2. Tribal History: At the first census in the wilderness Reuben numbered 46,500 men of war (Numbers 1:21); at the second they had fallen to 43,730; see NUMBERS. The standard of the camp of Reuben was on the south side of the tabernacle; and with him were Simeon and Gad; the total number of fighting men in this division being 151,450. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says that the standard was a deer, with the legend "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord." On the march this division took the second place (Numbers 2:10 ff). The prince of the tribe was Elizur ben Shedeur, whose oblation is described in Numbers 7:30 ff. The Reubenite among the spies was Shammua ben Zaccur (Numbers 13:4). It is possible that the conspiracy against Moses, organized by the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram, with the assistance of Korah the Levite (Numbers 16:1-50), was an attempt on the part of the tribe to assert its rights as representing the firstborn. It is significant that the children of Korah did not perish (Numbers 26:11). May not the influence of this incident on Moses' mind be traced in his "blessing," wishing for the continuance of the tribe, indeed, but not in great strength (Deuteronomy 33:6)? This was a true forecast of the tribal history.

When the high plateau East of the Dead Sea and the Jordan fell into the hands of the Israelite invaders, these spacious pastoral uplands irresistibly attracted the great flock-masters of Reuben and Gad, two tribes destined to be neighbors during succeeding centuries. At their earnest request Moses allowed them their tribal possessions here subject to one condition, which they loyally accepted. They should not "sit here," and so discourage their brethren who went to war beyond the Jordan. They should provide for the security of their cattle, fortify cities to protect their little ones and their wives from the inhabitants of the land, and their men of war should go before the host in the campaign of conquest until the children of Israel should have inherited every man his inheritance (Numbers 32:1-27). Of the actual part they took in that warfare there is no record, but perhaps "the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben" (Joshua 15:6; 18:17) marked some memorable deed of valor by a member of the tribe. At the end of the campaign the men of Reuben, having earned the gratitude of the western tribes, enriched by their share of the spoils of the enemy, returned with honor to their new home. Along with their brethren of Gad they felt the dangers attaching to their position of isolation, cut off from the rest of their people by the great cleft of the Jordan valley. They reared therefore the massive altar of Ed in the valley, so that in the very throat of that instrument of severance there might be a perpetual witness to themselves and to their children of the essential unity of Israel. The western tribes misunderstood the action and, dreading religious schism, gathered in force to stamp it out. Explanations followed which were entirely satisfactory, and a threatening danger was averted (Joshua 22:1-34). But the instincts of the eastern tribes were right, as subsequent history was to prove. The Jordan valley was but one of many causes of sundering. The whole circumstances and conditions of life on the East differed widely from those on the West of the river, pastoral pursuits and life in the open being contrasted with agricultural and city life.

The land given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben reached from the Arnon, Wady el-Mojib, in the South, to the border of Gad in the North. In Numbers 32:34 cities of Gad are named which lay far South, Aroer being on the very lip of the Arnon; but these are probably to be taken as an enclave in the territory of Reuben. From Joshua 13:15 ff it is clear that the northern border ran from some point North of the Dead Sea in a direction East-Northeast, passing to the North of Heshbon. The Dead Sea formed the western boundary, and it marched with the desert on the East. No doubt many districts changed hands in the course of the history. At the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, e.g., we read that Aroer was in the hands of the Reubenites, "and eastward .... even unto the entrance of the wilderness from the river Euphrates" (1 Chronicles 5:8 f). Bezer the city of refuge lay in Reuben's territory (Joshua 20:8, etc.). A general description of the country will be found under MOAB; while the cities of Reuben are dealt with in separate articles.

Reuben and Gad, occupying contiguous districts, and even, as we have seen, to some extent overlapping, are closely associated in the history. Neither took part in the glorious struggle against Sisera (Judges 5:15 ff). Already apparently the sundering influences were taking effect. They are not excepted, however, from "all the tribes of Israel" who sent contingents for the war against Benjamin (Judges 20:10; 21:5), and the reference in Judges 5:15 seems to show that Reuben might have done great things had he been disposed. The tribe therefore was still powerful, but perhaps absorbed by anxieties as to its relations with neighboring peoples. In guarding their numerous flocks against attack from the South, and sudden incursions from the desert, a warlike spirit and martial prowess were developed. They were "valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skillful in war" (1 Chronicles 5:18). They overwhelmed the Hagrites with Jetur and Naphish and Nodab, and greatly enriched themselves with the spoil. In recording the raid the Chronicler pays a compliment to their religious loyalty: "They cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust in him" (1 Chronicles 5:19 ff). Along with Gad and Manasseh they sent a contingent of 120,000 men "with all manner of instruments of war for the battle, .... men of war, that could order the battle array," men who "came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king" (1 Chronicles 12:37 f). Among David's mighty men was Adina, "a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him" (1 Chronicles 11:42). In the 40th year of David's reign overseers were set over the Reubenites "for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king" (1 Chronicles 26:32). Perhaps in spite of the help given to David the Reubenites had never quite got over their old loyalty to the house of Saul. At any rate, when disruption came they joined the Northern Kingdom (1 Kings 11:31).

The subsequent history of the tribe is left in much obscurity. Exposed as they were to hostile influences of Moab and the East, and cut off from fellowship with their brethren in worship, in their isolation they probably found the descent into idolatry all too easy, and the once powerful tribe sank into comparative insignificance. Of the immediate causes of this decline we have no knowledge. Moab established its authority over the land that had belonged to Reuben; and Mesha, in his inscription (M S), while he speaks of Gad, does not think Reuben worthy of mention. They had probably become largely absorbed in the northern tribe. They are named as suffering in the invasion of Hazael during the reign of Jehu (2 Kings 10:32 f). That "they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and played the harlot after the gods of the peoples of the land" is given as the reason for the fate that befell them at the hands of Pul, king of Assyria, who carried them away, "and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan" (1 Chronicles 5:25 f).

The resemblance of Reuben's case to that of Simeon is striking, for Simeon also appears to have been practically absorbed in the tribe of Judah. The prestige that should have been Reuben's in virtue of his birthright is said to have passed to Joseph (1 Chronicles 5:1). And the place of Reuben and Simeon in Israel is taken by the sons of Joseph, a fact referred to in the blessing of Jacob (Genesis 48:5).

Ezekiel finds a place for Reuben in his picture of restored Israel (48:6). He appears also--in this case preceded by Judah only--in Revelation 7:5.

W. Ewing

Reubenites

Reubenites - roo'-ben-its (ha-re'ubheni; demoi Rhouben): Members of the tribe of Reuben (Numbers 26:7, etc.). Adina, one of David's mighty men, was a Reubenite (1 Chronicles 11:42).

Reuel

Reuel - roo'-el (re`u'el, "God is his friend"; the Septuagint Rhagouel):

(1) In the genealogical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by Basemath (Genesis 36:4, 10, 13, 17; 1 Chronicles 1:35, 37) and the father of the father-in-law of Moses, Hobab (Numbers 10:29). In the account of the marriage of Zipporah to Moses (Exodus 2:16-21) Jethro seems to be called Reuel (compare HOBAB). The various names of Jethro perplexed the Talmudists, too; some held that his real name was "Hobab," and that Reuel was his father. Reuel is probably a clan name (Gray, "Nu," ICC), and Hobab is a member of the clan ("son") of Reuel (Numbers 10:29, the King James Version reads "Raguel").

(2) The father of Eliasaph, the prince of Gad (Numbers 2:14), called (by some copyist's mistake) "Deuel" in Numbers 1:14; 42, 47; 10:20. The Septuagint has uniformly Rhagouel.

(3) A Benjamite (1 Chronicles 9:8).

Horace J. Wolf

Reumah

Reumah - roo'-ma (re'umah): The concubine of Nahor (Genesis 22:24).

Revelation of John

Revelation of John - I. TITLE AND GENERAL CHARACTER OF BOOK

1. Title

2. Uniqueness and Reality of Visions

II. CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP

1. Patristic Testimony

2. Testimony of Book Itself

3. Objections to Johannine Authorship--Relation to Fourth Gospel

III. DATE AND UNITY OF THE BOOK

1. Traditional Date under Domitian

2. The Nero-Theory

3. Composite Hypotheses--Babylonian Theory

IV. PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK

1. General Scope

2. Detailed Analysis

V. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

1. General Scheme of Interpretation

2. The Newer Theories

3. The Book a True Prophecy

VI. THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK

LITERATURE

The last book of the New Testament. It professes to be the record of prophetic visions given by Jesus Christ to John, while the latter was a prisoner, "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Revelation 1:9), in PATMOS (which see), a small rocky island in the Aegean, about 15 miles West of Ephesus. Its precursor in the Old Testament is the Book of Dnl, with the symbolic visions and mystical numbers of which it stands in close affinity. The peculiar form of the book, its relation to other "apocalyptic" writings, and to the Fourth Gospel, likewise attributed to John, the interpretation of its symbols, with disputed questions of its date, of worship, unity, relations to contemporary history, etc., have made it one of the most difficult books in the New Testament to explain satisfactorily.

I. Title and General Character of Book. 1. Title: "Revelation" answers to apokalupsis, in Revelation 1:1. The oldest form of the title would seem to be simply, "Apocalypse of John," the appended words "the divine" (theologos, i.e. "theologian") not being older than the 4th century (compare the title given to Gregory of Nazianzus, "Gregory theologian"). The book belongs to the class of works commonly named "apocalyptic," as containing visions and revelations of the future, frequently in symbolical form (e.g. the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Bar, the Apocalypse of Ezr; see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE), but it is doubtful if the word here bears this technical sense. The tendency at present is to group the New Testament Apocalypse with these others, and attribute to it the same kind of origin as theirs, namely, in the unbridled play of religious fantasy, clothing itself in unreal visional form.

2. Uniqueness and Reality of Visions: But there is a wide distinction. These other works are pseudonymous--fictitious; on the face of them products of imagination; betraying that this is their origin in their crude, confused, unedifying character. The Apocalypse bears on it the name of its author--an apostle of Jesus Christ (see below); claims to rest on real visions; rings with the accent of sincerity; is orderly, serious, sublime, purposeful, in its conceptions; deals with the most solemn and momentous of themes. On the modern Nerotheory, to which most recent expositors give adherence, it is a farrago of baseless fantasies, no one of which came true. On its own claim it is a product of true prophecy (Revelation 1:3; 22:18 f), and has or will have sure fulfillment. Parallels here and there are sought between it and the Book of Enoch or the Apocalypse of Ezra. As a rule the resemblances arise from the fact that these works draw from the same store of the ideas and imagery of the Old Testament. It is there the key is chiefly to be sought to the symbolism of John. The Apocalypse is steeped in the thoughts, the images, even the language of the Old Testament (compare the illustrations in Lightfoot, Galatians, 361, where it is remarked: "The whole book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testament. It speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and Daniel"). These remarks will receive elucidation in what follows.

II. Canonicity and Authority. 1. Patristic Testimony: The two questions of canonicity and authorship are closely connected. Eusebius states that opinion in his day was divided on the book, and he himself wavers between placing it among the disputed books or ranking it with the acknowledged (homologoumena). "Among these," he says, "if such a view seem correct, we must place the Apocalypse of John" (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25). That it was rightly so placed appears from a survey of the evidence. The first to refer to the book expressly is Justin Martyr (circa 140 AD), who speaks of it as the work of "a certain man, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ" (Dial, 81). Irenaeus (circa 180 AD) repeatedly and decisively declares that the Apocalypse was written by John, a disciple of the Lord (Adv. Haer., iv.20, 11; 30, 4; v.26, 1; 35, 2, etc.), and comments on the number 666 (v.30, 1). In his case there can be no doubt that the apostle John is meant. Andreas of Cappadocia (5th century) in a Commentary on the Apocalypse states that Papias (circa 130 AD) bore witness to its credibility, and cites a comment by him on Revelation 12:7-9. The book is quoted in the Epistle on the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (177 AD); had a commentary written on it by Melito of Sardis (circa 170 AD), one of the churches of the Apocalypse (Euseb., HE, IV, 26); was used by Theophilus of Antioch (circa 168 AD) and by Apollonius (circa 210 AD; HE, V, 25)--in these cases being cited as the Apocalypse of John. It is included as John's in the Canon of Muratori (circa 200 AD). The Johannine authorship (apostolic) is abundantly attested by Tertullian (circa 200 AD; Adv. Mar., iii.14, 24, etc.); by Hippolytus (circa 240 AD), who wrote a work upon it; by Clement of Alexandria (circa 200 AD); by Origen (circa 230 AD), and other writers. Doubt about the authorship of the book is first heard of in the obscure sect of the Alogi (end of the 2nd century), who, with Caius, a Roman presbyter (circa 205 AD), attributed it to Cerinthus. More serious was the criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 250 AD), who, on internal grounds, held that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse could not have come from the same pen (Euseb., HE, VII, 25). He granted, however, that it was the work of a holy and inspired man--another John. The result was that, while "in the Western church," as Bousset grants, "the Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first" (EB, I, 193), a certain doubt attached to it for a time in sections of the Greek and Syrian churches. It is not found in the Peshitta, and a citation from it in Ephraim the Syrian (circa 373) seems not to be genuine. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 386 AD) omits it from his list, and it is unmentioned by the Antiochian writers (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret). The Canon attributed to the Council of Laodicea (circa 360 AD) does not name it, but it is doubtful whether this document is not of later date (compare Westcott; also Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 28). On the other hand, the book is acknowledged by Methodius, Pamphilus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril Alex., Epiphanius, etc.

2. Testimony of Book Itself: The testimony to the canonicity, and also to the Johannine authorship, of the Apocalypse is thus exceptionally strong. In full accordance with it is the claim of the book itself. It proclaims itself to be the work of John (Revelation 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who does not, indeed, name himself an apostle, yet, in his inspired character, position of authority in the Asian churches, and selection as the medium of these revelations, can hardly be thought of as other than the well-known John of the Gospels and of consentient church tradition. The alternative view, first suggested as a possibility by Eusebius, now largely favored by modern writers, is that the John intended is the "presbyter John" of a well-known passage cited by Eusebius from Papias (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39). Without entering into the intricate questions connected with this "presbyter John"--whether he was really a distinct person from the apostle (Zahn and others dispute it), or whether, if he was, he resided at Ephesus (see JOHN,GOSPEL OF )--it is enough here to say that the reason already given, viz: the importance and place of authority of the author of the Apocalypse in the Asian churches, and the emphatic testimony above cited connecting him with the apostle, forbid the attribution of the book to a writer wholly unknown to church tradition, save for this casual reference to him in Papias. Had the assumed presbyter really been the author, he could not have dropped so completely out of the knowledge of the church, and had his place taken all but immediately by the apostle.

3. Objections to Johannine Authorship--Relation to Fourth Gospel:

One cause of the hesitancy regarding the Apocalypse in early circles was dislike of its millenarianism; but the chief reason, set forth with much critical skill by Dionysius of Alexandria (Euseb., HE, VII, 25), was the undoubted contrast in character and style between this work and the Fourth Gospel, likewise claiming to be from the pen of John. Two works so diverse in character--the Gospel calm, spiritual, mystical, abounding in characteristic expressions as "life," "light," "love," etc., written in idiomatic Greek; the Apocalypse abrupt, mysterious, material in its imagery, inexact and barbarous in its idioms, sometimes employing solecisms--could not, it was argued, proceed from the same author. Not much, beyond amplification of detail, has been added to the force of the arguments of Dionysius. There were three possibilities--either first, admitting the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, to assail the genuineness of the Gospel--this was the method of the school of Baur; or, second, accepting the Gospel, to seek a different author for the Apocalypse--John the presbyter, or another: thus not a few reverent scholars (Bleek, Neander, etc.); or, third, with most moderns, to deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, with a leaning to the "presbyter" as the author of the latter (Harnack, Bousset, Moffatt, etc.). Singularly there has been of late in the advanced school itself a movement in the direction of recognizing that this difficulty of style is less formidable than it looks--that, in fact, beneath the surface difference, there is a strong body of resemblances pointing to a close relationship of Gospel and Apocalypse. This had long been argued by the older writers (Godet, Luthardt, Alford, Salmon, etc.), but it is now more freely acknowledged. As instances among many may be noted the use of the term "Logos" (Revelation 19:13), the image of the "Lamb," figures like "water of life" words and phrases as "true," "he that overcometh," "keep the commandments," etc. A striking coincidence is the form of quotation of Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7. If the Greek in parts shows a certain abruptness and roughness, it is plainly evidenced by the use of the correct constructions in other passages that this is not due to want of knowledge of the language. "The very rules which he breaks in one place he observes in others" (Salmon). There are, besides, subtle affinities in the Greek usage of the two books, and some of the very irregularities complained of are found in the Gospel (for ample details consult Bousset, op. cit.; Godet, Commentary on John, I, 267-70, English translation; Alford, Greek Test., IV, 224-28; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 233-43, 2nd edition; the last-named writer says: "I have produced instances enough to establish decisively that there is the closest possible affinity between the Revelation and the other Johannine books"). Great differences in character and style no doubt still remain. Some, to leave room for these, favor an early date for the Apocalypse (68-69 BC; on this below); the trend of opinion, however, now seems, as will be shown, to be moving back to the traditional date in the reign of Domitian, in which case the Gospel will be the earlier, and the Apocalypse the later work. This, likewise, seems to yield the better explanation. The tremendous experiences of Patmos, bursting through all ordinary and calmer states of consciousness, must have produced startling changes in thought and style of composition. The "rapt seer" will not speak and write like the selfcollected, calmly brooding evangelist.

III. Date and Unity of the Book. 1. Traditional Date under Domitian: Eusebius, in summing up the tradition of the Church on this subject, assigns John's exile to Patmos, and consequently the composition of the Apocalypse, to the latter part of the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). Irenaeus (circa 180 AD) says of the book, "For it was seen, not a long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian" (Adv. Haer., v.30, 3). This testimony is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (who speaks of "the tyrant"), Origen, and later writers. Epiphanius (4th century), indeed, puts (Haer., li.12, 233) the exile to Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD); but as, in the same sentence, he speaks of the apostle as 90 years of age, it is plain there is a strange blunder in the name of the emperor. The former date answers to the conditions of the book (decadence of the churches; widespread and severe persecution), and to the predilection of Domitian for this mode of banishment (compare Tacitus, History i.2; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 18).

2. The Nero-Theory: This, accordingly, may be regarded as the traditional date of composition of the Apocalypse, though good writers, influenced partly by the desire to give time for the later composition of the Gospel, have signified a preference for an earlier date (e.g. Westcott, Salmon). It is by no means to be assumed, however, that the Apocalypse is the earlier production. The tendency of recent criticism, it will be seen immediately, is to revert to the traditional date (Bousset, etc.); but for a decade or two, through the prevalence of what may be called the "Nero-theory" of the book, the pendulum swung strongly in favor of its composition shortly after the death of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerusalem (held to be shown to be still standing by Revelation 11:1-19), i.e. about 68-69 AD. This date was even held to be demonstrated beyond all question. Reuss may be taken as an example. According to him (Christian Theology of the Apostolic Age, I, 369 ff, English translation), apart from the ridiculous preconceptions of theologians, the Apocalypse is "the most simple, most transparent book that prophet ever penned." "There is no other apostolical writing the chronology of which can be more exactly fixed." "It was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, under the emperor Galba--that is to say, in the second half of the year 68 of our era." He proceeds to discuss "the irrefutable proofs" of this. The proof, in brief, is found in the beast (not introduced till Revelation 13:1-18) with seven heads, one of which has been mortally wounded, but is for the present healed (Revelation 13:3). "This is the Roman empire, with its first 7 emperors, one of whom is killed, but is to live again as Antichrist" (compare Revelation 17:10 f). The key to the whole book is said to be given in Revelation 13:18, where the number of the beast is declared to be 666. Applying the method of numerical values (the Jewish Gematria), this number is found to correspond with the name "Nero Caesar" in Hebrew letters (omitting the yodh, the Hebrew letter "y"). Nero then is the 5th head that is to live again; an interpretation confirmed by rumors prevalent at that time that Nero was not really dead, but only hidden, and was soon to return to claim his throne. As if to make assurance doubly sure, it is found that by dropping the final "n" in "Neron," the number becomes 616--a number which Irenaeus in his comments on the subject (v.30,1) tells us was actually found in some ancient copies. The meaning therefore is thought to be clear. Writing under the emperor Galba, the 6th emperor (reckoning from Augustus), the author anticipates, after a short reign of a 7th emperor (Revelation 17:10), the return of the Antichrist Nero--an 8th, but of the 7, with whom is to come the end. Jerusalem is to be miraculously preserved (Revelation 11:1-19), but Rome is to perish. This is to happen within the space of 3 1/2 years. "The final catastrophe, which was to destroy the city and empire, was to take place in three years and a half. .... The writer knows .... that Rome will in three years and a half perish finally, never to rise again." It does not matter for this theory that not one of the things predicted happened--that every anticipation was falsified. Nero did not return; Jerusalem was not saved; Rome did not perish; 3 1/2 years did not see the end of all things. Yet the Christian-church, though the failure of every one of these predictions had been decisively demonstrated, received the book as of divine inspiration, apparently without the least idea that such things had been intended (see the form of theory in Renan, with a keen criticism in Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, lecture xiv).

3. Composite Hypotheses--Babylonian Theory: What is to be said with reference to this "Nero-theory" belongs to subsequent sections: meanwhile it is to be observed that, while portions of theory are retained, significant changes have since taken place in the view entertained of the book as a whole, and with this of the date to be assigned to it. First, after 1882, came a flood of disintegrating hypotheses, based on the idea that the Apocalypse was not a unity, but was either a working up of one or more Jewish apocalypses by Christian hands, or at least incorporated fragments of such apocalypses (Uslter, Vischer, Weizsacker, Weyland, Pfieiderer, Spitta, etc.). Harnack lent his influential support to the form of this theory advocated by Vischer, and for a time the idea had vogue. Very soon, however, it fell into discredit through its own excesses (for details on the different views, see Bousset, or Moffatt's Introduction to the New Testament, 489 ff), and through increasing appreciation of the internal evidence for the unity of the book. Gunkel, in his Schopfung und Chaos (1895), started another line of criticism in his derivation of the conceptions of the book, not from Jewish apocalypse, but from Babylonian mythology. He assailed with sharp criticism the "contemporary history" school of interpretation (the "Nero-theory" above), and declared its "bankruptcy." The number of the beast, with him, found its solution, not in Nero, but in the Hebrew name for the primeval chaos. This theory, too, has failed in general acceptance, though elements in it are adopted by most recent interpreters. The modified view most in favor now is that the Apocalypse is, indeed, the work of a Christian writer of the end of the 1st century, but embodies certain sections borrowed from Jewish apocalypse (as Revelation 7:1-8, the 144,000; Revelation 11:1-19, measuring of the temple and the two witnesses; especially Revelation 12:1-17, the woman and red dragon--this, in turn, reminiscent of Babylonian mythology). These supposed Jewish sections are, however, without real support in anything that is known, and the symbolism admits as easily of a Christian interpretation as any other part of the book. We are left, therefore, as before, with the book as a unity, and the tide of opinion flows back to the age of Domitian as the time of its origin. Moffatt (connecting it mistakenly, as it seems to us, with Domitian's emphasis on the imperial cult, but giving also other reasons) goes so far as to say that "any earlier date for the book is hardly possible" (Expository Greek Testament, V, 317). The list of authorities for the Domitianie date may be seen in Moffatt, Introduction, 508.

IV. Plan and Analysis of the Book. 1. General Scope: The method of the book may thus be indicated. After an introduction, and letters to the seven churches (Revelation 1:1-20 through Revelation 3:1-22), the properly prophetic part of the book commences with a vision of heaven (Revelation 4:1-11; Revelation 5:1-14), following upon which are two series of visions of the future, parallel, it would appear, to each other--the first, the 7 seals, and under the Revelation 7:11-17th seal, the 7 trumpets (Revelation 6:1-17 through Revelation 11:1-19, with interludes in Revelation 7:1-17 and again in Revelation 10:1-11; Revelation 11:1-12); the second, the woman and her child (Revelation 12:1-17), the 2 beasts (Revelation 13:1-18), and, after new interludes (Revelation 14:1-20), the bowls and 7 last plagues (Revelation 15:1-8; Revelation 16:1-21). The expansion of the last judgments is given in separate pictures (the scarlet woman, doom of Babylon, Har-Magedon, Revelation 17:1-18 through Revelation 19:1-21); then come the closing scenes of the millennium, the last apostasy, resurrection and judgment (Revelation 20:1-15), followed by the new heavens and new earth, with the descending new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:1-27; Revelation 22:1-21). The theme of the book is the conflict of Christ and His church with anti-Christian powers (the devil, the beast, the false prophet, Revelation 16:13), and the ultimate and decisive defeat of the latter; its keynote is in the words, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:20; compare Revelation 1:7); but it is to be noticed, as characteristic of the book, that while this "coming" is represented as, in manner, ever near, the end, as the crisis approaches, is again always postponed by a fresh development of events. Thus, under the 6th seal, the end seems reached (Revelation 6:12-17), but a pause ensues (Revelation 7:1-17), and on the opening of the seventh seal, a new series begins with the trumpets (Revelation 8:2 ff). Similarly, at the sounding of the 6th trumpet, the end seems at hand (Revelation 9:12-21), but a new pause is introduced before the last sounding takes place (Revelation 11:15 ff). Then is announced the final victory, but as yet only in summary. A new series of visions begins, opening into large perspectives, till, after fresh interludes, and the pouring out of 6 of the bowls of judgment, Har-Magedon itself is reached; but though, at the outpouring of the 7th bowl, it is proclaimed, "It is done" (Revelation 16:17), the end is again held over till these final judgments are shown in detail. At length, surely, in Revelation 19:1-21, with the appearance of the white horseman--"The Word of God" (Revelation 19:13)--and the decisive overthrow of all his adversaries (Revelation 19:18-21), the climax is touched; but just then, to our surprise, intervenes the announcement of the binding of Satan for 1,000 years, and the reign of Jesus and His saints upon the earth (the interpretation is not here discussed), followed by a fresh apostasy, and the general resurrection and judgment (Revelation 20:1-15). Precise time-measures evidently fail in dealing with a book so constructed: the 3 1/2 years of the Nero-interpreters sink into insignificance in its crowded panorama of events. The symbolic numbers that chiefly rule in the book are "seven," the number of completeness (7 spirits, seals, trumpets, bowls, heads of beasts); "ten," the number of worldly power (10 horns); "four," the earthly number (4 living creatures, corners of earth, winds, etc.); 3 1/2 years--42 months--"time, and times, and half a time" (Revelation 12:14) = 1,260 days, the period, borrowed from Dan (7:25; 12:7), of anti-Christian ascendancy.

2. Detailed Analysis: The following is a more detailed analysis:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Title and Address (Revelation 1:1-8)

2. Vision of Jesus and Message to the Seven Churches of the Province of Asia (Revelation 1:9-20)

3. The Letters to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2:1; 3:1)

(1) Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)

(2) Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11)

(3) Pergamos (Revelation 2:12-17)

(4) Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29)

(5) Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6)

(6) Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13)

(7) Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22)

II. THE THINGS TO COME. FIRST SERIES OF VISIONS: THE SEALS AND TRUMPETS

1. The Vision of Heaven

(1) Adoration of the Creator (Revelation 4)

(2) The 7-Sealed Book; Adoration of God and the Lamb (Revelation 5)

2. Opening of Six Seals (Revelation 6)

(1) The White Horse (Revelation 6:1, 2)

(2) The Red Horse (Revelation 6:3, 4)

(3) The Black Horse (Revelation 6:5, 6)

(4) The Pale Horse (Revelation 6:7, 8)

(5) Souls under the Altar (Revelation 6:9-11)

(6) The Wrath of the Lamb (Revelation 6:12-17)

3. Interludes (Revelation 7)

(1) Sealing of 144,000 on Earth (Revelation 7:1-8)

(2) Triumphant Multitude in Heaven (Revelation 7:9-17)

4. Opening of Seventh Seal: under This Seven Trumpets, of Which Six Now Sounded (Revelation 8:1-13; Revelation 9:1-21)

(1) Hail and Fire on Earth (Revelation 8:7)

(2) Burning Mountain in Sea (Revelation 8:8, 9)

(3) Burning Star on Rivers and Fountains (Revelation 8:10, 11)

(4) One-third Sun, Moon, and Stars Darkened (Revelation 8:12). "Woe"--Trumpets (Revelation 8:13)

(5) The Fallen Star-Locusts (Revelation 9:1-11)

(6) Angels Loosed from Euphrates--the Horseman (Revelation 9:12-21)

5. Interludes--

(1) Angel with Little Book (Revelation 10)

(2) Measuring of Temple and Altar--the Two Witnesses (Revelation 11:1-13)

6. Seventh Trumpet Sounded--Final Victory (Revelation 11:14-19)

III. SECOND SERIES OF VISIONS: THE WOMAN AND THE RED DRAGON; THE TWO BEASTS; THE BOWLS AND LAST PLAGUES

1. The Woman and Child; the Red Dragon and His Persecutions (Revelation 12)

2. The Beast from the Sea, Seven-headed, Ten-horned (Revelation 13:1-10); the Two-horned Beast (Revelation 13:11-18)

3. Interludes (Revelation 14)

(1) The Lamb on Mt. Zion; the 144,000 (Revelation 14:1-5)

(2) The Angel with "an Eternal Gospel" (Revelation 14:6, 7)

(3) Second Angel--(Anticipatory) Proclamation of Fall of Babylon (Revelation 14:8)

(4) Third Angel--Doom of Worshippers of the Beast (Revelation 14:9-12)

(5) Blessedness of the Dead in the Lord (Revelation 14:13)

(6) The Son of Man and the Great Vintage (Revelation 14:14-20)

4. The Seven Last Plagues--the Angels and Their Bowls: the Preparation in heaven (Revelation 15:1-8)--the Outpouring (Revelation 16:1-21)

(1) On Earth (Revelation 16:2)

(2) On Sea (Revelation 16:3)

(3) On Rivers and Fountains (Revelation 16:4-7)

(4) On Sun (Revelation 16:8, 9)

(5) On Seat of Beast (Revelation 16:10, 11)

(6) On Euphrates--Har-Magedon (Revelation 16:12-16)

(7) In the Air--Victory and Fall of Babylon (Revelation 16:17-21)

IV. EXPANSION OF LAST JUDGMENTS (Revelation 17 through 19)

1. The Scarlet Woman on Beast--Her Judgment (Revelation 17)

2. Doom of Babylon and Lament over Her (Revelation 18)

3. Interlude--Announcement of Marriage of the Lamb (Revelation 19:1-10)

4. Rider on White Horse ("The Word of God") and His Armies--Last Battle and Doom of Beast, False Prophet, and Their Followers (Revelation 19:11-21)

V. THE MILLENNIUM--NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH (Revelation 20 through 22)

1. Satan Bound; First Resurrection and Reign of Saints for 1,000 Years (Revelation 20:1-6)

2. Loosing of Satan and Final Conflict--Doom of Adversaries and of the Devil (Revelation 20:7-10)

3. General Resurrection and Last Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15)

4. New Heavens and New Earth

(1) The New Jerusalem from Heaven (Revelation 21:1-9)

(2) Description of the City (Revelation 21:10-27)

(3) Blessedness of Its Citizens (Revelation 22:1-7)

(4) Epilogue (Revelation 22:8-21)

V. Principles of Interpretation. 1. General Scheme of Interpretation: As a book intended for the consolation of the church under present and future afflictions, the Apocalypse is meant by its author to be understood (Revelation 1:3; 22:7). He must have been aware, however, that, while its general scope might be apprehended, mystery must rest upon many of its symbols, till the time of their actual fulfillment. The book relates to "things which must shortly come to pass" (Revelation 1:1)--in their beginnings at least--and the divers interpretations since put upon its prophecies are the best evidence of the difficulties attaching to them. Schemes of interpretation have generally been grouped into praeterist (the prophecies being regarded as already fulfilled), futurist (the fulfillment being thrown wholly into the future), and the historical (the fulfillment being looked for in the continuous history of the church from John's day till the end). (1) The older praeterist view may be taken as represented by Moses Stuart, who finds the fulfillment of Revelation 6:1-17-Revelation 11:1-19 in the destruction of Jerusalem (Commentary, 520 ff), and of Revelation 13:1-18-Revelation 19:1-21 in the reign of Nero (690 ff). Even he, however, has to interpret the chapter on the last things of the future. (2) The futurist view connects the whole with the times of the second advent and the millennium. The beast is an individual who shall then appear as Antichrist. This rejects the plain intimations of the book that the events predicted lay, in their beginnings at least, immediately in the future of the writer. (3) The historical view connects the various symbols with definite occurrences--as the invasions which overthrew the Roman Empire (the first 4 trumpets), the Saracens (first woe-trumpet), the Turks (second woe-trumpet), the papacy (the beast, Revelation 13:1-18; the scarlet woman, Revelation 17:1-18), etc. A day-year principle is applied to the periods (1,260 days--1,260 years). As representatives of this view may be mentioned Mode, Vitringa, Sir Isaac Newton, Elliott in Horae Apocalypticae, A. Barnes.

2. The Newer Theories: These older schemes are largely put out of date by the newer theories, already alluded to, in which the Apocalypse is explained out of contemporary conditions, the legend of the returning Nero, Jewish apocalypse, and Babylonian mythology. These are praeterist theories also, but differ from the older in that in them all real prophecy is denied. A mainstay of such theories is the declaration of the book that the events announced are close at hand (Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:20). When, however, it is remembered that, on any view, this nearness includes a period of 1,000 years before the judgment and descent of the new Jerusalem, it will be felt that it will not do to give these expressions too restricted a temporal significance. The horizon is wider. The coming of Christ is ever near--ever approaching--yet it is not to be tied down to "times and seasons"; it is more of the nature of a process and has anticipatory exemplifications in many crises and providential events forecasting the end (see above). The "coming," e.g. to the church at Ephesus (Revelation 2:5), or to the church at Pergamos (Revelation 9:16)--contingent events--can hardly exhaust the full meaning of the Parousia. The Nero-theory demands a date at latest under Galba, but that date we have seen to be generally abandoned. Those who place it under Vespasian (omitting three short reigns) sacrifice the advantage of dating the book before the destruction of Jerusalem, and have to fall back on a supposititious Jewish fragment in Revelation 11:1-19, which those who incorporated it must have known had never been fulfilled. The attempt to give a "contemporary historical" interpretation to the symbols of the successive churches, as Gunkel has acutely shown, completely breaks down in practice, while Gunkel's own attempt at a Babylonian explanation will be judged by most to be overstrained. "Dragon" in the Old Testament and elsewhere may be associated with widespread oriental ideas, but the definite symbolism of the Apocalypse in Revelation 12:1-17 has no provable connection with Babylonian myths. There is the widest disagreement in theories of "composite" origin (from Jewish apocalypse). What seems simple and demonstrable to one has no plausibility to others. A form of "Nero Caesar," indeed, yields the mystic 666, but so do 1,000 other names--almost any name, with proper manipulation (compare Salmon, lecture xiv). Lastly, the returning-Nero legend yields no satisfactory explanation of the language in Revelation 13:3, 12, 14; 17:11. The theory is that these words allude to the belief that Nero would return from the dead and become Antichrist (see above). Tacitus attests that there were vague rumors that Nero had not really died (Hist. ii.8), and later a pretender arose in Parthia taking advantage of this feeling (Suet. Nero. 57). The idea of Nero returning from the dead is categorically stated in Sib Or 5:363-70 (circa 120 AD); compare Sib Or 4:119-22 (circa 80AD ). Augustine mentions the idea (City of God, xx.19, 3), but without connection with the Apocalypse. By Domitian's time, however, it was perfectly certain that Nero had not returned, and there was no longer, on this interpretation, any appositeness in speaking of a "head" the "deathstroke" of which was healed (Revelation 13:3), which became the "eighth head" of Revelation 17:11--if, indeed, the apostle could be conceived capable of being influenced by such vagaries. The events predicted lay, evidently, still in the future. It may be added that neither Irenaeus, nor any early interpreter, seems to have heard of the connection of 666 with "Nero." Ireneus himself suggests the solution Lateinos (compare Salmon, ut supra).

3. The Book a True Prophecy: It is not proposed here to attempt the lines of a positive interpretation. If it is once recognized that the Apocalypse is a book of true prophecy, that its symbols stand for something real, and that its perspective is not to be limited to a brief period like 3 1/2 years, the way is opened, not, indeed, for a reading into it of a series of precise historical occurrences, but still for doing justice to the truth which lies at the basis of the historical interpretation, namely, that there are here prefigured the great crises in the age-long conflict of Christ and His church with pagan and anti-Christian adversaries. Events and tendencies may be grouped, or under different forms may relate to the same subject (e.g. the 144,000 sealed on earth--a spiritual Israel--in Revelation 7:1-8, and the triumphant multitude in heaven, Revelation 7:9-17); successions of events may be foreshortened; different pictures may overlap; but, shining through the symbols, great truths and facts which have historical realization appear. There is no need for supposing that, in a drama of this range, the "heads" of the beast of Revelation 13:1-18 and Revelation 17:1-18 (behind whom is the Dragon-enemy, Satan, of Revelation 12:1-17) stand, in contrariety to the analogy of Daniel, for seven individual emperors, and that "the image of the beast," which has life given to it and "speaks" (Revelation 13:14-15), is the statue of the emperor; or that such tremendous events as the fall of the Roman Empire, or the rise of the papacy--with which, however, must be combined all ecclesiastical anti-Christianism--or the false prophecy of later intellectual anti-Christianism have no place in the symbolism of the book. Sane, reverent thought will suggest many lines of correspondence with the course of God's providence, which may serve to illuminate its dark places. More than this need not be said here.

VI. Theology of the Book. On this it is hardly necessary to dwell, for expositors are now well agreed that in its great doctrines of God, Christ, man, sin, redemption, the teaching of the Apocalypse does not vary essentially from the great types in the Epistles. The assonances with John's mode of thinking have already been alluded to. It is granted by all writers that the Christology is as high as anywhere in the New Testament. "It ought unhesitatingly to be acknowledged," says Reuss, "that Christ is placed in the Apocalypse on a paragraph with God" (op. cit., I, 397-98; compare Revelation 1:4, 17; 2:8; 15:8; 22:13, etc.). Not less striking are the correspondences with the teaching of Paul and of Peter on redemption through the blood of Christ (Revelation 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 14:4, etc.). The perverted conception of the school of Baur that we have in the book an anti-Pauline manifesto (thus also Pfieiderer; compare Hibbert Lectures, 178), is now practically dead (see the criticism of it by Reuss, op. cit., I, 308-12). The point in which its eschatology differs from that of the rest of the New Testament is in its introduction of the millennium before the final resurrection and judgment. This enlarges, but does not necessarily contradict, the earlier stage of thought.

LITERATURE.

Moses Stuart, Commentary on Apocalypse; Alford, Greek Testament, IV, "The Revelation"; S. Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament (3rd edition), 176 ff; G. Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edition), lects xiii, xiv; Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, with literature there mentioned; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, chapter xxviii; Milligan, Discussions on the Apocalypse; H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos; W. Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, and article "Apocalypse" in EB, I; C. Anderson Scott, "Revelation" in Century Bible; J. Moffatt, Introduction to Literature of the New Testament (with notices of literature); also "Revelation" in Expositor's Bible; Trench, Epistles to the Seven Churches; W. M. Rarnsay, Letters to the Seven Churches; H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of John.

James Orr

Revelation, 1-2

Revelation, 1-2 - rev-e-la'-shun:

I. THE NATURE OF REVELATION

1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion

2. General and Special Revelation

(1) Revelation in Eden

(2) Revelation among the Heathen

II. THE PROCESS OF REVELATION

1. Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God

2. Stages of Material Development

III. THE MODES OF REVELATION

1. The Several Modes of Revelation

2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes

3. The Prophet God's Mouthpiece

4. Visionary Form of Prophecy

5. "Passivity" of Prophets

6. Revelation by Inspiration

7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ

IV. BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY

1. The Ordinary Forms

2. "Word of Yahweh" and "Torah"

3. "The Scriptures"

LITERATURE

I. The Nature of Revelation. 1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion:

The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this is not meant merely that, according to it, all men, as creatures, live, move and have their being in God. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world's development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his social environment (Genesis 3:8). This intimate association was broken up by the Fall. But God did not therefore withdraw Himself from concernment with men. Rather, He began at once a series of interventions in human history by means of which man might be rescued from his sin and, despite it, brought to the end destined for him. These interventions involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by whom God should be known, and whose distinction should be that God should be "nigh unto them" as He was not to other nations (Deuteronomy 4:7; Psalms 145:18). But this people was not permitted to imagine that it owed its segregation to anything in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine preference; no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that Yahweh had chosen it, not it Him, and that Yahweh's choice of it rested solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people permitted to imagine that it was for its own sake alone that it had been singled out to be the sole recipient of the knowledge of Yahweh; it was made clear from the beginning that God's mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its ultimate end the blessing of the whole world (Genesis 12:2-3; Genesis 17:4-5, 6, 16; 18:18; 22:18; compare Romans 4:13), the bringing together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign of Yahweh, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay for its sin (Genesis 12:3). Meanwhile, however, Yahweh was known only in Israel. To Israel God showed His word and made known His statutes and judgments, and after this fashion He dealt with no other nation; and therefore none other knew His judgments (Psalms 147:19 f). Accordingly, when the hope of Israel (who was also the desire of all nations) came, His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation He brought, though of universal application, was "from the Jews" (John 4:22). And the nations to which this salvation had not been made known are declared by the chief agent in its proclamation to them to be, meanwhile, "far off," "having no hope" and "without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12), because they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of the promise.

The religion of the Bible, thus announces itself, not as the product of men's search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man.

It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revelation--which is made by the religion of the Bible in all the stages of its history--that the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, has left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world (Acts 14:17). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His redemptive work, God suffered for a season all the nations to walk in their own ways; but it is added that to none of them has He failed to do good, and to give from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus wooing them to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (Acts 17:27), but as from the foundation of the world openly manifesting Himself to them in the works of His hands, in which His everlasting power and divinity are clearly seen (Romans 1:20). That men at large have not retained Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not due therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to knowledge of Him, but to the darkening of their senseless hearts by sin and to the vanity of their sin-deflected reasonings (Romans 1:21 ff), by means of which they have supplanted the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and serve the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed, precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the truth in unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their knowledge (so it is intimated); and because, moreover, in their sin, the revelation God gives of Himself in His works of creation and providence no longer suffices for men's needs, that God has intervened supernaturally in the course of history to form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the world should be blessed.

2. General and Special Revelation: It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several representations two species or stages of revelation, which should be discriminated to avoid confusion. There is the revelation which God continuously makes to all men: by it His power and divinity are made known. And there is the revelation which He makes exclusively to His chosen people: through it His saving grace is made known. Both species or stages of revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. They are, for example, brought significantly together in such a declaration as we find in Psalms 19:1-14: "The heavens declare the glory of God .... their line is gone out through all the earth" (Psalms 19:1, 4); "The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul" (Psalms 19:7). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the praise of the glory of God, the Creator of all that is, which has been written upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. From this he rises, however, quickly to the more full-throated praise of the mercy of Yahweh, the covenant God, who has visited His people with saving instruction. Upon this higher revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with adoring gratitude: "O Yahweh, my rock, and my redeemer" (Psalms 19:14). "The heavens," comments Lord Bacon, "indeed tell of the glory of God, but not of His will according to which the poet prays to be pardoned and sanctified." In so commenting, Lord Bacon touches the exact point of distinction between the two species or stages of revelation. The one is adapted to man as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on becoming sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new needs requiring additional provisions to bring him to the end of his existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does not supersede that given to man as man, but supplements it with these new provisions for his attainment, in his new condition of blindness, helplessness and guilt induced by sin, of the end of his being.

These two species or stages of revelation have been commonly distinguished from one another by the distinctive names of natural and supernatural revelation, or general and special revelation, or natural and soteriological revelation. Each of these modes of discriminating them has its particular fitness and describes a real difference between the two in nature, reach or purpose. The one is communicated through the media of natural phenomena, occurring in the course of nature or of history; the other implies an intervention in the natural course of things and is not merely in source but in mode supernatural. The one is addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences. But, though thus distinguished from one another, it is important that the two species or stages of revelation should not be set in opposition to one another, or the closeness of their mutual relations or the constancy of their interaction be obscured. They constitute together a unitary whole, and each is incomplete without the other. In its most general idea, revelation is rooted in creation and the relations with His intelligent creatures into which God has brought Himself by giving them being. Its object is to realize the end of man's creation, to be attained only through knowledge of God and perfect and unbroken communion with Him. On the entrance of sin into the world, destroying this communion with God and obscuring the knowledge of Him derived from nature, another mode of revelation was necessitated, having also another content, adapted to the new relation to God and the new conditions of intellect, heart and will brought about by sin. It must not be supposed, however, that this new mode of revelation was an ex post facto expedient, introduced to meet an unforeseen contingency. The actual course of human development was in the nature of the case the expected and the intended course of human development, for which man was created; and revelation, therefore, in its double form was the divine purpose for man from the beginning, and constitutes a unitary provision for the realization of the end of his creation in the actual circumstances in which he exists. We may distinguish in this unitary revelation the two elements by the cooperation of which the effect is produced; but we should bear in mind that only by their cooperation is the effect produced. Without special revelation, general revelation would be for sinful men incomplete and ineffective, and could issue, as in point of fact it has issued wherever it alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse (Romans 1:20). Without general revelation, special revelation would lack that basis in the fundamental knowledge of God as the mighty and wise, righteous and good maker and ruler of all things, apart from which the further revelation of this great God's interventions in the world for the salvation of sinners could not be either intelligible, credible or operative.

(1) Revelation in Eden. Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man. Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to communion with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God. And not being a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the works of God, saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of vision, and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his heart with a trustful intimacy of association, inconceivable to sinners. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Eden was not merely "natural." Not only does the prohibition of the forbidden fruit involve a positive commandment (Genesis 2:16), but the whole history implies an immediacy of intercourse with God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the picturesque art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless creatures. The impression is strong that what is meant to be conveyed to us is that man dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed with Him immediate and not merely mediate communion. In that case, we may understand that if man had not fallen, he would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with God, and that the cessation of this immediate intercourse is due to sin. It is not then the supernaturalness of special revelation which is rooted in sin, but, if we may be allowed the expression, the specialness of supernatural revelation. Had man not fallen, heaven would have continued to lie about him through all his history, as it lay about his infancy; every man would have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech with Him. Man having fallen, the cherubim and the flame of a sword, turning every way, keep the path; and God breaks His way in a round-about fashion into man's darkened heart to reveal there His redemptive love. By slow steps and gradual stages He at once works out His saving purpose and molds the world for its reception, choosing a people for Himself and training it through long and weary ages, until at last when the fullness of time has come, He bares His arm and sends out the proclamation of His great salvation to all the earth.

(2) Revelation among the Heathen. Certainly, from the gate of Eden onward, God's general revelation ceased to be, in the strict sense, supernatural. It is, of course, not meant that God deserted His world and left it to fester in its iniquity. His providence still ruled over all, leading steadily onward to the goal for which man had been created, and of the attainment of which in God's own good time and way the very continuance of men's existence, under God's providential government, was a pledge. And His Spirit still everywhere wrought upon the hearts of men, stirring up all their powers (though created in the image of God, marred and impaired by sin) to their best activities, and to such splendid effect in every department of human achievement as to command the admiration of all ages, and in the highest region of all, that of conduct, to call out from an apostle the encomium that though they had no law they did by nature (observe the word "nature") the things of the law. All this, however, remains within the limits of Nature, that is to say, within the sphere of operation of divinely-directed and assisted second causes. It illustrates merely the heights to which the powers of man may attain under the guidance of providence and the influences of what we have learned to call God's "common grace." Nowhere, throughout the whole ethnic domain, are the conceptions of God and His ways put within the reach of man, through God's revelation of Himself in the works of creation and providence, transcended; nowhere is the slightest knowledge betrayed of anything concerning God and His purposes, which could be known only by its being supernaturally told to men. Of the entire body of "saving truth," for example, which is the burden of what we call "special revelation," the whole heathen world remained in total ignorance. And even its hold on the general truths of religion, not being vitalized by supernatural enforcements, grew weak, and its knowledge of the very nature of God decayed, until it ran out to the dreadful issue which Paul sketches for us in that inspired philosophy of religion which he incorporates in the latter part of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

Behind even the ethnic development, there lay, of course, the supernatural intercourse of man with God which had obtained before the entrance of sin into the world, and the supernatural revelations at the gate of Eden (Genesis 3:8), and at the second origin of the human race, the Flood (Genesis 8:21-22; Genesis 9:1-17). How long the tradition of this primitive revelation lingered in nooks and corners of the heathen world, conditioning and vitalizing the natural revelation of God always accessible, we have no means of estimating. Neither is it easy to measure the effect of God's special revelation of Himself to His people upon men outside the bounds of, indeed, but coming into contact with, this chosen people, or sharing with them a common natural inheritance. Lot and Ishmael and Esau can scarcely have been wholly ignorant of the word of God which came to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; nor could the Egyptians from whose hands God wrested His people with a mighty arm fail to learn something of Yahweh, any more than the mixed multitudes who witnessed the ministry of Christ could fail to infer something from His gracious walk and mighty works. It is natural to infer that no nation which was intimately associated with Israel's life could remain entirely unaffected by Israel's revelation. But whatever impressions were thus conveyed reached apparently individuals only: the heathen which surrounded Israel, even those most closely affiliated with Israel, remained heathen; they had no revelation. In the sporadic instances when God visited an alien with a supernatural communication--such as the dreams sent to Abimelech (Genesis 20:1-18) and to Pharaoh (Genesis 40:1-23; Genesis 41:1-57) and to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:1 ff) and to the soldier in the camp of Midian (Judges 7:13)--it was in the interests, not of the heathen world, but of the chosen people that they were sent; and these instances derive their significance wholly from this fact. There remain, no doubt, the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, perhaps also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of Balaam, who also, however, appear in the sacred narrative only in connection with the history of God's dealings with His people and in their interest. Their unexplained appearance cannot in any event avail to modify the general fact that the life of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The heathen were suffered to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16).

II. The Process of Revelation. Meanwhile, however, God had not forgotten them, but was preparing salvation for them also through the supernatural revelation of His grace that He was making to His people. According to the Biblical representation, in the midst of and working confluently with the revelation which He has always been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God was making also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Himself on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natural revelation, in which all men by virtue of their very nature as men share, this special, supernatural revelation was granted at first only to individuals, then progressively to a family, a tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fullness of time was come, it was made the possession of the whole world. It may be difficult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose thus to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, to be more explicit, through the process of a historical development. Such is, however, the ordinary mode of the Divine working: it is so that God made the worlds, it is so that He creates the human race itself, the recipient of this revelation, it is so that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the individual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowledge of God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, the Scriptures are explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying in their own growth, the record of the steady advance of this gracious revelation through definite stages from its first faint beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus Christ.

1. Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God:

So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom of God itself, or rather to that great series of divine operations which are directed to the building up of the kingdom of God in the world, that it is sometimes confounded with them or thought of as simply their reflection in the contemplating mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation, meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been communicated in deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elaborately argued that the sole manner in which God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by performing those mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not, however, the Biblical representation. Revelation is, of course, often made through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of His great redemptive acts by which He saves the world constitutes the pre-eminent revelation of the grace of God--so far as these redemptive acts are open to observation and are perceived in their significance. But revelation, after all, is the correlate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation. The series of the redemptive acts of God, accordingly, can properly be designated "revelation" only when and so far as they are contemplated as adapted and designed to produce knowledge of God and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series of unexplained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought to have as its main design the production of knowledge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the production of knowledge of the divine grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is attained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it. Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the redeeming acts of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of His redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end. Thus, the Scriptures represent it, not confounding revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of God and giving it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore not made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be understood. It occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompanies or follows them to interpret their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act of God and by no means the least important in the series of His redemptive acts.

This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very nature, and from the nature of the salvation which was being worked out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over the brute is found, among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God--for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has been brought into an evermore and more adequate knowledge of God, and been led ever more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of grace.

2. Stages of Material Development: This is not the place to trace, even in outline, from the material point of view, the development of God's redemptive revelation from its first beginnings, in the promise given to Abraham--or rather in what has been called the Protevangelium at the gate of Eden--to its completion in the advent and work of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily advancing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the pages of Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the consummation backward, the appearance of the shadow cast athwart preceding ages by the great figure of Christ. Even from the formal point of view, however, there has been pointed out a progressive advance in the method of revelation, consonant with its advance in content, or rather with the advancing stages of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve which is the whole object of revelation. Three distinct steps in revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. They are distinguished precisely by the increasing independence of revelation of the deeds constituting the series of the redemptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation is a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too absolutely; and in the present instance the chronological sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing, three generally successive stages of revelation may be recognized, producing periods at least characteristically of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the Patriarchal age is characteristically "the period of Outward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theophanies": during it "God spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc. ..... In the Prophetic age, on the contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward prophetic inspiration": God spoke to men characteristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. "Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God" (A.B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; compare pp. 12-14, 145 ff). This internal method of revelation reaches its culmination in the New Testament period, which is preeminently the age of the Spirit. What is especially characteristic of this age is revelation through the medium of the written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs, but through these organs in such a fashion that the most intimate processes of their souls become the instruments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus, at all events there are brought clearly before us three well-marked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respectively, not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not misleadingly, (1) external manifestation, (2) internal suggestion, and (3) concursive operation.

Continued in REVELATION, 3-4.

Revelation, 3-4

Revelation, 3-4 - Continued from REVELATION, 1-2.

III. The Modes of Revelation. 1. Modes of Revelation: Theophany may be taken as the typical form of "external manifestation"; but by its side may be ranged all of those mighty works by which God makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every supernatural intervention in the affairs of men, by means of which a better understanding is communicated of what God is or what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under "internal suggestion" may be subsumed all the characteristic phenomena of what is most properly spoken of as "prophecy": visions and dreams, which, according to a fundamental passage (Numbers 12:6), constitute the typical forms of prophecy, and with them the whole "prophetic word," which shares its essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes not by the will of man but from God. By "concursive operation" may be meant that form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity--not even the control of the will--is superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhuman. There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly characteristic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every age. And they occur side by side, broadly speaking, on the same level. No discrimination is drawn between them in point of worthiness as modes of revelation, and much less in point of purity in the revelations communicated through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to (Numbers 12:8) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses and even of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs of revelation: God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to others. But though Moses was thus distinguished above all others in the dealings of God with him, no distinction is drawn between the revelations given through him and those given through other organs of revelation in point either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revelation with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of divine communications. But there is no suggestion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others; and we should not fail to remember that the essential characteristics of revelations through dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which (whether we should call them visions or not) the images or ideas which fill, or pass in procession through, the consciousness are determined by some other power than the recipient's own will. It may seem natural to suppose that revelations rise in rank in proportion to the fullness of the engagement of the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Divine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God. This is what gives unity to the whole process of revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in divers manners and distributed though it may be through the ages in accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have suited His developing purpose--this and its unitary end, which is ever the building up of the kingdom of God. In whatever diversity of forms, by means of whatever variety of modes, in whatever distinguishable stages it is given, it is ever the revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently developing redemptive revelation of God.

2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes: On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a difference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevitably obtain between revelations given through such divergent modes. The completely supernatural character of revelations given in theophanies is obvious. He who will not allow that God speaks to man, to make known His gracious purposes toward him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the stories legendary. The objectivity of the mode of communication which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these communications we are given accordingly just a series of "naked messages of God." But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not, indeed, leave behind us theophanies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of revelation except only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face (Deuteronomy 34:10), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches (Numbers 12:8); but throughout the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in objective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the characteristic of the Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His servants "in a vision," "in a dream" (Numbers 12:6). And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfillment of His promise (Deuteronomy 18:18), put His words in the mouths of His prophets and gave them His commandments to speak, yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of men as instruments of revelation that the words of God given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but their minds and hearts as well--the play of their religious feelings, or the processes of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history--the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still farther into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and the supernatural in such revelations, and, in many current manners of thinking and speaking of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has been limited and curtailed in the interests of the natural instrumentalities employed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the more necessary that we should observe the unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the absolute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes alike. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has been given through the instrumentality of men. They affirm, indeed, with the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men is the pure word of God, diluted with no human admixture whatever.

3. The Prophet God's Mouthpiece: We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is exalted above all other organs of revelation (Numbers 12:6 ff), in point of dignity and favor, no suggestion whatever is made of any inferiority, in either the directness or the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (Deuteronomy 34:10). But each of the whole series of prophets raised up by Yahweh that the people might always know His will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what Yahweh commanded them (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 20). In this great promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there is also included a declaration of precisely how Yahweh would communicate His messages not so much to them as through them. "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee," we read (Deuteronomy 18:18), "and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by which Yahweh put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. "Then Yahweh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth," explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophecies, "and Yahweh said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (Jeremiah 1:9; compare Jeremiah 5:14; Isaiah 51:16; 59:21; Numbers 22:35; 5, 12, 16). Accordingly, the words "with which" they spoke were not their own but the Lord's: "And he said unto me," records Ezekiel, "Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them" (Ezekiel 3:4). It is a process of nothing other than "dictation" which is thus described (2 Samuel 14:3, 19), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Exodus 4:10-17; Exodus 7:1-7. Here, in the most express words, Yahweh declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is "a mouth of God," who speaks not his own but God's words. Accordingly, the Hebrew name for "prophet" (nabhi'), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the Scriptures just "spokesman," though not "spokesman" in general, but Spokesman by way of eminence, that is, God's spokesman; and the characteristic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is: "The word of Yahweh came to me," or the brief "saith Yahweh" (ne'um Yahweh). In no case does a prophet put his words forward as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophesies or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts his mouth (Ezekiel 3:26 f) and creates for him the fruit of the lips (Isaiah 57:19; compare Isaiah 6:7; 50:4). In contrast with the false prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own heart ("heart" in Biblical language includes the whole inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of Yahweh.

4. Visionary Form of Prophecy: The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with this general declaration. It describes the characteristic manner in which Yahweh communicates His messages to His prophets as through the medium of visions and dreams. Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revelation to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indications in the record that the universal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so called.

The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form. Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is delivered by the prophets is proclaimed as the "word of Yahweh." That it should be announced by the formula, "Thus saith the Lord," is, therefore, only what we expect; and we are prepared for such a description of its process as: "The Lord Yahweh .... wakeneth mine ear to hear," He "hath opened mine ear" (Isaiah 50:4-5). But this is not the way of speaking of their messages which is most usual in the prophets. Rather is the whole body of prophecy cursorily presented as a thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: "The vision of Isaiah .... which he saw" (compare Isaiah 29:10-11; Obadiah 1:1); and then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the remarkable words, "The word that Isaiah .... saw" (2:1); "the burden (margin "oracle") .... which Isaiah .... did see" (13:1). Similarly there stand at the head of other prophecies: "the words of Amos .... which he saw" (Amos 1:1); "the word of Yahweh that came to Micah .... which he saw" (Micah 1:1); "the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see" (Habakkuk 1:1 margin); and elsewhere such language occurs as this: "the word that Yahweh hath showed me" (Jeremiah 38:21); "the prophets have seen .... oracles" (Lamentations 2:14); "the word of Yahweh came .... and I looked, and, behold" (Ezekiel 1:3-4); "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ezekiel 13:3); "I .... will look forth to see what he will speak with me,.... Yahweh .... said, Write the vision" (Habakkuk 2:1 f). It is an inadequate explanation of such language to suppose it merely a relic of a time when vision was more predominantly the form of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the technical sense ever was more predominantly the form of revelation than in the days of the great writing prophets; and such language as we have quoted too obviously represents the living point of view of the prophets to admit of the supposition that it was merely conventional on their lips. The prophets, in a word, represent the divine communications which they received as given to them in some sense in visions.

It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the divine communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external appearances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly distinguished (Numbers 12:6-8). It is also an exaggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state must be conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amentia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their revelations that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these extreme views is the good one of doing full justice to the objectivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets. If these revelations took place entirely externally to the prophet, who merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they were implanted in the prophets by a process so violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets' own minds. It is undoubtedly the fundamental contention of the prophets that the revelations given through them are not their own but wholly God's. The significant language we have just quoted from Ezekiel 13:3: "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing," is a typical utterance of their sense of the complete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they "prophesy out of their own heart" (Ezekiel 13:2-17), or, to draw the antithesis sharply, that "they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Yahweh" (Jeremiah 23:16, 26; 14:14). But these extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally important fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious fact that the intelligence of the prophets is alert throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revelation made through them.

See INSPIRATION; PROPHECY.

That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the category of visions, strictly so called, and dreams is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject's will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subject's own psychoses. A power not himself takes possession of his consciousness and determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Yahweh Himself or, to be more specific, the Spirit of Yahweh (1 Samuel 10:6, 10; Nehemiah 9:30; Zechariah 7:12; Joel 2:28-29). The prophets were therefore `men of the Spirit' (Hosea 9:7). What constituted them prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them (Isaiah 42:1) or poured out on them (Joel 2:28-29), and they were consequently filled with the Spirit (Micah 3:8), or, in another but equivalent locution, that "the hand" of the Lord, or "the power of the hand" of the Lord, was upon them (2 Kings 3:15; Ezekiel 1:3; 14, 22; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1), that is to say, they were under the divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the "mover," but the "moved" in the formation of his message. The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic consciousness in his well-known declaration: `No prophecy of scripture comes of private interpretation; for prophecy was never brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God' (2 Peter 1:20-21).

5. "Passivity" of Prophets: What this language of Peter emphasizes--and what is emphasized in the whole account which the prophets give of their own consciousness--is, to speak plainly, the passivity of the prophets with respect to the revelation given through them. This is the significance of the phrase: `it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.' To be "borne" (pherein) is not the same as to be led (agein), much less to be guided or directed (hodegein): he that is "borne" contributes nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved. The term "passivity" is, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelligence of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by means of their active intelligence that their message was received: their intelligence was the instrument of revelation. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was active in the production of their message: that it was creatively as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself is a kind of activity. What the prophets are solicitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense coauthors with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but "His mouth." But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them--instruments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them.

There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely receptive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God as dealing mechanically with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them. Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all revelations must be "psychologically mediated," must be given "after the mode of moral mediation," and must be made first of all their recipients' "own spiritual possession"? And is not, in point of fact, the personality of each prophet clearly traceable in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us to recognize him as in a true sense its real author? The plausibility of such questionings should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the mode of the communication of the prophetic messages which is suggested by them is directly contradicted by the prophets' own representations of their relations to the revealing Spirit. In the prophets' own view they were just instruments through whom God gave revelations which came from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of Yahweh. Neither should the plausibility of such questionings blind us to their speciousness. They exploit subordinate considerations, which are not without their validity in their own place and under their own limiting conditions, as if they were the determining or even the sole considerations in the case, and in neglect of the really determining considerations. God is Himself the author of the instruments He employs for the communication of His messages to men and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired for the exact communication of His message. There is just ground for the expectation that He will use all the instruments He employs according to their natures; intelligent beings therefore as intelligent beings, moral agents as moral agents. But there is no just ground for asserting that God is incapable of employing the intelligent beings He has Himself created and formed to His will, to proclaim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions which they have themselves had no part in creating. And there is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs of His revelation without its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any revelation to men, He would do it in the language of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the language of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation; and that naturally means, not the language of his nation or circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all that gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will, as "the accommodation of the revealing God to the several prophetic individualities." But we should avoid thinking of it externally and therefore mechanically, as if the revealing Spirit artificially phrased the message which He gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion that the message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. Precisely what the prophets affirm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the workings of their own spirits. Nor is there any illusion in the phenomenon we are contemplating; and it is a much more intimate, and, we may add, a much more interesting phenomenon than an external "accommodation" of speech to individual habitudes. It includes, on the one hand, the "accommodation" of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in which the revelation to be given through him is to be clothed; and on the other involves little more than the consistent carrying into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instruments He employs in accordance with their natures.

No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the power of God, and dumb beasts speak, and mysterious voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in languages whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the services of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and according to the particular nature of the tongue which He employs. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, limited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be announced in any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities imprinted on the messages of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct communications from God.

6. Revelation by Inspiration: A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have called "concursive operation." This mode of revelation differs from prophecy, properly so called, precisely by the employment in it, as is not done in prophecy, of the total personality of the organ of revelation, as a factor. It has been common to speak of the mode of the Spirit's action in this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintendence, a direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect aimed at--the discovery and enunciation of divine truth--is attained through the action of the human powers--historical research, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious aspiration--acting not by themselves, however, but under the prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as involving merely a determining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a supercessive action of the revealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole body of Scripture in such passages as 2 Peter 1:20 f in the category of prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a mere "leading" but to the "bearing" of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, control, inadequately express the nature of the Spirit's action in revelation by "concursive operation." The Spirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, therefore, which is attained by their means is His product through them. It is this fact which gives to the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called passively, a revelation. Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result above what could by any possibility be achieved by mere human powers and constitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are traceable throughout its whole extent, but at bottom it is a divine gift, and the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be applied to it: "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth" (1 Corinthians 2:13); "The things which I write unto you .... are the commandment of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37).

See INSPIRATION.

7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ: It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible may without violence be subsumed under one or another of these three modes--external manifestation, internal suggestion, and concursive operation. All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ. As in His person, in which dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. He does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God's purpose of redemption, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. The theophanies are but faint shadows in comparison with His manifestation of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Yahweh; from Him as His Son, Yahweh has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glorified. Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in Him--so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word--had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its meaning made the possession of men, revelation was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the law.

IV. Biblical Terminology. 1. The Ordinary Forms: There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and processes of revelation, from the terms currently employed in Scripture to express the idea. These terms are ordinarily the common words for disclosing, making known, making manifest, applied with more or less heightened significance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the English Bible (the King James Version) the verb "reveal" occurs about 51 times, of which 22 are in the Old Testament and 29 in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the word is always the rendering of a Hebrew term galah, or its Aramaic equivalent gelah, the root meaning of which appears to be "nakedness." When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects to perception. In the New Testament the word "reveal" is always (with the single exception of Luke 2:35) the rendering of a Greek term apokalupto (but in 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 4:13 the corresponding noun apokalupsis), which has a very similar basal significance with its Hebrew parallel. As this Hebrew word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun "revelation" does not occur in the English Old Testament, the idea being expressed, however, by other Hebrew terms variously rendered. It occurs in the English New Testament, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and always as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the verb rendered "reveal" (apokalupsis). On the face of the English Bible, the terms "reveal," "revelation" bear therefore uniformly the general sense of "disclose," "disclosure." The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the terms "reveal" "revelation" in English Versions of the Bible. Indeed, the Hebrew and Greek terms exclusively so rendered occur more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the English Bible. And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way or another the general conception.

In the New Testament the verb phaneroo, with the general sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most common of these. It differs from apokalupto as the more general and external term from the more special and inward. Other terms also are occasionally used: epiphaneia, "manifestation" (2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 1:10; 4:1; Titus 2:13; compare epiphaino, Titus 2:11; 3:4); deiknuo (Revelation 1:1; 17:1; 1, 6, 8; compare Acts 9:16; 1 Timothy 4:15); exegomai (John 1:18), of which, however, only one perhaps--chrematizo (Matthew 2:12, 22; Luke 2:20; Acts 10:22; Hebrews 8:5; 11:7; 12:25); p chrematismos (Romans 11:4)--calls for particular notice as in a special way, according to its usage, expressing the idea of a divine communication.

In the Old Testament, the common Hebrew verb for "seeing" (ra'ah) is used in its appropriate stems, with God as the subject, for "appearing," "showing": "the Lord appeared unto .... "; "the word which the Lord showed me." And from this verb not only is an active substantive formed which supplied the more ancient designation of the official organ of revelation: ro'eh, "seer"; but also objective substantives, mar'ah, and mar'eh, which were used to designate the thing seen in a revelation--the "vision." By the side of these terms there were others in use, derived from a root which supplies to the Aramaic its common word for "seeing," but in Hebrew has a somewhat more pregnant meaning, chazah. Its active derivative, chozeh, was a designation of a prophet which remained in occasional use, alternating with the more customary nabhi', long after ro'eh, had become practically obsolete; and its passive derivatives chazon, chizzayon, chazuth, machazeh provided the ordinary terms for the substance of the revelation or "vision." The distinction between the two sets of terms, derived respectively from ra'ah and chazah, while not to be unduly pressed, seems to lie in the direction that the former suggests external manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The ro'eh is he to whom divine manifestations, the chozeh he to whom divine communications, have been vouchsafed; the mar'eh is an appearance, the chazon and its companions a vision. It may be of interest to observe that mar'ah is the term employed in Numbers 12:6, while it is chazon which commonly occurs in the headings of the written prophecies to indicate their revelatory character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the former passage it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the revelation that is emphasized. Perhaps a like distinction may be traced between the chazon of Daniel 8:15 and the mar'eh of the next verse. The ordinary verb for "knowing," yadha`, expressing in its causative stems the idea of making known, informing, is also very naturally employed, with God as its subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with the natural sense of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of implication, of revealing effectively, of not merely uncovering to observation, but making to know. Accordingly, it is paralleled riot merely with galah (Psalms 98:2: `The Lord hath made known his salvation; his righteousness hath he displayed in the sight of the nation'), but also with such terms as lamadh (Psalms 25:4: `Make known to me thy ways, O Lord: teach me thy paths'). This verb yadha` forms no substantive in the sense of "revelation" (compare da`ath, Numbers 24:16; Psalms 19:3).

2. "Word of Yahweh" and "Torah": The most common vehicles of the idea of "revelation" in the Old Testament are, however, two expressions which are yet to be mentioned. These are the phrase, "word of Yahweh," and the term commonly but inadequately rendered in the English Versions of the Bible by "law." The former (debhar Yahweh, varied to debhar 'Elohim or debhar ha-'Elohim; compare ne'um Yahweh, massa' Yahweh) occurs scores of times and is at once the simplest and the most colorless designation of a divine communication. By the latter (torah), the proper meaning of which is "instruction," a strong implication of authoritativeness is conveyed; and, in this sense, it becomes what may be called the technical designation of a specifically divine communication. The two are not infrequently brought together, as in Isaiah 1:10: "Hear the word of Yahweh, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law (margin "teaching") of our God, ye people of Gomorrah"; or Isaiah 2:3 margin; Micah 4:2: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law (margin "instruction"), and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem." Both terms are used for any divine communication of whatever extent; and both came to be employed to express the entire body of divine revelation, conceived as a unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the emphasis of the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other more on the authoritativeness of this body of divine revelation; and both passed into the New Testament with these implications. "The word of God," or simply "the word," comes thus to mean in the New Testament just the gospel, "the word of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all that which God has to say to man, and causes to be said" looking to his salvation. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically speak of as God's redemptive revelation. "The law," on the other hand, means in this New Testament use, just the whole body of the authoritative instruction which God has given men. It expresses, in other words, what we commonly speak of as God's supernatural revelation. The two things, of course, are the same: God's authoritative revelation is His gracious revelation; God's redemptive revelation is His supernatural revelation. The two terms merely look at the one aggregate of revelation from two aspects, and each emphasizes its own aspect of this one aggregated revelation.

Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the New Testament in a written form, and it was impossible to speak freely of it without consciousness of and at least occasional reference to its written form. Accordingly we hear of a Word of God that is written, (John 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:54), and the Divine Word is naturally contrasted with mere tradition, as if its written form were of its very idea (Mark 7:10); indeed, the written body of revelation--with an emphasis on its written form--is designated expressly `the prophetic word' (2 Peter 1:19).

3. "The Scriptures": More distinctly still, "the Law" comes to be thought of as a written, not exactly, code, but body of Divinely authoritative instructions. The phrase, "It is written in your law" (John 10:34; 15:25; Romans 3:19; 1 Corinthians 14:21), acquires the precise sense of, "It is set forth in your authoritative Scriptures, all the content of which is `law,' that is, divine instruction." Thus, "the Word of God," "the Law," came to mean just the written body of revelation, what we call, and what the New Testament writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, "the Scriptures." These "Scriptures" are thus identified with the revelation of God, conceived as a well-defined corpus, and two conceptions rise before us which have had a determining part to play in the history of Christianity--the conception of an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the conception of this Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition to the Gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and gave rise to a richly varied mode of speech concerning the Scriptures, emphasizing their authority in legal language, which goes back to and rests on the Biblical. usage of "Law." The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in its struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the other side the Enthusiasts' supercession of them in the interests of the "inner Word." When Tertullian, on the one hand, speaks of the Scriptures as an "Instrument," a legal document, his terminology has an express warrant in the Scriptures' own usage of torah, "law," to designate their entire content. And when John Gerhard argues that "between the Word of God and Sacred Scripture, taken in a material sense, there is no real difference," he is only declaring plainly what is definitely implied in the New Testament use of "the Word of God" with the written revelation in mind. What is important to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves represent the Scriptures as not merely containing here and there the record of revelations--"words of God," toroth--given by God, but as themselves, in all their extent, a revelation, an authoritative body of gracious instructions from God; or, since they alone, of all the revelations which God may have given, are extant--rather as the Revelation, the only "Word of God" accessible to men, in all their parts "law," that is, authoritative instruction from God.

LITERATURE.

Herman Witsius, "De Prophetis et Prophetia" in Miscell. Sacr., I, Leiden, 1736, 1-318; G. F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English translation, Edinburgh, 1874, I, part I (and the appropriate sections in other Biblical Theologies); H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek(2), I, Kampen, 1906, 290-406 (and the appropriate sections in other dogmatic treatises); H. Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, Gotha, 1874, 173 ff; A. Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology, English translation, New York, 1898, Division III, Chapter ii; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offenbarung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzsche, De revelationis notione biblica, Leipzig, 1828; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the O T, ET2, Edinburgh, 1868, IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Per Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903; W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, New York, 1905; James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, 1893, as per Index, "Revelation," and Revelation and Inspiration, London and New York, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, English translation, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead, Supernatural Revelation, 1889; J. Quirmbach, Die Lehre des h. Paulus von der naturlichen Gotteserkenntnis, etc., Freiburg, 1906.

Benjamin B. Warfield

Revellings

Revellings - rev'-el-ingz (komos): The word is found both in the King James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American) in Wisdom of Solomon 14:23 (the Revised Version (British and American) "revels," orgiastic heathen worship is in point); 2 Maccabees 6:4; Galatians 5:21; 1 Peter 4:3. In Galatians 5:21 it is classed with fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, etc., as one of the works of the flesh. In 1 Peter 4:3 it is spoken of the Gentiles and is classcd with drunkenness and carousings and such like. In Romans 13:13 the Revised Version has "revelling" instead of the King James Version "rioting," and in 2 Peter 2:13, "revel" replaces "riot." Similarly in Amos 6:7, "revelry" replaces "banquet." The obvious meaning of the word is excessive and boisterous intemperance and lustful indulgence.

G. H. Gerberding

Revenge; Revenger

Revenge; Revenger - re-venj', re-venj'-er: The same Hebrew and Greek words are used to express the idea of "to avenge" and "to revenge" (naqam, or derivative; ekdikeo, or derivative). In English these words are synonymous in that they are both used to express the infliction of punishment upon the wrongdoer, but "to take revenge" may also imply a spiteful, wrong or malignant spirit. In the latter case, the Revised Version (British and American) preserves "revenge" (compare Jeremiah 20:10; Ezekiel 25:15, 17 is an anthropomorphism), but, wherever it is synonymous with "avenge," this word is used (compare Numbers 31:2-3; Psalms 79:10; Nahum 1:2; Judith 13:20; Romans 13:4; 2 Corinthians 7:11; 10:6 the Revised Version (British and American); the King James Version has "revenge" in all these cases). In Deuteronomy 32:42, the King James Version "revenge" is a wrong translation. Read with the Revised Version (British and American) "from the head of the leaders of the enemy" or the Revised Version margin "the hairy head of the enemy."

Compare AVENGE,AVENGER ; BLOOD; GOEL.

A. L. Breslich

Revenue

Revenue - rev'-e-nu: (1) appethom, "revenue or income" (Ezra 4:13 the King James Version); (2) tebhu'ah, "increase," "revenue" (Proverbs 8:19; 15:6; Isaiah 23:3; Jeremiah 12:13); prosodos, "income" (2 Maccabees 3:3; 4:8 (the Revised Version (British and American) "fund"); 9:16).

Reverence

Reverence - rev'-er-ens: In the Old Testament, "reverence" occurs as the translation of two Hebrew words, yare' and shachah. The root idea of the former is "fear." It is used to express the attitude toward God Himself, as in Psalms 89:7 the King James Version; or toward His sanctuary, as in Leviticus 19:30; 26:2. So the group of ideas there would be "fear," "awe," "reverence." The root idea of the second is "falling down," as prostration of the body. It is used to express the bearing toward another who is considered superior, as in 2 Samuel 9:6 the King James Version; 1 Kings 1:31 the King James Version; Esther 3:2, 5. The group of ideas here, therefore, is "honor," "obeisance," "reverence."

In the New Testament "reverence" occurs as the translation of three Greek words, aidos, phobeomai, and entrepomai. In the first, the idea is "modesty" (Hebrews 12:28; compare 1 Timothy 2:9). In the second, "fear" (Ephesians 5:33 the King James Version), though here it is used to set forth the attitude of proper subjection on the part of a wife toward her husband (compare 1 Peter 3:2, 5). In the third, the idea is that of the "self-valuation of inferiority," and so sets forth an attitude toward another of doing him honor (Matthew 21:37; Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13; Hebrews 12:9).

In the Apocrypha entrepomai occurs in Wisdom of Solomon 2:10; Sirach 4:22. In addition, proskuneo, "make obeisance," occurs in Judith 10:23; 14:7; thaumazo, "wonder," Sirach 7:29, and aischunomai, "be ashamed," Baruch 4:15.

"Reverend" occurs in the Old Testament in Psalms 111:9, of the name of God (yare'), and in the Apocrypha in 2 Maccabees 15:12, "a man reverend (aidemon, "modest") in bearing," and in the New Testament the Revised Version (British and American) has "reverent in demeanor" (hieroprepes) in Titus 2:3 and "reverend" in Philippians 4:8 margin (semnos).

E. J. Forrester

Revile

Revile - re-vil'.

See CRIMES ; PUNISHMENTS.

Revive; Reviving

Revive; Reviving - re-viv', reviv'-ing: revive is the translation of chayah, "to live," "cause to live," used of restoration to life (Genesis 45:27; Judges 15:19, etc.); of rebuilding (Nehemiah 4:2); of restoration to well-being (Psalms 85:6 (the Revised Version (British and American) "quicken"); Psalms 138:7; Isaiah 57:15; Hosea 6:2; 14:7); of Yahweh's gracious work for His people (Habakkuk 3:2, "revive thy work in the midst of the years," etc.); "reviving" is the translation of michydh "preservation" or "means of life" (Ezra 9:8-9). "Revive" occurs in the New Testament as the translation of anazao, "to live again" (Romans 7:9, and Romans 14:9, the King James Version "Christ both died, and rose, and revived," the Revised Version (British and American) (omitting "and rose") "Christ died and lived again" zao).

In 1 Maccabees 13:7 the Revised Version (British and American) we have "And the spirit of the people revived," anazopureo, "to stir or kindle up as a fire," the same word as in 2 Timothy 1:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "stir up the gift of God, which is in thee," margin "Greek: `stir into flame.'"

In view of the frequent modern use of "revive" and "revival," it is worthy of notice that it is to Timothy himself the exhortation is addressed. We too often merely pray for "revivals," forgetting that it is for us to "stir into flame" the gift of the Spirit which we have already received of God. It is ours from Him, but we let it lie dormant, as a slumbering ember merely.

W. L. Walker