International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Torch — Tychicus

Torch

Torch - torch (lappidh; lampas; in the King James Version this word occurs only 4 times (Nahum 2:3-4 (Hebrews 4:1-16, 5); Zechariah 12:6; John 18:3). In the Revised Version (British and American) it is found 10 times (Genesis 15:17; Judges 7:16, 20; Job 41:19 (Hebrews 11:1-40); Ezekiel 1:13; Daniel 10:6; Nahum 2:4 (Hebrews 5:1-14); Zechariah 12:6; John 18:3; Revelation 8:10)): A flambeau; a large portable light.

See LAMP; LANTERN.

Tormah - tor'-ma (tormah, "fraud"; Codex Vaticanus en kruphe, "in secret," Codex Alexandrinus meta doron, "with gifts"): This name is given in EVm as an alternative to "privily" , or "craftily" the Revised Version (British and American) (Judges 9:31). There is no knowledge of such a place. The text is corrupt.

Torment, Place of

Torment, Place of - tor'-ment: A literal translation in Luke 16:28 of topos tes basanou.

See HELL.

Tormentor

Tormentor - tor-men'-ter: the King James Version 2 Maccabees 7:29 for demios "belonging to the people," and so "public executioner," the Revised Version (British and American) "butcher." A term of utter contempt, whose force is lost in the King James Version. Also Matthew 18:34 for basanistes, "torturer." Normally the bankrupt debtor was sold into slavery. But, apparently, in extreme cases (where concealment of assets was suspected?) the defaulter was sent to prison until restitution should be made. Probably the imprisonment itself was regarded as "torment" (as it doubtless was), and the "tormentors" need mean nothing more than jailers.

Burton Scott Easton

Tortoise

Tortoise - tor'-tus, tor'-tis, tor'-tois. (the King James Version) (tsabh, the Revised Version (British and American) "great lizard"; compare the Arabic word, dabb, the thorny-tailed lizard): The word tsabh occurs as the name of an animal only in Leviticus 11:29, being the third in the list of unclean "creeping things."

The same word is found in Isaiah 66:20, translated "litters," and in Numbers 7:3, where `eghloth tsabh is translated "covered wagons." Gesenius derives the word, in all senses, from the root cabhabh, "to move gently," "to flow"; compare Arabic dabba, "to flow." The Arabic noun dabb is Uromastix spinipes, the Arabian thorny-tailed lizard. This lizard is about 18 inches long, its relatively smooth body being terminated with a great tail armed with rings of spiny scales. The Arabs have a familiar proverb, 'a`kad min dhanab ud-dabb, "knottier than the tail of the dabb." The Septuagint has for tsabh in Leviticus 11:29 ho krokodeilos ho chersaios, the English equivalent of which, "land-crocodile," is used by the Revised Version (British and American) for the fifth in the list of unclean "creeping things," koach, the King James Version "chameleon."

The writer does not know what can have led the translators of the King James Version to use here the word "tortoise." Assuming that the thorny-tailed lizard is meant, the "great lizard" of the Revised Version (British and American) may be considered to be a fair translation.

See LIZARD.

Alfred Ely Day

Totemism

Totemism - to'-tem-iz'-m: How far the belief in totems and totemistic relationships existed in early Israel cannot be discussed at length here. Evidence of the belief in deified animal ancestors is supposed by some writers to be found in the tribal names Leah ("wild cow"?), Rachel ("ewe"), Simeon (synonymous with the Arabic sim`u, which denotes a cross between a wolf and a hyena), Hamor ("ass"), Caleb ("dog"), Zibiah ("gazelle"), etc. But these names in themselves "do not prove a totem stage in the development of Israel" (HPN, 114); philologically, the view has a shaky foundation (see, e.g. article "Leah" in 1-vol HDB).

Again, it is true that, as a rule, in totemic communities the individual may not kill or eat the name-giving object of his kin, these animals being regarded as sacred in totem worship and therefore "unclean" (taboo) as food. But the attempt to connect such personal names as Shaphan ("rock-badger"), Achbor ("mouse"), Huldah ("weasel")--all from the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22:3, 12, 14; compare Deborah ("bee"), Gaal ("beetle"?), Told ("crimson worm," "cochineal"), Nabash ("serpent"))--with the list of unclean animals in Leviticus 11:1-47 (see Leviticus 11:5 (margin),29) and Deuteronomy 14:1-29 is beset with difficulties (compare, however, Isaiah 66:17; Ezekiel 8:10 f), since all the names cannot possibly be explained on this ground.

Tou

Tou - to'-oo (to`u; Codex Vaticanus Thoa; Codex Alexandrinus Thoou): King of Hamath. As an enemy of Hadarezer, after David's victory over the latter, he sent David a message of congratulation (1 Chronicles 18:9 f). In 2 Samuel 8:9 f spelled "Toi."

Tow

Tow - to (ne`oreth (Judges 16:9; Isaiah 1:31)): The coarser part of flax, with short threads, used as an example of easily inflammable material. Also Isaiah 43:17 the King James Version for pishtah, the usual word for "flax" (so the English Revised Version), here as used for a wick (so the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin).

Tower

Tower - tou'-er.

See FORTIFICATION, I, 5; CITY,II , 1.

Tower of Babel

Tower of Babel - See ASTRONOMY; BABEL, TOWER OF; TONGUES, CONFUSION OF.

Tower of David

Tower of David - (Song of Solomon 4:4).

See JERUSALEM.

Tower of Edar (the Flock)

Tower of Edar (the Flock) - See EDER.

Tower of Hananeel

Tower of Hananeel - See HANANEL.

Tower of Ivory

Tower of Ivory - (mighdal hashen): Occurs only in Song of Solomon 7:4. Cheyne would, not unreasonably, emend the text and read the "tower of Shenir" as a parallel to the "tower of Lebanon" in the same verse. If the reading "tower of ivory" is correct, the reference must be to some piece of furniture in the adornment of which ivory was much used, and when we compare the word mighdal here with its use for a "pulpit" in Nehemiah 8:4, we can think only of a reminiscence of something of the nature of the throne of ivory made by Solomon (1 Kings 10:18).

W. M. Christie

Tower of Lebanon

Tower of Lebanon - (mighdal ha-lebhanon): (Song of Solomon 7:4)): The designation "which looketh toward Damascus" compels us to identify it with some portion of, or something in, the eastern range of "Lebanon, toward the sun-rising" (Joshua 13:5). It would then of necessity correspond to the chief summit of Hermon, on which there has been from ancient times also a tower-like temple, and from which the view is almost of boundless extent, Damascus with its gardens and groves being surprisingly near and appearing like a beautiful island in a wide extended sea.

See LEBANON.

W. M. Christie

Tower of Meah

Tower of Meah - me'-a.

See HAMMEAH.

Tower of Penuel

Tower of Penuel - See PENIEL.

Tower of Shechem

Tower of Shechem - (mighdal shekhem): Mentioned only in Judges 9:46-49. It seems along with the Beth-millo and the Beth-el-berith to have comprised the three strongest parts of the fortification when Abimelech besieged the town. It was, however, abandoned by its defenders, who took refuge in the Beth-millo, in which they were slain.

Tower of Siloam

Tower of Siloam - See SILOAM.

Tower of Syene

Tower of Syene - si-e'-ne.

See SEVENEH.

Tower of the Furnaces

Tower of the Furnaces - See FURNACES, TOWER OF THE.

Town

Town - toun: This word is used to represent a number of different Hob terms in the Old Testament. (1) When any explanatory word or attendant circumstances show that a "city" was unwalled, and sometimes in the contrary case (1 Samuel 23:7), the Hebrew `ir is translated "town" by the King James Version, and the Revised Version (British and American) generally agrees with it (Deuteronomy 3:5; 1 Samuel 27:5; Esther 9:19). (2) Both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) translate chawwoth by "towns" (Numbers 32:41; Joshua 13:30; 1 Kings 4:13; 1 Chronicles 2:23), while chatserim and perazoth both appear in the King James Version as "towns," but in the Revised Version (British and American) as "villages" (Genesis 25:16; Zechariah 2:4). See HAVVOTH-JAIR. (3) Bath, literally, "daughter," is sometimes found in the plural between the name of a city and chatserim, "villages," as in Joshua 15:45 margin, "Ekron, with its daughters and its villages." "Towns" is evidently the appropriate translation, and, even without chatserim, bath is rendered "town" (the Revised Version (British and American) Numbers 21:25, etc.). The same use of "daughter" occurs also in the Greek of 1 Maccabees 5:65 (thugater), the King James Version "town," the Revised Version (British and American) "village," margin "daughter." (4) the King James Version and the English Revised Version gloss qir, "wall" in Joshua 2:15 by rendering it "town wall"; the American Standard Revised Version omits. (5) The Greek term komopoleis (Mark 1:38), being a combination of the words for "village" and "city," is a clear attempt to describe something between the two, and is well translated "town." (6) the King James Version uses "town" (Matthew 10:11 etc.) and "village" (Matthew 9:35, etc.) quite indifferently for kome; the Revised Version (British and American) has "village" throughout. For similar changes of the King James Version "town" compare 2 Maccabees 8:6 (chora); 11:5; 12:21 (chorion, the Revised Version (British and American) "place").

See CITY; VILLAGE.

W. M. Christie

Town Clerk

Town Clerk - klurk, klark (grammateus): The word "clerk," "writer," "town clerk," "scribe," is found in this meaning only in Acts 19:35, "when the townclerk had quieted the multitude." Cremer defines the word as signifying a "public servant among the Greeks and the reader of the legal and state-papers" (Lexicon of the New Testament). There was considerable difference between the authority of these "clerks" in the cities of Asia Minor and of Greece. Among the Greeks the grammateis were usually slaves, or at least persons belonging to the lower classes of society, and their office was a nominal, almost a mechanical, one. In Asia, on the contrary, they were officers of considerable consequence, as the passage quoted indicates (Thucidydes vii.19, "the scribe of the city") and the grammateus is not infrequently mentioned in the inscriptions and on the coins of Ephesus (e.g. British Museum Inscriptions, III, 2, 482, 528). They had the supervision of the city archives, all official decrees were drawn up by them, and it was their prerogative to read such decrees to the assembled citizens. Their social position was thus one of eminence, and a Greek scribe would have been much amazed at the deference shown to his colleagues in Asia and at the power they wielded in the administration of affairs. See, further, Hermann, Staats Altertum, 127, 20; and EPHESUS.

Henry E. Dosker

Trachonitis

Trachonitis - trak-o-ni'-tis: Appears in Scripture only in the phrase tes Itouraias kai Trachbnitidos choras, literally, "of the Iturean and Trachonian region" (Luke 3:1). Trachonitis signifies the land associated with the trachon, "a rugged stony tract." There are two volcanic districts South and East of Damascus, to which the Greeks applied this name: that to the Northwest of the mountain of Bashan (Jebel ed-Druze) is now called el-Leja', "the refuge" or "asylum." It lies in the midst of an arable and pastoral country; and although it could never have supported a large population, it has probably always been inhabited. The other is away to the Northeast of the mountain, and is called in Arabic es-Safa. This covers much the larger area. It is a wild and inhospitable desert tract, remote from the dwellings of men. It was well known to the ancients; but there was nothing to attract even a sparse population to its dark and forbidding rocks, burning under the suns of the wilderness. It therefore plays no part in the history. These are the two Trachons of Strabo (xvi.2, 20). They are entirely volcanic in origin, consisting of lava belched forth by volcanoes that have been extinct for ages. In cooling, the lava has split up and crumbled into the most weird and fantastic forms. The average elevation of these districts above the surrounding country is about 30 ft. Es-Safa is quite waterless. There are springs around the border of el-Leja', but in the interior, water-supply depends entirely upon cisterns. Certain great hollows in the rocks also form natural reservoirs, in which the rain water is preserved through the summer months.

El-Leja' is roughly triangular in shape, with its apex to the North. The sides are about 25 miles in length, and the base about 20. The present writer has described this region as he saw it during two somewhat lengthened visits: From Zor`a our course lay Northeast by East .... What a wild solitude it is! Far on every hand stretched a veritable land of stone. The first hour or two of our march no living thing was seen. .... Wherever we looked, before or behind, lay wide fields of volcanic rock, black and repulsive, .... with here and there a deep circular depression, through which in the dim past red destruction belched forth, now carefully walled round the lip to prevent wandering sheep or goat from falling in by night. The general impression conveyed was as if the dark waters of a great sea, lashed to fury by a storm, had been suddenly petrified. .... At times we passed over vast sheets of lava which in cooling had cracked in nearly regular lines, and which, broken through in parts, appeared to rest on a stratum of different character, like pieces of cyclopaean pavement. Curious rounded rocks were occasionally seen by the wayside, like gigantic black soap bubbles blown up by the subterranean steam and gases of the active volcanic age; often, with the side broken out as if burst by escaping vapor, the mass, having cooled too far to collapse, remained an enduring monument of the force that formed it. Scanty vegetation peeped from the fissures in the rocks, or preserved a precarious existence in the scanty soil sometimes seen in a hollow between opposing slopes. In a dreary waterless land where the cloudless sun, beating down on fiery stones, creates a heat like that of an oven, it were indeed a wonder if anything less hardy than the ubiquitous thistle could long hold up its head. .... When the traveler has fairly penetrated the rough barriers that surround eI-Leja' he finds not a little pleasant land within--fertile soil which, if only freed a little from overlying stones, might support a moderate population. In ancient times it was partly cleared, and the work of the old-world agriculturists remains in gigantic banks of stones built along the edges of the patches they cultivated" (Arab and Druze at Home, 30 ff).

In some parts, especially those occupied by the Druzes, fair crops are grown. Where the Arabs are masters, poverty reigns. They also have an evil reputation. As one said to the present writer, "They will even slay the guest." 'Arab el-Leja' anjas ma yakun is a common saying, which may be freely rendered: "Than the Arabs of el-Leja' greater rascals do not exist." Until comparatively recent years there were great breadths of oak and terebinth. These have disappeared, largely owing to the enterprise of the charcoal burners. The region to the Northeast was described by a native as bass wa`r, "nothing but barren rocky tracts" (compare Hebrew ya`ar), over which in summer, he said, not even a bird would fly. There are many ruined sites. A list of 71 names collected by the present writer will be found in PEFS, 1895, 366 ff. In many cases the houses, strongly built of stone, are still practically complete, after centuries of desertion.

There may possibly be a reference to the Trachons in the Old Testament where Jeremiah speaks of the charerim, "parched places" (17:6). The cognate el-Charrah is the word used by the Arabs for such a burned, rocky area. For theory that el-Leja' corresponds to the Old Testament "Argob," see ARGOB.

The robbers who infested the place, making use of the numerous caves, were routed out by Herod the Great (Ant., XV, x, 1 ff; XVI, ix, 1; XVII, ii, 1 f). Trachonitis was included in the tetrarchy of Philip (viii, 1; ix, 4). At his death without heirs it was joined to the province of Syria (XVIII, iv, 6). Caligula gave it to Agrippa I. After his death in 44 AD, and during the minority of his son, it was administered by Roman officers. From 53 till 100 AD it was ruled by Agrippa II. In 106 AD it was incorporated in the new province of Arabia. Under the Romans the district enjoyed a period of great prosperity, to which the Greek inscriptions amply testify. To this time belong practically all the remains to be seen today. The theaters, temples, public buildings and great roads speak of a high civilization. That Christianity also made its way into these fastnesses is vouched for by the ruins of churches. Evil days came with the advent of the Moslems. Small Christian communities are still found at Khabab on the western Luchf, and at Sur in the interior. The southeastern district, with the chief town of Damet el-'Alia, is in the hands of the Druzes; the rest is dominated by the Arabs.

W. Ewing

Trade

Trade - trad:

I. GENERAL

1. Terms

2. Position of Palestine

3. Trade Products of Palestine

4. Palestinian Traders

II. HISTORY

1. To David

2. Solomon

3. Maritime Trade

4. To the Exile

5. The Exile and After

LITERATURE

I. General. 1. Terms: For a full list of the commercial terms used in the Old Testament, reference must be made to EB, IV, cols. 5193-99. Only the more important can be given here.

For "merchant" the Hebrew uses almost always one of the two participial forms cocher, or rokhel, both of which mean simply "one who travels." There is no difference in their meaning, but when the two are used together (Ezekiel 27:13 ff) the Revised Version (British and American) distinguishes by using "trafficker" for rokhel. The verb cachar, from which cocher is derived, is translated "to trade" in Genesis 34:10, 21 and "to traffic" in Genesis 49:33, with numerous noun formations from the same stem. The verb rakhal from which rokhel is derived does not occur, but the noun formation rekhullah in Ezekiel 26:12 (the Revised Version (British and American) "merchandise"); Ezekiel 28:5, 16, 18 (the Revised Version (British and American) "traffic") may be noted. In Ezekiel 27:24 the Revised Version (British and American) has "merchandise" for markoleth, but the word means "place of merchandise," "market." The participle tarim, from tur, "seek out," in combination with 'aneshe, "men," in 1 Kings 10:15, is translated "merchant men" by the King James Version, "chapmen" by the English Revised Version and "traders" by the American Standard Revised Version; in 2 Chronicles 9:14, the King James Version and the English Revised Version have "chapmen" and the American Standard Revised Version "traders." The text of these verses is suspected. In Ezekiel 27:1-36 (only) "merchandise" represents ma`arabh, from `arabh, "to exchange," translated "to deal," margin "exchange," in Ezekiel 27:9 the American Standard Revised Version, with "dealers," margin "exchangers," in Ezekiel 27:27 (the King James Version and the English Revised Version have "occupy," "occupiers"). kena`an, and kena`ani "Canaanite," are sometimes used in the sense of "merchant," but it is often difficult to determine whether the literal or the transferred force is intended. Hence, all the confusion in English Versions of the Bible; in the Revised Version (British and American) note "merchant," Job 41:6; "merchant," margin "Canaanite," Proverbs 31:24; "trafficker," Isaiah 23:8; "trafficker," margin "Canaanite," Hosea 12:7; "Canaan," margin "merchant people," Isaiah 23:11; Zephaniah 1:11, and compare "land of traffic," margin "land of Canaan," Ezekiel 17:4.

See CHAPMAN; OCCUPY.

In Apocrypha and New Testament "merchant" is for emporos (Sirach 26:29, etc.; Matthew 13:45; Revelation 18:3, 11, 15, 23). So "merchandise" is emporion, in John 2:16 and emporia, in Matthew 22:5, while emporeuomai, is translated "make merchandise of" in 2 Peter 2:3 and "trade" in James 4:13 (the King James Version "buy and sell"). But "to trade" in Matthew 25:16 is for ergazomai (compare Revelation 18:17), and Luke 19:13 for pragmateuomai, the King James Version "occupy"; while "merchandise" in Revelation 18:11-12 is for gomos, "cargo" (so the Revised Version margin; compare Acts 21:3). Worthy of note, moreover, is metabolia, "exchange" (Sirach 37:11).

2. Position of Palestine: Any road map of the ancient world shows that Palestine, despite its lack of harbors, occupied an extremely important position as regards the trade-routes. There was no exit to the West from the great caravan center Damascus, there was virtually no exit landward from the great maritime centers Tyre and Sidon, and there was no exit to the North and Northeast from Egypt without crossing Palestine. In particular, the only good road connecting Tyre (and Sidon) with Damascus lay directly across Northern Palestine, skirting the Sea of Galilee. In consequence, foreign merchants must at all tames have been familiar figures in Palestine (Genesis 37:25, 28; 1 Kings 10:15; Nehemiah 13:16; Isaiah 2:6; Zephaniah 1:11, etc.). As a corollary, tolls laid on these merchants would always have been a fruitful source of income (1 Kings 10:15; Ezekiel 26:2; Ezra 4:20), and naturally Palestine enjoyed particular advantages for the distribution of her own products through the presence of these traders.

3. Trade Products of Palestine: Of these products the three great staples were grain, oil and wine (Hosea 2:8; Deuteronomy 7:13, etc.). The wine of Palestine, however, gained little reputation in the ancient world, and its export is mentioned only in 2 Chronicles 2:10, 15; Ezra 3:7, while Ezekiel 27:18 says expressly that for good wine Tyre sent to Damascus. Grain would not be needed by Egypt, but it found a ready market in Phoenicia, both for consumption in the great cities of Tyre and Sidon and for export (1 Kings 5:11; Ezra 3:7; Ezekiel 27:17, etc.). A reverse dependence of Palestine on Tyre for food (Isaiah 23:18; compare Genesis 41:57) could have occurred only under exceptional circumstances. Oil was needed by Egypt as well as by Phoenicia (Hosea 12:1; Isaiah 57:9), but from Northern Israel was probably shipped into Egypt by way of Phoenicia. Hosea 2:5, 9 mentions wool and flax as products of Israel, but neither could have been important. Flax was a specialty of Egypt (Isaiah 19:9) and is hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, while for wool Israel had to depend largely on Moab (2 Kings 3:4; Isaiah 16:1). Minor products that were exported were "balm .... honey, spicery and myrrh, pistachio-nuts and almonds" (Genesis 43:11 margin; see the separate articles, and compare "pannag and .... balm" in Ezekiel 27:17). These were products of Gilead (Genesis 37:25). "Oaks of Bashan" had commercial value, but only for use for oars (Ezekiel 27:5), and so in small logs. Palestine had to import all heavy timbers (1 Kings 5:6, etc.). Despite Deuteronomy 8:9, Palestine is deficient in mineral wealth. The value of Pal's manufactured products would depend on the skill of the inhabitants, but for the arts the Hebrews seem to have had no particular aptitude (1 Kings 5:6; compare 1 Samuel 13:19 ff).

4. Palestinian Traders: In comparison with the great volume of international trade that was constantly passing across Palestine, the above products could have had no very great value and the great merchants would normally have been foreigners. A wide activity as "middlemen" and agents was, however, open to the inhabitants of Palestine, if they cared to use it. Such a profession would demand close contact with the surrounding nations and freedom from religious scruples. The Canaanites evidently excelled in commercial pursuits of this time, so much so that "Canaanite" and "merchant" were convertible terms.

II. History. 1. To David: The Israelites entered Canaan as a nomadic people who had even agriculture yet to learn, and with a religious self-consciousness that restrained them from too close relations with their neighbors. Hence, they were debarred from much participation in trade. The legislation of the Pentateuch (in sharp distinction from that of Code of Hammurabi) shows this non-commercial spirit very clearly, as there are no provisions that relate to merchants beyond such elementary matters as the prohibition of false weights, etc. (Deuteronomy 25:13; Leviticus 19:36; Covenant Code has not even these rules). In particular, the prohibition of interest (Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19, etc.) shows that no native commercial life was contemplated, for, without a credit-system, trade on any extensive scale was impossible. All this was to be left to foreigners (Deuteronomy 23:20; compare Deuteronomy 15:6; 12, 44). The Jewish ideal, indeed, was that each household should form a self-sufficient producing unit (Proverbs 31:10-27), with local or national exchange of those commodities (such as tools and salt) that could not be produced at home. And this ideal seems to have been maintained tolerably well. The most northerly tribes, through their proximity to the Phoenicians, were those first affected by the commercial spirit, and in particular the isolated half-tribe of Dan. In Judges 5:17 we find them "remaining in ships" at the time of Barak's victory. As their territory had no seacoast, this must mean that they were gaining funds by serving in the ships of Tyre and Sidon. Zebulun and Issachar, likewise, appear in Deuteronomy 33:19 as the merchants of Israel, apparently selling their wares chiefly at the time of the great religious assemblages. But the disorders at the time of the Judges were an effectual bar against much commerce. Saul at length succeeded in producing some kind of order, and we hear that he had brought in a prosperity that showed itself in richer garments and golden ornaments for the women (2 Samuel 1:24; see MONEY). David's own establishment of an official shekel (2 Samuel 14:26) is proof that trade was becoming a matter of importance.

2. Solomon: Under Solomon, however, Israel's real trade began. The writer of Ki lays special stress on his imports. From Tyre came timber (1 Kings 5:6, etc.) and gold (1 Kings 9:11). From Sheba came gold and spices (1 Kings 10:10, "gave" here, like "presents" elsewhere, is a euphemism). From Ophir and elsewhere came gold, silver, precious stones, almug trees, ivory, apes and peacocks (1 Kings 10:11, 22, 25). According to Massoretic Text 1 Kings 10:28 f, horses and chariots were brought from Egypt and re-sold to the North.

But the text here is suspected. Egypt had no reputation as a horse-mart in comparison with Northern Syria and Western Armenia (see TOGARMAH). So many scholars prefer to read "Musri" (in Northwestern Arabia) for "Egypt" (mtsr for mtsrym--see the comms., especially EB, III, cols. 3162-63). Yet the change does not clear up all the difficulties, and Egypt was certainly famous for her chariots. And compare Deuteronomy 17:16.

In exchange Solomon exported to Tyre wheat and oil (1 Kings 5:11; 2 Chronicles 2:10, 15 adds "barley .... and wine"). What he sent to the other countries is not specified, and, in particular, there is no mention of what he exchanged for gold. 1 Kings 5:11; 9:11, however, indicate that Hiram was the intermediary for most of this gold traffic, so that at the final settlement of accounts Solomon must have been heavily in Hiram's debt. 1 Kings 9:11 proves this. Solomon had undertaken a larger task than the resources of Palestine could meet, and in payment was obliged to cede Northern Galilee to Hiram. (The writer of 1 Kings explains that `the cities were worthless,' while Chronicles passes over the unedifying incident altogether, if 2 Chronicles 8:2 is not a reversal of the case.)

3. Maritime Trade: Among Solomon's other activities sea-commerce was not forgotten. David's victory over Edom gave access to the Red Sea at Eziongeber, and this port was utilized by Hiram and Solomon in partnership (1 Kings 9:26 ff), Hiram, apparently, supplying the ships and the sailors (1 Kings 10:11). After Solomon's death, Edom revolted and the way to the sea was closed (1 Kings 11:14). It was not recovered until the time of Jehoshaphat, and he could do nothing with it, "for the ships were broken at Eziongeber" (1 Kings 22:48), i.e. in the home harbor. Either they were badly built or incompetently manned. The Hebrews had no skill as sailors.

See SHIPS AND BOATS.

4. To the Exile: After the time of Solomon the commerce established by him of course continued, with fluctuations. Samaria became so important a city from the trade standpoint that Ben-hadad I forced Baasha to assign a street there to the merchants of Damascus, while Ahab succeeded in extracting the reverse privilege from Ben-hadad II (1 Kings 20:34). The long and prosperous contemporary reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah evidently had great importance for the growth of commerce, and it was the growing luxury of the land under these reigns that called forth the denunciations of Amos, Hosea and Isaiah. Amos complains of the importation of expensive foreign luxuries by the rich (compare Isaiah 3:18-23), who wasted the natural products of Palestine (Isaiah 6:3-6; 12, 15). Grain, the chief article of value, was extorted from the poor (Isaiah 5:11), and the grain-dealers were notoriously dishonest (Isaiah 8:4-6); Isaiah 8:1-22:Isaiah 6:11-13c in English Versions of the Bible suggests the sale of adulterated grain. The meaning of the Hebrew, however, is obscure, but of course adulteration must have existed, and it is doubtless not without significance that the labels on the recently discovered Samaritan jar-fragments emphasize the purity of the contents (Harvard Theological Review, 1911, 138-39). The extent of commercialism so overwhelms Hosea that he exclaims `Ephraim is become a Canaanite!' (12:7 margin). The most unscrupulous dealing is justified by the plea, "Surely I am become rich" (12:8). Isaiah is shocked at the intimate contracts made with foreigners, which prove so profitable to the makers, but which bring in idolatry (2:6-8). It was in the time of Isaiah that Assyrian influence began to make itself felt in Judah, and the setting up in the Temple of a pattern of an Assyrian altar (2 Kings 16:10 f) must have been accompanied with an influx of Assyrian commodities of all descriptions. (Similarly, the religious reaction under Hezekiah would have been accompanied by a boycott on Assyrian goods.) Data for the following pre-exilic period are scanty, but Ezekiel 26:2 shows that Jerusalem retained a position of some commercial importance up to the time of her fall. Of especial interest are Isaiah 23:1-18 and Ezekiel 26:1-21; Ezekiel 27:1-36 with their descriptions of the commerce of Tyre. Ezekiel indeed confines himself to description, but Isaiah characterizes the income of all this trade as "the hire of a harlot" (Ezekiel 23:17-18), a phrase that reappears in Revelation 18:3, 9--a chapter couched in the genuine old prophetic tone and based almost exclusively on Isaiah and Ezekiel. But it is important to note that Isaiah realizes (23:18) that all this enterprise is capable of consecration to Yahweh and is therefore not wrong in itself.

5. The Exile and After: The deportation into Babylon brought the Jews directly into the midst of a highly developed commercial civilization, and, although we are ignorant of the details, they must have entered into this life to a very considerable extent. Indeed, it is more than probable that it was here that the famed commercial genius of the Jews made its appearance. Certain it is that exiles acquired great wealth and rose to high position (Zechariah 6:10 f; Nehemiah 1:11; 5:17, etc.), and that when an opportunity to return to Palestine was opened, most of the exiles preferred to stay where they were (see EXILE). As a matter of fact, the Palestinian community was beggarly poor for years (Zechariah 8:10; Haggai 1:6; Nehemiah 1:3; Malachi 3:10-12, etc.) and could not even prevent the sale of its children into slavery (Joel 3:6). Such trade as existed was chiefly in the hands of foreigners (Joel 3:17; Zechariah 14:21), but the repeated crop-failures must have forced many Jews into commerce to keep from starving. The history of the 4th century is very obscure, but for the later commercial history of the Jews the foundation of Alexandria (332 BC) was a fact of fundamental importance. For Alexandria rapidly became the commercial center of the world and into it the Jews, attracted by the invitations of the Ptolemies, poured in streams. Alexandria's policy was closely copied by Antioch (on the period see Ant,XII , i, iii; compare ALEXANDRIA; ANTIOCH), and Ant,XII , iv, shows that the ability of the Jews was duly recognized by the Gentiles. But this development was outside Palestine. Sirach does not count commerce among the list of trades in 38:24-30 (note, however, the increased importance of artisans) and his references to commerce throughout are not especially characteristic (5:8; 8:13, etc.; but see 42:7). But even the trade of Palestine must have been increasing steadily. Under the Maccabees Joppa was captured, and the opening of its port for Greek commerce is numbered among Simon's "glories" (1 Maccabees 14:5). The unification of the trade-world under Rome, of course, gave Palestine a share in the benefits. Herod was able to work commercial miracles (Ant., XV, vi, 7; viii, 1; ix, 2; xi, 1; XVI, v, 3, etc.), and the Palestine of the New Testament is a commercial rather than an agricultural nation. Christ's parables touch almost every side of commercial life and present even the pearl merchant as a not unfamiliar figure (Matthew 13:45). Into the ethics of commerce, however, He entered little. Sharp dealings were everywhere (Mark 12:40; Luke 16:1-12, etc.), and the service of Mammon, which had pushed its way even into the temple (Mark 11:15-17 and parallel's), was utterly incompatible with the service of God (Matthew 6:19-34, etc.). In themselves, however the things of Caesar and the things of God (Mark 12:17 and parallel's) belong to different spheres, and with financial questions pure and simple He refused to interfere (Luke 12:13 f). For further details and for the (not very elaborate) teaching of the apostles see ETHICS.

LITERATURE.

The appropriate sections in the HA's and Biblical diets., especially G. A. Smith's indispensable article "Trade" in EB, IV, cols. 5145-99 (1903); for the later period, GJV4, II, 67-82 (1907), III, 97-102 (1909). Compare also Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte der Juderi des Alterthums2 (1894).

Burton Scott Easton

Trades

Trades - tradz.

See CRAFTS.

Tradition

Tradition - tra-dish'-un: The Greek word is paradosis, "a giving over," either by word of mouth or in writing; then that which is given over, i.e. tradition, the teaching that is handed down from one to another. The word does not occur in the Hebrew Old Testament (except in Jeremiah 39:1-18 (32):4; 41 (34):2, used in another sense), or in the Septuagint or the Apocrypha (except in 2 Esdras 7:26, used in a different sense), but is found 13 times in the New Testament (Matthew 15:2-3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 8-9, 13; 1 Corinthians 11:2; Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6).

1. Meaning in Jewish Theology: The term in the New Testament has apparently three meanings. It means, in Jewish theology, the oral teachings of the elders (distinguished ancestors from Moses on) which were reverenced by the late Jews equally with the written teachings of the Old Testament, and were regarded by them as equally authoritative on matters of belief and conduct. There seem to be three classes of these oral teachings: (a) some oral laws of Moses (as they supposed) given by the great lawgiver in addition to the written laws; (b) decisions of various judges which became precedents in judicial matters; (c) interpretations of great teachers (rabbis) which came to be prized with the same reverence as were the Old Testament Scriptures.

It was against the tradition of the elders in this first sense that Jesus spoke so pointedly to the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 15:2 f; Mark 7:3 f). The Pharisees charged Jesus with transgressing "the tradition of the elders." Jesus turned on them with the question, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" He then shows how their hollow traditionalism has fruited into mere ceremonialism and externalism (washing of hands, vessels, saying "Corban" to a suffering parent, i.e. "My property is devoted to God, and therefore I cannot use it to help you," etc.), but He taught that this view of uncleanness was essentially false, since the heart, the seat of the soul, is the source of thought, character and conduct (Mark 7:14 f).

2. As Used in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians: The word is used by Paul when referring to his personal Christian teachings to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). In this sense the word in the singular is better translated "instruction," signifying the body of teaching delivered by the apostle to the church at Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 3:6). But Paul in the other two passages uses it in the plural, meaning the separate instructions which he delivered to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica.

3. As Used in Colossians: The word is used by Paul in Colossians 2:8 in a sense apparently different from the two senses above. He warns his readers against the teachings of the false teachers in Colosse, which are "after the tradition of men." Olshausen, Lightfoot, Dargan, in their commentaries in the place cited., maintain that the reference is to the Judaistic character of the false teachers. This may be true, and yet we must see that the word "tradition" has a much broader meaning here than in 1 above. Besides, it is not certain that the false teachings at Colosse are essentially Jewish in character. The phrase "tradition of men" seems to emphasize merely the human, not necessarily Jewish, origin of these false teachings.

The verb paradidomi, "to give over," is also used 5 times to express the impartation of Christian instruction: Luke 1:2, where eyewitnesses are said to have handed down the things concerning Jesus; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23 and 1 Corinthians 15:3 referring to the apostle's personal teaching; 2 Peter 2:21, to instruction by some Christian teacher (compare 1 Peter 1:18).

LITERATURE.

Broadus, Allen, Meyer, commentaries on Matthew 15:2 f; Swete, Gould, commentaries on Mk (Matthew 7:3 f); Lightfoot, Meyer, commentaries on Galatians 1:14; Lightfoot, Olshausen, Dargan (American Commentary), commentaries on Colossians 2:8; Milligan, commentary on 1 and 2 Thess (2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6); Weber, Jewish Theology (Ger., Altsyn. Theol.); Pocock, Porta Mosis, 350-402; Schurer, HJP, II, i, section 25; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, chapter xxxi; Josephus, Ant, XIII, x, 6.

Charles B. Williams

Traffic, Trafficker

Traffic, Trafficker - traf'-ik, traf'-ik-er (kena`-an, micchar, cachar, rekhullah): (1) Kena`an = "Canaan," and, as the Canaanites were celebrated merchants, came to mean "merchant," and so "traffic" (see CANAAN). Ezekiel 17:4 refers to the great eagle who "cropped off the topmost of the young twigs (of cedar) thereof, and carried it unto a land of traffic; he set it in a city of merchants." (2) Micchar means "trade," and so "traffic"; comes from a root meaning "to travel round," e.g. as a peddler. 1 Kings 10:15 reads: "Besides that which the traders brought, and the traffic of the merchants." This refers to the income of Solomon. (3) Cachar means "to go about," "occupy with," "trade," "traffic," "merchant," and so the business of the moving merchant or peddler. Joseph said to his brothers: "So will I deliver you your brother, and ye shall traffic in the land" (Genesis 42:34). He evidently meant that they should have license to become, throughout Egypt, traveling traders. (4) Rekhullah, from a root meaning "to travel for trading," and so a peddled traffic, as in spices, etc. Ezekiel speaks against the prince of Tyre: "By thy great wisdom and by thy traffic hast thou increased thy riches" (28:5); and against the king of Tyre: "in the unrighteousness of thy traffic," etc. (Ezekiel 28:18).

See MARKET; MERCHANDISE; SHIPS AND BOATS,II , 2, (2); TRADE.

William Edward Raffety

Tragacanth

Tragacanth - trag'-a-kanth: For "spicery" in Genesis 37:25, the Revised Version margin gives "gum tragacanth or storax."

See SPICE; STORAX.

Train

Train - tran (verb chanakh, "educate" (Proverbs 22:6), with adjective chanikh (Genesis 14:14)): In 1 Kings 10:2 the Queen of Sheba's "train," the noun is chayil, the usual word for "force," "army." But in Isaiah 6:1 the "train" (shul, "loose hanging garment") is that of God's robe (the Revised Version margin "skirts").

Train; Trained

Train; Trained - tran, trand: The word is used in two places in both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), namely, Genesis 14:14, where it means "drilled," "prepared for war," and Proverbs 22:6. "Train up a child" means more than to teach, and includes everything that pertains to the proper development of the child, especially in its moral and spiritual nature. In this broader sense also the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "train" for the "teach" of the King James Version in Titus 2:4 (sophronizo).

Trance

Trance - trans (ekstasis): The condition expressed by this word is a mental state in which the person affected is partially or wholly unconscious of objective sensations, but intensely alive to subjective impressions which, however they may be originated, are felt as if they were revelations from without. They may take the form of visual or auditory sensations or else of impressions of taste, smell, heat or cold, and sometimes these conditions precede epileptic seizures constituting what is named the aura epileptica. The word occurs 5 times in the King James Version, twice in the story of Balaam (Numbers 24:4, 16), twice in the history of Peter (Acts 10:10; 11:5), and once in that of Paul (Acts 22:17). In the Balaam story the word is of the nature of a gloss rather than a translation, as the Hebrew naphal means simply "to fall down" and is translated accordingly in the Revised Version (British and American). Here Septuagint has en hupno, "in sleep" (see SLEEP, DEEP). In Peter's vision on the housetop at Joppa he saw the sail (othone) descending from heaven, and heard a voice. Paul's trance was also one of both sight and sound. The vision on the Damascus road (Acts 9:3-9) and that recorded in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 were also cases of trance, as were the prophetic ecstasies of Saul, Daniel and Elisha, and the condition of John in which he says that he was "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10).

The border line between trance and dream is indefinite: the former occurs while one is, in a sense, awake; the latter takes place in the passage from sleep to wakefulness. The dream as well as the vision were supposed of old to be channels of revelation (Job 33:15). In Shakespearean English, "trance" means a dream (Taming of the Shrew, I, i, 182), or simply a bewilderment (Lucrece, 1595).

In the phenomena of hypnotic suggestion, sometimes affecting a number of persons simultaneously we have conditions closely allied to trance, and doubtless some of the well-authenticated phantom appearances are similar subjective projections from the mind affecting the visual and auditory centers of the brain.

Alex. Macalister

Transfiguration

Transfiguration - trans-fig-o-ra'-shun (metamorphoomai, "to be transformed"): Used only with reference to the transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2) and the change wrought in the Christian personality through fellowship with Christ (Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18).

(1) About midway of His active ministry Jesus, accompanied by Peter, James and John, withdrew to a high mountain apart (probably Mt. Hermon; see next article) for prayer. While praying Jesus was "transfigured," "his face did shine as the sun," "and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them." It was night and it was cold. The disciples were drowsy and at first but dimly conscious of the wonder in progress before their eyes. From the brightness came the sound of voices. Jesus was talking with Moses and Elijah, the subject of the discourse, as the disciples probably learned later, being of the decease (exodus) which Jesus was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. As the disciples came to themselves, the figures of Moses and Elijah seemed to withdraw, whereupon Peter impetuously demanded tents to be set up for Jesus and His heavenly visitants that the stay might be prolonged and, if possible, made permanent. Just then a cloud swept over them, and out of the cloud a voice came, saying, "This is my beloved Son: hear ye him." In awe the disciples prostrated themselves and in silence waited. Suddenly, lifting up their eyes they saw no one, save Jesus only (Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36).

Such is the simple record. What is its significance? The Scripture narrative offers no explanation, and indeed the event is afterward referred to only in the most general way by Peter (2 Peter 1:16-18) and, perhaps, by John (John 1:14). That it marked a crisis in the career of Jesus there can be no doubt. From this time He walked consciously under the shadow of the cross. A strict silence on the subject was enjoined upon the three witnesses of His transfiguration until after "the Son of man should have risen again from the dead." This means that, as not before, Jesus was made to realize the sacrificial character of His mission; was made to know for a certainty that death, soon and cruel, was to be His portion; was made to know also that His mission as the fulfillment of Law (Moses) and prophecy (Elijah) was not to be frustrated by death. In His heart now would sound forever the Father's approval, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The scene, therefore, wrought out in Jesus a new fervor, a new boldness, a new confidence of ultimate victory which, as a source of holy joy, enabled Him to endure the cross and to despise the shame (Hebrews 12:2). In the disciples the scene must have wrought a new faith in the heavensent leadership of Jesus. In the dark days which were soon to come upon them the memory of the brightness of that unforgettable night would be a stay and strength. There might be opposition, but there could be no permanent defeat of one whose work was ratified by Moses, by Elijah, by God Himself. Indeed, was not the presence of Moses and Elijah a pledge of immortality for all? How in the face of such evidence, real to them, however it might be to others, could they ever again doubt the triumph of life and of Him who was the Lord of life? The abiding lesson of the Transfiguration is that of the reality of the unseen world, of its nearness to us, and of the comforting and inspiring fact that "spirit with spirit may meet."

The transfigured appearance of Jesus may have owed something to the moonlight on the snow and to the drowsiness of the disciples; but no one who has ever seen the face of a saint fresh from communion with God, as in the case of Moses (Exodus 34:29-35) and of Stephen (Acts 6:15), will have any difficulty in believing that the figure of Jesus was irradiated with a "light that never was on sea or land." See Comms. and Lives of Christ; also a suggestive treatment in Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.

(2) The transfiguration of Christians is accomplished by the renewing of the mind whereby, in utter abandonment to the will of God, the disciple displays the mind of Christ (Romans 12:2); and by that intimate fellowship with God, through which, as with unveiled face he beholds the glory of the Lord, he is "transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18).

Charles M. Stuart

Transfiguration, Mount of

Transfiguration, Mount of - trans-fig-u-ra'-shun (referred to as the "holy mount" in 2 Peter 1:18): Records of the Transfiguration are found in Matthew 17:1 ff; Mark 9:2 ff; Luke 9:28 ff. From these narratives we gather that Jesus went with His disciples from Bethsaida to the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, where Peter's memorable confession was made. Some six or eight days later Jesus went up into a high mountain to pray, taking with Him Peter, James and John. There He was transfigured before them. Descending the next day, He healed a demoniac boy, and then passed through Galilee to Capernaum.

1. Not Olivet or Tabor: It is quite evident that the tradition placing the scene on the Mount of Olives must be dismissed. Another tradition, dating from the 4th century, identifies the mountain with Tabor. In the article on TABOR, MOUNT, reasons are stated for rejecting this tradition. It was indeed possible in the time indicated to travel from Caesarea Philippi to Tabor; but there is nothing to show why this journey should have been undertaken; and, the mountain top being occupied by a town or village, a suitable spot could not easily have been found.

2. Mt. Hermon: In recent years the opinion has become general that the scene must be placed somewhere on Mt. Hermon. It is near to Caesarea Philippi. It is the mountain paragraph excellence in that district (Luke 9:28). It was easily possible in the time to make the journey to Chasbeiyah and up the lofty steeps. The sacred associations of the mountain might lend it special attractions (Stanley, S and the Priestly Code (P), 399). This is supported by the transient comparison of the celestial splendor with the snow, where alone it could be seen in Palestine (ibid., 400).

It seems to have been forgotten that Mt. Hermon lay beyond the boundaries of Palestine, and that the district round its base was occupied by Gentiles (HJP, II, i, 133 f). The sacred associations of the mountain were entirely heathen, and could have lent it no fitness for the purpose of Jesus; hos chion, "as snow," in Mark 9:3, does not belong to the original text, and therefore lends no support to the identification. It was evidently in pursuance of His ordinary custom that Jesus "went up into the mountain to pray" (Luke 9:28). This is the only indication of His purpose. It is not suggested that His object was to be transfigured. "As he was praying," the glory came. There is no hint that He had crossed the border of Palestine; and it is not easy to see why in the circumstances He should have made this journey and toilsome ascent in heathen territory. Next morning as usual He went down again, and was met by a crowd that was plainly Jewish. The presence of "the scribes" is sufficient proof of this (Mark 9:14). Where was such a crowd to come from in this Gentile district? Matthew in effect says that the healing of the demoniac took place in Galilee (Matthew 17:22). The case against Mt. Hermon seems not less conclusive than that against Tabor.

3. Jebel Jermuk: The present writer has ventured to suggest an identification which at least avoids the difficulties that beset the above (Expository Times, XVIII, 333 f). Among the mountains of Upper Galilee Jebel Jermuk is especially conspicuous, its shapely form rising full 4,000 ft. above the sea. It is the highest mountain in Palestine proper, and is quite fitly described as hupselon ("high"). It stands to the West over against the Safed uplands, separated from them by a spacious valley, in the bottom of which runs the tremendous gorge, Wady Leimun. It is by far the most striking feature in all the Galilean landscape. The summit commands a magnificent view, barred only to the Southwest by other mountains of the range. It rises from the midst of a district which then supported a large population of Jews, with such important Jewish centers as Kefr Bir`im, Gishcala, Meiron, etc., around its base. Remote and lonely as it is, the summit was just such a place as Jesus might have chosen for prayer. It was comparatively easy to reach, and might be comfortably climbed in the evening. Then on His descent next day the crowd might easily assemble from the country and the villages near by. How long our Lord stayed near Caesarea Philippi after the conversation recorded in Matthew 16:21 ff we do not know. From Banias to Gishcala, e.g. one could walk on foot without fatigue in a couple of days. If a little time were spent in the Jewish villages passed on the way, the six days, or Luke's "about eight days," are easily accounted for. From this place to Capernaum He would "pass through Galilee" (Mark 9:30).

W. Ewing

Transform

Transform - trans-form' (Romans 12:2; the Revised Version (British and American) 2 Corinthians 3:18 for metamorphoomai, and the King James Version 2 Corinthians 11:13, 14, 15 for metaschematizo, the Revised Version (British and American) "fashion"): The commentaries often explain the former word as connoting a change of nature, while the latter refers only to the appearance, but this distinction is probably fanciful.

Transgression

Transgression - trans-gresh'-un: From "transgress," to pass over or beyond; to overpass, as any rule prescribed as the limit of duty; to break or violate, as a law, civil or moral; the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or known principle of rectitude; breach of command; offense; crime; sin. In the Old Testament pesha`, occurs 80 times, rendered in all versions by "transgression." Its meaning is "rebellion"; see REBELLION . The word "rebellion" differs from this word in that it may be in the heart, though no opportunity should be granted for its manifestation: "An evil man seeketh only rebellion" (Proverbs 17:11). Here the wise man contemplates an evil heart, looking for an excuse or opportunity to rebel.

The New Testament uses parabasis, "trespass": "The law .... was added because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:19); "Where there is no law, neither is there transgression" (Romans 4:15); "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant" (Hebrews 9:15).

David Roberts Dungan

Translation

Translation - trans-la'-shun: The verb "translate" is found once in the Old Testament (2 Samuel 3:10 the King James Version, in the sense of "to transfer") and 3 times in the New Testament (Colossians 1:13, methistemi, where it means "to transfer"; twice in Hebrews 11:5, where it has the quasi-technical sense of removing one from the earthly to the heavenly state without the intervening experience of death).

The noun "translation" occurs only in Hebrews 11:5, metathesis, where it refers to the transition, the general nature of which has just been described in connection with the verb. With their customary reserve in regard to such matters, the Scriptures simply record the fact of Enoch's translation without commenting either upon the attendant circumstances, or upon the nature of the change involved in his experience. Doubtless what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 applied in the case of Enoch and also in that of Elijah (2 Kings 2:11).

W. M. McPheeters

Trap

Trap - (moqesh; thera, literally, "hunting," used metaphorically in Psalms and Romans as "trap"): Any of the methods for taking birds; see SNARE; NET; GIN, etc. It is probable that a trap was more particularly a hole in the ground covered with twigs, concealed by leaves and baited with food. Such devices were common in taking the largest animals and may have been used with birds also. Trap is mentioned frequently in connection with snare and in such manner as to indicate that they were different devices: "Know for a certainty that Yahweh your God will no more drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap unto you" (Joshua 23:13). Another such reference will be found in Psalms 69:22:

"Let their table before them become a snare;

And when they are in peace, let it become a trap."

This is quoted in Romans 11:9:

"Let their table be made a snare, and a trap,

And a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them."

An instance where a trap alone is referred to can be found in Jeremiah 5:26: "They set a trap, they catch men." Isaiah 42:22 uses this expression, "snared in holes." This might mean that a snare was placed in a hole, or that the hole was the snare to lure bird or animal to its death. The former proposition is sustained by Job, who says, "A noose is hid for him in the ground, and a trap for him in the way" (Isaiah 18:7). This translation appears as if it were reversed and should read, "A trap is hid for him in the ground and a noose in the way."

Gene Stratton-Porter

Travail

Travail - trav'-al (yaladh (Genesis 35:16, etc.), chul, chil (properly "writhe," Job 15:20, etc.); odin (classical odis) (Matthew 24:8, etc.), odino (Sirach 19:11, etc.; Galatians 4:19, etc.)): "Travail" and its derivatives are used in the primary sense of the labor of childbirth, descriptive of the actual cases of Rachel (Genesis 35:16), Tamar (Genesis 38:27), Ichabod's mother (1 Samuel 4:19), and the apocalyptic woman clothed with the sun (Revelation 12:2). In the majority of passages, however, "travail" is used figuratively, to express extreme and painful sorrow (9 times in Jeremiah), "as of a woman in travail." It is also employed in the sense of irksome and vexatious business (6 times in Ecclesiastes, where it is the rendering of the word `inyan). In the same book "travail" is used to express the toil of one's daily occupation (Ecclesiastes 4:4, 6), where it is the translation of `amal. In three places (Exodus 18:8; Numbers 20:14; Lamentations 3:5) where the King James Version has "travel" the Revised Version (British and American) has changed it to "travail," as in these passages the word tela'ah refers to the sense of weariness and toil, rather than to the idea of journeying (in the King James Version the spellings "travel" and "travail" were used indiscriminately; compare Sirach 19:11; 31:5). The sorrows which are the fruits of wickedness are compared to the pain of travail in Job 15:20 (chul) and Psalms 7:14 (chabhal), the word used here meaning the torture or twisting pains of labor; see also the fanciful employment of "travail" in Sirach 19:11.

In the New Testament the travail of childbirth is used as the figure of the painful and anxious struggle against the evils of the world in the soul's efforts to attain the higher ideals of the Christian life (John 16:21 (tikto); Romans 8:22; Galatians 4:27); twice, however, it is the rendering of mochthos, the ordinary word for "toil," "hardship" or "distress" (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8).

See BIRTH; LABOR.

Alex. Macalister

Traveller

Traveller - trav'-el-er: Judges 5:6 for halakh nethibhah, "goers on paths"; 2 Samuel 12:4 for helekh, literally, "a going"; Job 31:32 for 'arach, participle of a verb meaning "to wander"; Sirach 26:12; 42:3 for hodoiporos, "one making a way."

See WAYFARING MAN.

Tread

Tread - tred.

See WINE PRESS .

Treason

Treason - tre'-z'-n: The translation of qesher, in English Versions of the Bible 1 Kings 16:20; 2 Kings 11:14 parallel 2 Chronicles 23:13. Qesher (from qashar, "to bind") means "a conspiracy" (2 Samuel 15:12; 2 Kings 12:20, etc.), and the translation "treason" is due to the King James Versions' love of variety.

Treasure; Treasurer; Treasury

Treasure; Treasurer; Treasury - trezh'-ur, trezh'-ur-er, trezh'-ur-i (otsar, genaz, genez, ganzakh, chocen matmon, mickenah, mikhman, `athudh, saphan; gaza, thesauros):

I. In the Old Testament. 1. Treasure

The English word "treasure" has in the Old Testament at least five somewhat distinct meanings as expressed in the words: "treasure," genaz (Aramaic) or genez (Hebrew), usually meaning "the thing stored"; translated "treasures" in Ezra 6:1, but in Ezra 5:17 and Ezra 7:20 translated "treasure-house": "search made in the king's treasure-house." In Esther 3:9; 4:7 the Hebrew form is translated "treasury," as is ganzakh in 1 Chronicles 28:11.

2. Storehouse: "Storehouse," not the thing stored but the place of storage; 'otsar means depository, cellar, garner, armory, store or treasure-house. In several places it ought to be translated by some of these words. It is the most frequent word for treasure. the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version both translate in some instances by other words, e.g. 1 Kings 7:51, "treasuries of the house of Yahweh," so also 2 Chronicles 5:1; "treasury" in Nehemiah 7:70-71, "gave to the treasury a thousand darics of gold"; in Job 38:22, "treasuries of the snow" (compare Proverbs 8:21; Jeremiah 10:13; 51:16; Ezra 2:69).

3. Hidden Riches: "Treasure" or something concealed. There are 3 Hebrew words with this meaning and all in the King James Version translated "treasure." (1) Matmon, which literally means "a secret storehouse" and so a secreted valuable, usually money buried, and so hidden riches of any kind, hid treasures: "treasure in your sacks" (Genesis 43:23); "dig for it more than for hid treasures" (Job 3:21); "search for her as for hid treasures" (Proverbs 2:4); "We have stores hidden in the field, of wheat," etc. (Jeremiah 41:8). (2) Mikhman, treasure as hidden, used only in Daniel 11:43: "have power over the treasures of gold and silver." (3) Saphan, meaning hidden treasure or valuables concealed: "hidden treasures of the sand" (Deuteronomy 33:19).

4. Strength: Perhaps the strength of riches and so treasure, the Hebrew word being chocen, from a root meaning to hoard or lay up: "In the house of the righteous is much treasure" (Proverbs 15:6); "They take treasure and precious things" (Ezekiel 22:25).

5. Something Prepared: "Something prepared," made ready, the Hebrew word being `athudh, meaning "prepared," "ready," therefore something of value and so treasure: "have robbed their treasures," fortifications or other things "made ready" (Isaiah 10:13).

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word most often translated "treasure" is 'otsar. It occurs in the sing. as follows: Deuteronomy 28:12; 1 Chronicles 29:8; Nehemiah 10:38; Psalms 17:14; 135:4; Proverbs 15:16; 21:20; Ecclesiastes 2:8; Isaiah 33:6; Daniel 1:2; Hosea 13:15; in the pl.: Deuteronomy 32:34; 1 Kings 14:26; 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 13, 15; 24:13, etc.

The same word is in the King James Version translated "treasuries" in 1 Chronicles 9:26; 28:12; 2 Chronicles 32:27; Nehemiah 13:12-13; Psalms 135:7; and "treasury" in Joshua 6:19, 24; Jeremiah 38:11.

II. In the New Testament. 1. Gaza: There are two words translated "treasure": Gaza is of Persian origin, meaning "treasure." Found only once in Acts 8:27 concerning the Ethiopian "who was over all her (Queen Candace's) treasure." In the compound gazophulakion, "guarding of gaza," the same word appears and the compound is translated "treasury" in Mark 12:41, 43 parallel Luke 21:1; John 8:20.

See TEMPLE;TREASURY (OF TEMPLE ).

2. Thesauros: The word thesauros means literally, a "deposit," so wealth and treasure. Evidently throughout the New Testament it has a twofold usage as describing (1) material treasure, either money or other valuable material possession, and (2) spiritual treasure, e.g. "like unto treasure hid in a field" (Matthew 13:44); "good treasure of the heart" (Matthew 12:35). Other references to material treasure are Matthew 6:21; 13:52; Luke 12:21, 34, etc. References to spiritual treasure are Matthew 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:45; 12:33; 18:22; plural Matthew 6:20; Colossians 2:3.

In Matthew 27:6 the word for "treasury" is korbanas; compare the Revised Version margin.

See CORBAN.

Treasurer

Treasurer - ('atsar, gedhabhar, gizbar, cakhan; oikonomos): (1) 'Atsar, meaning primarily "to store up," and hence, one who lays up in store, i.e. a "treasurer": "I made treasurers over the treasuries" (Nehemiah 13:13). (2) Gedhabhar (Aramaic), used only in Daniel 3:2-3: "treasurers," named with judges and counselors as recognized officials. (3) Gizbar, used in Ezra 7:21 (Aramaic) and equivalent in Ezra 1:8 (Hebrew): "treasurers beyond the river" and "Mithredath the treasurer." (4) Cakhan, primarily meaning "one who ministers to," and hence, a keeper of treasure, treasurer: "Get thee unto this treasurer" (Isaiah 22:15). Perhaps the idea of steward is here intended. (5) Oikonomos, by the King James Version translated "chamberlain," more properly in the American Standard Revised Version translated "treasurer": "Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you" (Romans 16:23).

William Edward Raffety

Treasury, (of Temple)

Treasury, (of Temple) - trezh'-ur-i ('otsar, usually; ganzakh, 1 Chronicles 28:11; gazophulakion, korbanas):

1. Origin of the Treasury: The need of a "treasury" in connection with the house of Yahweh would early be felt for the reception of the offerings of the people, of tithes, and of the spoils of war dedicated to Yahweh. Already in Joshua 6:19, 24, therefore, we read of a "treasury of the house of Yahweh," into which "the silver and gold, and vessels of brass and iron," taken at Jericho, were brought. In the reign of David, and in his plans for the future temple, great prominence is given to the "treasuries." In 1 Chronicles 26:20 ff are given the names of those who were over "the treasures of the house of God," and over "the treasures of the dedicated things" ("the spoil won in battles," 26:27), the latter being applied "to repair the house of Yahweh."

2. The Solomonic Temple: In David's plans for Solomon the "treasuries" (ganzakkim) are mentioned with the "porch," "the houses," the "upper rooms," the "inner chambers" of the Temple (1 Chronicles 28:11); and the same distinction is made of "the treasuries ('otsroth) of the house of God," and "the treasuries of the dedicated things" (1 Chronicles 28:12). In the accounts of the actual building of the Temple, "treasuries" are not mentioned, but subsequent notices give ample evidence of their existence. In the narratives of the repeated plunderings of the Temple (see TEMPLE), constant allusion is made to the carrying away of "the treasures of the house of Yahweh" and "the treasures of the king's house" or palace (1 Kings 14:26; 15, 18; 2 Kings 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 24:13). In the episode of Jehoash's repair of the Temple (2 Kings 12:1-21; 2 Chronicles 24:1-27), we have a refreshing glimpse of the presence and uses of the treasury; but this brighter gleam is soon swallowed up again in darkness. Of the larger store-chambers we get a glance in Jeremiah, where we are told that "the house of the king" was "under the treasury" (38:11), i.e. on a lower level under the south wall.

3. The Second Temple: The Book of Neh introduces us to treasury-chambers in the second temple--now used for the voluntary offerings (tithes) of the people--grain, and wine, and oil (Nehemiah 13:4 ff; compare Malachi 3:10). A certain Meshullam had repaired the city wall "over against his chamber" (Nehemiah 3:30), and he, with other Levites, kept "the watch at the storehouses of the gates" (Nehemiah 12:25). These gates were probably gates of exit on the southern side, as in the Herodian temple.

4. Herod's Temple in the New Testament: In Herod's temple the name "treasury" was specially given to the "court of the women" (see TEMPLE,HEROD'S ), where were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes for the reception of the offerings of the worshippers. It was here that Jesus saw the poor widow cast in her two mites (Mark 12:41; Luke 21:1-4), and the court is expressly named the "treasury" in John 8:20: "These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple." It is a legitimate deduction that this court was the ordinary scene of the Lord's ministry when teaching in the temple.

Treaty

Treaty - tre'-ti (berith, karath berith, "make a covenant," "league," "treaty"): Although the Israelites were forbidden to make treaties, or enter into covenant, with the Canaanites because of the risk thereby involved of religious apostasy and moral contamination (Exodus 23:32; 34:12; Deuteronomy 7:2; Judges 2:2), they were so situated in the midst of the nations that treaty relations of some sort with their neighbors were from time to time inevitable. After the rise of the monarchy, treaties were common. David and Solomon had friendly relations with Hiram, king of Tyre (1 Kings 5:15 ff); Asa, to rid himself of the hostile approaches of Baasha, king of Israel, entered into a league with Ben-hadad of Syria, which the prophet Hanani denounced (2 Chronicles 16:1 ff); Ahab entered into a similar compact with Ben-hadad's son and successor, and set him at liberty when he was his prisoner of war (1 Kings 20:34); and at a later time Jehoshaphat joined Ahab in an expedition against Ben-hadad II to Ramoth-gilead in which Ahab lost his life (1 Kings 22:1-53). Sometimes with Syria and neighboring states against the terrible Assyrian power, and sometimes with Egypt against Assyria or Babylon, the kings of Israel and Judah entered into treaty to resist their advances and to preserve their own independence (2 Kings 17:4; Hosea 7:11; Isaiah 30:1). Against such alliances the prophets raised their testimony (Isaiah 31:1; Jeremiah 27:3 ff).

Tree

Tree - tre.

See BOTANY.

Tree of Life

Tree of Life - (`ets chayyim; xulon tes zoes): The expression "tree of life" occurs in four groups or connections: (1) in the story of the Garden of Eden, (2) in the Proverbs of the Wise Men, (3) in the apocryphal writings, and (4) in the Apocalypse of John.

1. The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden: The tree was in the midst of the Garden, and its fruit of such a nature as to produce physical immortality (Genesis 2:9; 3:22). After guiltily partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the sinful tendency having thus been implanted in their natures, the man and woman are driven forth from the Garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and live forever (Genesis 3:22). The idea seems to be that, if they should eat of it and become immortalized in their sinful condition, it would be an unspeakable calamity to them and their posterity. For sinful beings to live forever upon earth would be inconceivably disastrous, for the redemption and development of the race would be an impossibility in that condition. Earth would soon have been a hell with sin propagating itself forever. To prevent such a possibility they were driven forth, cherubim were placed at the entrance of the Garden, the flame of a sword revolving every way kept the way of the tree of life, and this prevented the possibility of man possessing a physical immortality. It is implied that they had not yet partaken of this tree and the opportunity is now forever gone. Immortality must be reached in some other way.

The interpretation of the story is a standing problem. Is it mythical, allegorical, or historical? Opinions vary from one of these extremes to the other with all degrees of difference between. In general, interpreters may be divided into three classes:

(1) Many regard the story as a myth, an ancient representation of what men then conceived early man to have been, but with no historical basis behind it. All rationalistic and modern critical scholars are practically agreed on this. Budde in his Urgeschichte says there was but one tree, that is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the intimation of a tree of life is an interpolation. Barton has endeavored to show that the tree of life was really the date-palm, and the myth gathered around this tree because of its bisexual nature. He holds that man came to his self-realization through the sexual relation, and therefore the date-palm came to be regarded as the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But this difference came in later when the knowledge of its origin became obscured. He calls attention to the fact that the sacred palm is found in the sanctuary of Ea at Eridu. All such interpretations are too obviously based upon a materialistic evolution hypothesis.

(2) There are those who regard the entire story as literal: one tree would actually impart physical immortality, the other the knowledge of evil. But this involves endless difficulties also, requires tremendous differences between the laws of Nature then and now, vast differences in fruits, men and animals, and an equally vast difference in God's dealings with man.

(3) We prefer to regard it as a pictorial-spiritual story, the representing of great spiritual facts and religious history in the form of a picture. This is the usual Bible method. It was constantly employed by the prophets, and Jesus continually "pictured" great spiritual facts by means of material objects. Such were most of His parables. John's Apocalypse is also a series of pictures representing spiritual and moral history. So the tree of life is a picture of the glorious possibilities which lay before primitive man, and which might have been realized by him had not his sin and sinful condition prevented it. God's intervention was a great mercy to the human race. Immortality in sin is rendered impossible, and this has made possible an immortality through redemption; man at first is pictured as neither mortal nor immortal, but both are possible, as represented by the two trees. He sinned and became mortal, and then immortality was denied him. It has since been made possible in a much higher and more glorious way.

2. A Common Poetic Simile: This picture was not lost to Israel. The "tree of life," became a common poetic simile to represent that which may be a source of great blessing. In the Book of Prov the conception deepens from a physical source of a mere physical immortality to a moral and spiritual source of a full life, mental moral and spiritual, which will potentially last forever. Life, long life, is here attributed to a certain possession or quality of mind and heart. Wisdom is a source and supply of life to man. This wisdom is essentially of a moral quality, and this moral force brings the whole man into right relations with the source of life. Hence, a man truly lives by reason of this relationship (Proverbs 3:18). The allusion in this verse is doubtless to Genesis 2:9; 3:22. An expression very similar is Proverbs 10:11, where the mouth of the righteous is declared to be a fountain of life. Good words are a power for good, and hence, produce good living. Proverbs 11:30 has a like thought: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life," i.e. the good life is a source of good in its influence on others. Proverbs 13:12 says: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick; but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life." The meaning seems to be that the gratification of good and lawful desires produces those pleasures and activities which make up life and its blessings. Proverbs 15:4 says: "A gentle tongue is a tree of life," i.e. its beneficent influences help others to a better life.

3. The Apocryphal Writings: The apocryphal writings contain a few references to the tree of life, but use the phrase in a different sense from that in which it is used in the canonical books: "They shall have the tree of life for an ointment of sweet savour" (2 Esdras 2:12). Ecclesiastes 1:18 has only an indirect reference to it. Ethiopic Enoch, in his picture of the Messianic age, uses his imagination very freely in describing it: "It has a fragrance beyond all fragrances; its leaves and bloom and wood wither not forever; its fruit is beautiful and resembles the date-palm" (24:4). Slavonic Enoch speaks thus: "In the midst there is the tree of life .... and this tree cannot be described for its excellence and sweet odor" (Ecclesiastes 8:3). 2esdras describing the future says: "Unto you is paradise opened, the tree of life is planted" (Ecclesiastes 8:17).

4. The Book of Revelation: The Apocalypse of John refers to the tree of life in three places (Revelation 2:7; 2, 14). These are pictures of the glorious possibilities of life which await the redeemed soul. In Ezekiel's picture of the ideal state and the Messianic age, there flows from the sanctuary of God a life-giving river having trees upon its banks on either side, yielding fruit every month. The leaf of this tree would not wither, nor its fruit fail, because that which gave moisture to its roots flowed from the sanctuary. This fruit was for food and the leaves for medicine (Ezekiel 47:12). Very similar to this and probably an expansion of it is John's picture in Revelation: "To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God" (2:7). This means that all the possibilities of a complete and glorious life are open to the one that overcomes, and by overcoming is prepared to become immortal in a vastly higher sense than was possible to primitive man. In his picture of the few Jerusalem, the river of water of life has the tree of life on either side (22:2). Its leaf never fades and its monthly fruitage never fails. Food and medicine these are to be to the world, supplied freely to all that all may enjoy the highest possibilities of activity and blessedness which can come to those who are in right relationships with God and Jesus Christ. In 22:14 John pronounces a blessing on those who wash their robes, who lead the clean and pure Christ life, for they thereby have the right and privilege of entering into the gates of the City and partaking of the tree of life. This means not only immortal existence, but such relations with Jesus Christ and the church that each has unrestricted access to all that is good in the universe of God. The limit is his own limited capacity.

James Josiah Reeve

Trees, Goodly

Trees, Goodly - See GOODLY TREES.

Trees, Shady

Trees, Shady - sha'-di.

See LOTUS TREES.

Trees, Thick

Trees, Thick - See THICK TREES.

Trench

Trench - trench, trensh.

See SIEGE, (5), (8).

Trespass

Trespass - tres'-pas: To pass over, to go beyond one's right in place or act; to injure another; to do that which annoys or inconveniences another; any violation of law, civil or moral; it may relate to a person, a community, or the state, or to offenses against God. The Hebrew 'asham ("sin"), is used very frequently in the Old Testament when the trespass is a violation of law of which God is the author. The Greek word is paraptoma.

In the Old Testament an offering was demanded when the offense was against God: a female lamb; in other cases, according to the magnitude of the wrong, a ram or a goat; the offering was to be preceded by a confession by the one committing the trespass. If the trespass was against a human being, the wrong-doer must make it right with the person, and when reconciliation should have been effected, then the offering for sin was to be made. See under SACRIFICE, "Trespass Offering." If a person's property has been injured, then the trespasser shall add a fifth to the value of the property injured and give that to the injured party (Leviticus 6:5). Zaccheus, wanting to make full restitution, went beyond the demands of the Law (Luke 19:1-9).

The New Testament teaching on the subject is, first to be reconciled to the brother and then offer, or worship (Matthew 5:23-24). In all cases, also, the offended party must forgive if the offender shall say, "I repent" (Matthew 6:14; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13). We have been alienated by our trespasses from God (Ephesians 2:1). It was the Father's good will to reconcile all to Himself through Christ (Colossians 1:20-22). We must be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). This being done, our trespasses shall be forgiven and we shall be justified.

David Roberts Dungan

Trespass Offering

Trespass Offering - See SACRIFICE.

Trial

Trial - tri'-al.

See COURTS, JUDICIAL; SANHEDRIN.

Trial of Jesus

Trial of Jesus - See JESUS CHRIST,THE ARREST AND TRIAL OF .

Tribe

Tribe - trib (in the Old Testament always for matteh, 183 times, or shebhet, 145 times, also spelled shebhet; Aramaic shebhat (Ezra 6:17)): Both words mean "staff," and perhaps "company led by chief with staff" (OHL, 641) is the origin of the meaning "tribe." In the Apocrypha and New Testament always for phule, from phuo, "beget," with dodekaphulon, "twelve tribes," in Acts 26:7. Of the two Hebrew words, shebhet appears to be considerably the older, and is used in Psalms 74:2; Jeremiah 10:16; 51:19 of the whole people of Israel, and in Numbers 4:18; Judges 20:12 (Revised Version margin); 1 Samuel 9:21 (Revised Version margin) of subdivisions of a tribe (but the text of most of these six verses is suspicious). Further, in Isaiah 19:13, shebhet is used of the "tribes" (nomes?) of Egypt and phule in Matthew 24:30 of "all the tribes of the earth," but otherwise shebhet, matteh and phule refer exclusively to the tribes of Israel. In 2 Samuel 7:7 for shibhete, "tribes," read shophete, "judges" (of the Revised Version margin).

Burton Scott Easton

Tribulation

Tribulation - trib-u-la'-shun (tsar, tsar, "staid," "narrow," "pent up"; compare Numbers 22:26):

1. In the Old Testament: Closely pressed, as of seals (Job 41:15 (7)); of streams pent up (Isaiah 59:9 margin); of strength limited (Proverbs 24:10, "small"). Hence, figuratively, of straitened circumstances; variously rendered "affliction," "tribulation," "distress" (Deuteronomy 4:30; Job 15:24; 30:12; Psalms 4:2; 18:7; 32:7; 44:11, etc.; Psalms 78:42; 102:3; 106:44; 119:143; Isaiah 26:16; 30:20; Hosea 5:15; Ezekiel 30:16). Frequently, the feminine form (tsarah) is similarly rendered "tribulation" (Judges 10:14 the King James Version; 1 Samuel 10:19 the King James Version; 1 Samuel 26:24); in other places "distress," "affliction" (Genesis 42:21; Psalms 120:1; Proverbs 11:8; 2 Chronicles 20:9; Isaiah 63:9; Jeremiah 15:11; Jonah 2:2; Nahum 1:9; Zechariah 10:11).

2. In the New Testament: The Greek is thlipsis, a "pressing together" (as of grapes), squeezing or pinching (from verb thlibo); used figuratively for "distress," "tribulation"; Septuagint for tsar and tsarah; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) tribulatio pressura (from tribulum, "a threshing sledge"). The verb form is rendered "suffer tribulation" (1 Thessalonians 3:4 the King James Version, "suffer affliction" the Revised Version (British and American)); "trouble" (2 Thessalonians 1:6 the King James Version, "afflict" the Revised Version (British and American); compare 2 Corinthians 1:6; 4:8; 7:5; 1 Timothy 5:10; Hebrews 11:37). The noun form is rendered in the King James Version variously as "tribulation," "affliction," "persecution," though more uniformly "tribulation" in the Revised Version (British and American). The word is used generally of the hardships which Christ's followers would suffer (Matthew 13:21; 9, 21, 29; Mark 4:17; 19, 24; John 16:33; 1 Corinthians 7:28); or which they are now passing through (Romans 5:3; 12:12; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Philippians 4:14); or through which they have already come (Acts 11:19; 2 Corinthians 2:4; Revelation 7:14).

Edward Bagby Pollard

Tribute

Tribute - trib'-ut (mac, "tribute," really meaning "forced laborers," "labor gang" (1 Kings 4:6; 15, 21); also "forced service," "serfdom"; possibly "forced payment" is meant in Esther 10:1; the idea contained in the modern word is better given by middah (Ezra 6:8; Nehemiah 5:4)): Words used only of the duty levied for Yahweh on acquired spoils are mekhec, "assessment" (Numbers 31:28, 37-38, 39-40, 41), belo, "excise" (Ezra 4:13, 10; Nehemiah 7:24), massa', "burden" (2 Chronicles 17:11), and `onesh, "fine" or "indemnity" (2 Kings 23:33; compare Proverbs 19:19). The translation "tribute" for miccath, in Deuteronomy 16:10 is wrong (compare the Revised Version margin). kensos (Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14) = "census," while phoros (Luke 20:22; 23:2; Romans 13:6-7), signifies an annual tax on persons, houses, lands, both being direct taxes. The phoroi were paid by agriculturists, payment being made partly in kind, partly in money, and are contrasted with the tele of the publicans, while kensos is strictly a poll tax. The amount of tribute required as a poll tax by the Romans was the didrachmon (Matthew 17:24), the King James Version "tribute," the Revised Version (British and American) "half-shekel." The stater (Matthew 17:27), was a tetradrachm, "one shekel," or pay for two. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews were required to pay this poll tax toward the support of the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus. Different kinds of personal taxes were raised by the Romans: (1) an income tax, (2) the poll tax. The latter must be paid by women and slaves as well as by free men, only children and aged people being exempted. The payment exacted began with the 14th year in the case of men and the 12th in the case of women, the obligation remaining in force up to the 65th year in the case of both. For purposes of assessment, each person was permitted to put his own statement on record. After public notice had been given by the government, every citizen was expected to respond without personal visitation by an official (see Luke 2:1 ff). On the basis of the records thus voluntarily made, the tax collectors would enforce the payment of the tribute.

Tribute Money

Tribute Money - (to nomisma tou kensou (Matthew 22:19), "the coin used in payment of the imperial taxes"): Lit. "the lawful money of the tax," which, in the case of the poll tax, had to be paid in current coin of the realm (see Matthew 17:27).

Triclinium

Triclinium - tri-klin'-ti-um (Latin from Greek triklinion, from tri and kline, "a couch"): A couch for reclining at meals among the ancient Romans, arranged along three sides of a square, the fourth side being left open for bringing in food or tables, when these were used. In the larger Roman houses the dining-rooms consisted of small alcoves in the atrium arranged to receive triclinia. In early Old Testament times people sat at their meals (Genesis 27:19; Judges 19:6; 1 Samuel 20:5; 1 Kings 13:20). Reclining was a luxurious habit imported from foreign countries by the degenerate aristocracy in the days of the later prophets (Amos 2:8; 6:4). Still, we find it common in New Testament times (Matthew 9:10; 26:7; Mark 6:22, 39; 3, 18; Luke 5:29; Luke 7:36-37; 14:10; 17:7; John 12:2; in these passages, though English Versions of the Bible read "sat," the Greek words are anakeimai, sunanakeimai, anapipto, katakeimai and anaklino, all indicating "reclining"; compare John 13:23; 21:20; here the King James Version translates these words "lean," probably with reference to the Jewish custom of leaning at the Passover feast). In John 2:8-9 the ruler or governor of the feast is called architriklinos, that is, the master of the triclinium.

See MEALS,III .

Nathan Isaacs

Trim

Trim - The only non-modern use is in Jeremiah 2:33, "How trimmest thou thy way to seek love!" used for yatabh, "to make good," here "to study out," and the whole phrase means "to walk in an artificial manner," "like a courtesan."

Trine Immersion; Triune Immersion

Trine Immersion; Triune Immersion - trin tri'-un i-mur'-shun:

I. LINGUISTIC BASIS

1. Immersion

2. Triple Action

II. DOCTRINAL ARGUMENT

III. HISTORICAL PRACTICE

1. The Jews

2. John the Baptist

3. The Didache

4. Justin Martyr

5. Tertullian

6. Eunomius

7. Greek Church

LITERATURE

I. Linguistic Basis. 1. Immersion: The meaning of the word baptizo, is "to dip repeatedly," "to sub-merge" (Thayer, Greek Lexicon of the New Testament). It is probably the frequentative of bapto, "to dip," meaning "to dip repeatedly." The word baptizo (and baptisma) in the New Testament is "used absolutely, `to administer the rite of ablution,' `to baptize' " (same place) . It is "an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin," etc. (same place) ; "Baptizo, to dip in or under water" (Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon).

2. Triple Action: The threefold immersion is based upon the Trinity into which the believer is to be baptized "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (eis to onoma tou patros kal tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos, Matthew 28:19). (On the genuineness of this passage see Plummer, Commentary on Matthew.)

II. Doctrinal Argument. Whether Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 28:19 as a baptismal formula or not does not affect the question. The passages in Acts, "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Matthew 2:23; 10:42), and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Matthew 8:16; 19:5), are not baptismal formulas, but mean the confession of Christ with all that Christ stands for, namely, the fullness of God and His salvation. The idea of the Trinity pervades the New Testament and many of the earliest writings (compare 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:14-17; Ephesians 4:4-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; Hebrews 6:4-6; 1 John 3:23-24; 4:2; Jude 1:20-21; Revelation 1:4-5). "Baptized into Christ" has the same religious content as Matthew 28:19. Triune immersion is the symbol of baptism into the Triune God. All believers in the Trinity should see the consistency of this symbol. Baptism is the symbol (1) of a complete cleansing, (2) of death, (3) of burial, (4) of resurrection, and (5) of entering into full union and fellowship with the Triune God as revealed by Christ. Triune immersion is the only symbol that symbolizes all that baptism stands for. Note the words of Sanday on Romans 6:1-14 (comm. on Rom, ICC, 153): "Baptism has a double function: (1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may fitly be described as personal union with Him. (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death). Emergence = Resurrection. All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ." Hence, the psychological need of a true symbol, triune immersion, to teach and impress the significance of the new life.

III. Historical Practice. 1. The Jews: The Jews received proselytes by circumcision, baptism (complete immersion) and sacrifice (Schurer, HJP, II, 2, pp. 319 f; Edersheim, LTJM, II, 745, and I, 273). John the Baptist, baptized "in the river Jordan" (Matthew 3:6) and "in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23).

2. John the Baptist: Philip and the eunuch "both went down into the water" and they "came up out of the water." All New Testament baptisms were by immersion (see also Romans 6:1-11).

3. The Didache: The Didache (100-150 AD) chapter vii: "Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if they have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm" (baptisate eis to onoma tou patos kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos en hudati zonti). "But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice (tris) upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Here the triple action is maintained throughout, even in clinical baptism, while immersion is the rule.

Justin Martyr (Apology i.61) describes baptism which can only be understood as triune immersion.

4. Justin Martyr: Tertullian (De Corona, iii) says, "Hereupon we are thrice immersed" (dehinc ter mergitamur). Again (Ad Praxeam, xxvi), "And lastly he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into a unipersonal God.

5. Tertullian: And indeed it is not only once but three times that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names" (nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulos, tinguimur).

6. Eunomius: Eunomius (circa 360) introduced single immersion "into the death of Christ." This innovation was condemned. Apostolical Constitutions, 50, says, "If any presbyter or bishop does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed." Single immersion was allowed by Gregory the Great (circa 691) to the church in Spain in opposition to the Arians who used a trine (not triune) immersion (Epis., i.43). This was exceptional.

7. Greek Church: The Greek church has always baptized by triune immersion. The historical practice of the Christian church may well be summed up in the words of Dean Stanley: "There can be no question that the original form of baptism--the very meaning of the word--was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that for at least four centuries, any other form was either unknown, or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost monstrous case. .... A few drops of water are now the western substitute for the threefold plunge into the rushing river or the wide baptisteries of the East" (History of Eastern Church, 28). "For the first three centuries the most universal practice of baptism was .... that those who were baptized, were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water" (Christian Institutions, p. 21).

See further, BAPTISM; LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC,II , 5.

LITERATURE.

James Quinter, Triune Immersion as the Apostolic Form of Christian Baptism; C. F. Yoder, God's Means of Grace, Brethren Pub. House, Elgin, Ill., U.S.A.; Smith, Dict. of Christian Antiquities; Hastings, ERE; Bible Dicts.; Church Fathers; Church Histories, and Histories of Baptism.

Daniel Webster Kurtz

Trinity, 1

Trinity, 1 - trin'-i-ti

1. The Term "Trinity"

2. Purely a Revealed Doctrine

3. No Rational Proof of It

4. Finds Support in Reason

5. Not Clearly Revealed in the Old Testament

6. Prepared for in the Old Testament

7. Presupposed Rather Than Inculcated in the New Testament

8. Revealed in Manifestation of Son and Spirit

9. Implied in the Whole New Testament

10. Conditions the Whole Teaching of Jesus

11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses

12. Spirit in Johannine Discourses

13. The Baptismal Formula

14. Genuineness of Baptismal Formula

15. Paul's Trinitarianism

16. Conjunction of the Three in Paul

17. Trinitarianism of Other New Testament Writers

18. Variations in Nomenclature

19. Implications of "Son" and "Spirit"

20. The Question of Subordination

21. Witness of the Christian Consciousness

22. Formulation of the Doctrine

LITERATURE

1. The Term "Trinity": The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

2. Purely a Revealed Doctrine: In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the divine being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris. Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all. Sometimes, as in the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they represent the cyclic movement of a pantheistic evolution, and symbolize the three stages of Being, Becoming and Dissolution. Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than an odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three widespread standing as a sacred number (so H. Usener). It is no more than was to be anticipated, that one or another of these triads should now and again be pointed to as the replica (or even the original) of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e.g. Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo's neo-Stoical doctrine of the "powers," especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham's three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.

3. No Rational Proof of It: As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the God head. Among these there are two which are particularly attractive, and have therefore been put forward again and again by speculative thinkers through all the Christian ages. These are derived from the implications, in the one case, of self-consciousness; in the other, of love. Both self-consciousness and love, it is said, demand for their very existence an object over against which the self stands as subject. If we conceive of God as self-conscious and loving, therefore, we cannot help conceiving of Him as embracing in His unity some form of plurality. From this general position both arguments have been elaborated, however, by various thinkers in very varied forms.

The former of them, for example, is developed by a great 17th-century theologian--Bartholomew Keckermann (1614)--as follows: God is self-conscious thought; and God's thought must have a perfect object, existing eternally before it; this object to be perfect must be itself God; and as God is one, this object which is God must be the God that is one. It is essentially the same argument which is popularized in a famous paragraph (section 73) of Lessing's The Education of the Human Race. Must not God have an absolutely perfect representation of Himself--that is, a representation in which everything that is in Him is found? And would everything that is in God be found in this representation if His necessary reality were not found in it? If everything, everything without exception, that is in God is to be found in this representation, it cannot, therefore, remain a mere empty image, but must be an actual duplication of God. It is obvious that arguments like this prove too much. If God's representation of Himself, to be perfect, must possess the same kind of reality that He Himself possesses, it does not seem easy to deny that His representations of everything else must possess objective reality. And this would be as much as to say that the eternal objective coexistence of all that God can conceive is given in the very idea of God; and that is open pantheism. The logical flaw lies in including in the perfection of a representation qualities which are not proper to representations, however perfect. A perfect representation must, of course, have all the reality proper to a representation; but objective reality is so little proper to a representation that a representation acquiring it would cease to be a representation. This fatal flaw is not transcended, but only covered up, when the argument is compressed, as it is in most of its modern presentations, in effect to the mere assertion that the condition of self-consciousness is a real distinction between the thinking subject and the thought object, which, in God's case, would be between the subject ego and the object ego. Why, however, we should deny to God the power of self-contemplation enjoyed by every finite spirit, save at the cost of the distinct hypostatizing of the contemplant and the contemplated self, it is hard to understand. Nor is it always clear that what we get is a distinct hypostatization rather than a distinct substantializing of the contemplant and contemplated ego: not two persons in the Godhead so much as two Gods. The discovery of the third hypostasis--the Holy Spirit--remains meanwhile, to all these attempts rationally to construct a Trinity in the Divine Being, a standing puzzle which finds only a very artificial solution.

The case is much the same with the argument derived from the nature of love. Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer--possibly it was Valentinus himself--who reasoned--perhaps he was the first so to reason--that "God is all love," "but love is not love unless there be an object of love." And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity, he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of "the lover," "the loved" and "the love itself," and sees in this trinary of love an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its artificiality to become apparent. Richard of Victor works it out as follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as caritas. This other, in God's case, cannot be the world; since such love of the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is God's equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be two divine substances, these two divine persons must form one and the same substance. The best love cannot, however, confine itself to these two persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived, leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller, Liebner, most lately R. H. Grutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not appear clear that God's own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems an abuse of figurative language.

Perhaps the ontological proof of the Trinity is nowhere more attractively put than by Jonathan Edwards. The peculiarity of his presentation of it lies in an attempt to add plausibility to it by a doctrine of the nature of spiritual ideas or ideas of spiritual things, such as thought, love, fear, in general. Ideas of such things, he urges, are just repetitions of them, so that he who has an idea of any act of love, fear, anger or any other act or motion of the mind, simply so far repeats the motion in question; and if the idea be perfect and complete, the original motion of the mind is absolutely reduplicated. Edwards presses this so far that he is ready to contend that if a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that was in his mind at any past moment, he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over again what he was at that moment. And if he could perfectly contemplate all that is in his mind at any given moment, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence, he would really be two at that time, he would be twice at once: "The idea he has of himself would be himself again." This now is the case with the Divine Being. "God's idea of Himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like Him in every respect. .... But that which is the express, perfect image of God and in every respect like HIm is God, to all intents and purposes, because there is nothing wanting: there is nothing in the Deity that renders it the Deity but what has something exactly answering to it in this image, which will therefore also render that the Deity." The Second Person of the Trinity being thus attained, the argument advances. "The Godhead being thus begotten of God's loving (having?) an idea of Himself and showing forth in a distinct Subsistence or Person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other. .... The Deity becomes all act, the divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of Subsistence, and there proceeds the Third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, namely, the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will." The inconclusiveness of the reasoning lies on the surface. The mind does not consist in its states, and the repetition of its states would not, therefore, duplicate or triplicate it. If it did, we should have a plurality of Beings, not of Persons in one Being. Neither God's perfect idea of Himself nor His perfect love of Himself reproduces Himself. He differs from His idea and His love of Himself precisely by that which distinguishes His Being from His acts. When it is said, then, that there is nothing in the Deity which renders it the Deity but what has something answering to it in its image of itself, it is enough to respond--except the Deity itself. What is wanting to the image to make it a second Deity is just objective reality.

4. Finds Support in Reason: Inconclusive as all such reasoning is, however, considered as rational demonstration of the reality of the Trinity, it is very far from possessing no value. It carries home to us in a very suggestive way the superiority of the Trinitarian conception of God to the conception of Him as an abstract monad, and thus brings important rational support to the doctrine of the Trinity, when once that doctrine has been given us by revelation. If it is not quite possible to say that we cannot conceive of God as eternal self-consciousness and eternal love, without conceiving Him as a Trinity, it does seem quite necessary to say that when we conceive Him as a Trinity, new fullness, richness, force are given to our conception of Him as a self-conscious, loving Being, and therefore we conceive Him more adequately than as a monad, and no one who has ever once conceived Him as a Trinity can ever again satisfy himself with a monadistic conception of God. Reason thus not only performs the important negative service to faith in the Trinity, of showing the self-consistency of the doctrine and its consistency with other known truth, but brings this positive rational support to it of discovering in it the only adequate conception of God as self-conscious spirit and living love. Difficult, therefore, as the idea of the Trinity in itself is, it does not come to us as an added burden upon our intelligence; it brings us rather the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in our conception of God as infinite moral Being, and illuminates, enriches and elevates all our thought of God. It has accordingly become a commonplace to say that Christian theism is the only stable theism. That is as much as to say that theism requires the enriching conception of the Trinity to give it a permanent hold upon the human mind--the mind finds it difficult to rest in the idea of an abstract unity for its God; and that the human heart cries out for the living God in whose Being there is that fullness of life for which the conception of the Trinity alone provides.

5. Not Clearly Revealed in the Old Testament: So strongly is it felt in wide circles that a Trinitarian conception is essential to a worthy idea of God, that there is abroad a deep-seated unwillingness to allow that God could ever have made Himself known otherwise than as a Trinity. From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the Trinity. Accordingly, I. A. Dorner, for example, reasons thus: "If, however--and this is the faith of universal Christendom--a living idea of God must be thought in some way after a Trinitarian fashion, it must be antecedently probable that traces of the Trinity cannot be lacking in the Old Testament, since its idea of God is a living or historical one." Whether there really exist traces of the idea of the Trinity in the Old Testament, however, is a nice question. Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is another question, however, whether there may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it. The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as the plural form of the divine name 'Elohim, the occasional employment with reference to God of plural pronouns ("Let us make man in our image," Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8), or of plural verbs (Genesis 20:13; 35:7), certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God (Genesis 19:27; Psalms 45:6-7; 110:1; Hosea 1:7), threefold liturgical formulas (Deuteronomy 16:4; Numbers 6:24, 26; Isaiah 6:3), a certain tendency to hypostatize the conception of Wisdom (Proverbs 8:1-36), and especially the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Yahweh (Genesis 16:2-13; 11, 16; 11, 13; Genesis 48:15-16; Exodus 3:2, 4-5; Judges 13:20-22). The tendency of more recent authors is to appeal, not so much to specific texts of the Old Testament, as to the very "organism of revelation" in the Old Testament, in which there is perceived an underlying suggestion "that all things owe their existence and persistence to a threefold cause," both with reference to the first creation, and, more plainly, with reference to the second creation. Passages like Psalms 33:6; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 63:9-12; Haggai 2:5-6, in which God and His Word and His Spirit are brought together, co-causes of effects, are adduced. A tendency is pointed out to hypostatize the Word of God on the one hand (e.g. Genesis 1:3; Psalms 33:6; 107:20; 119:87; Psalms 147:15-18; Isaiah 55:11); and, especially in Ezekiel and the later Prophets, the Spirit of God, on the other (e.g. Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 48:16; 63:10; Ezekiel 2:2; 8:3; Zechariah 7:12). Suggestions--in Isaiah for instance (Zechariah 7:14; 9:6)--of the Deity of the Messiah are appealed to. And if the occasional occurrence of plural verbs and pronouns referring to God, and the plural form of the name 'Elohim, are not insisted upon as in themselves evidence of a multiplicity in the Godhead, yet a certain weight is lent them as witnesses that "the God of revelation is no abstract unity, but the living, true God, who in the fullness of His life embraces the highest variety" (Bavinck). The upshot of it all is that it is very generally felt that, somehow, in the Old Testament development of the idea of God there is a suggestion that the Deity is not a simple monad, and that thus a preparation is made for the revelation of the Trinity yet to come. It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation. And we can scarcely stop there. After all is said, in the light of the later revelation, the Trinitarian interpretation remains the most natural one of the phenomena which the older writers frankly interpreted as intimations of the Trinity; especially of those connected with the descriptions of tile Angel of Yahweh, no doubt, but also even of such a form of expression as meets us in the "Let us make man in our image" of Genesis 1:26--for surely Genesis 1:27: "And God created man in his own image," does not encourage us to take the preceding verse as announcing that man was to be created in the image of the angels. This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus, the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.

6. Prepared for in the Old Testament: It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked or obscured. If we find some difficulty in perceiving for ourselves, in the Old Testament, definite points of attachment for the revelation of the Trinity, we cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being "setters forth of strange gods." To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity (John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Timothy 2:5). They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Yahweh, as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Yahweh as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Yahweh as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations. Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply them to Father, Son and Spirit indifferently. Obviously they understand themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is; and they are as far as possible from recognizing any breach between themselves and the Fathers in presenting their enlarged conception of the Divine Being. This may not amount to saying that they saw the doctrine of the Trinity everywhere taught in the Old Testament. It certainly amounts to saying that they saw the Triune God whom they worshipped in the God of the Old Testament revelation, and felt no incongruity in speaking of their Triune God in the terms of the Old Testament revelation. The God of the Old Testament was their God, and their God was a Trinity, and their sense of the identity of the two was so complete that no question as to it was raised in their minds.

7. Presupposed Rather Than Inculcated in the New Testament:

The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words, that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that "the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture." It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint, already "in full completeness" (vollig fertig), leaving no trace of its growth. "There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought," says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, "than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle--and without controversy--among accepted Christian truths." The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community; and the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community lies behind the New Testament.

8. Revealed in Manifestation of Son and Spirit: We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, if we study exactness of speech, as revealed in the New Testament, any more than we can speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written before its revelation; the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was made not in word but in deed. It was made in the incaration of God the Son, and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. The relation of the two Testaments to this revelation is in the one case that of preparation for it, and in the other that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied just in Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is as much as to say that the revelation of the Trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect of, the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin; and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, that the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead was once for all revealed to men. Those who knew God the Father, who loved them and gave His own Son to die for them; and the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved them and delivered Himself up an offering and sacrifice for them; and the Spirit of Grace, who loved them and dwelt within them a power not themselves, making for righteousness, knew the Triune God and could not think or speak of God otherwise than as triune. The doctrine of the Trinity, in other words, is simply the modification wrought in the conception of the one only God by His complete revelation of Himself in the redemptive process. It necessarily waited, therefore, upon the completion of the redemptive process for its revelation, and its revelation, as necessarily, lay complete in the redemptive process.

From this central fact we may understand more fully several circumstances connected with the revelation of the Trinity to which allusion has been made. We may from it understand, for example, why the Trinity was not revealed in the Old Testament. It may carry us a little way to remark, as it has been customary to remark since the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, that it was the task of the Old Testament revelation to fix firmly in the minds and hearts of the people of God the great fundamental truth of the unity of the Godhead; and it would have been dangerous to speak to them of the plurality within this unity until this task had been fully accomplished. The real reason for the delay in the revelation of the Trinity, however, is grounded in the secular development of the redemptive purpose of God: the times were ripe for the revelation of the Trinity in the unity of the Godhead until the fullness of the time had come for God to send forth His Son unto redemption, and His Spirit unto sanctification. The revelation in word must needs wait upon the revelation in fact, to which it brings its necessary explanation, no doubt, but from which also it derives its own entire significance and value. The revelation of a Trinity in the divine unity as a mere abstract truth without relation to manifested fact, and without significance to the development of the kingdom of God, would have been foreign to the whole method of the divine procedure as it lies exposed to us in the pages of Scripture. Here the working-out of the divine purpose supplies the fundamental principle to which all else, even the progressive stages of revelation itself, is subsidiary; and advances in revelation are ever closely connected with the advancing accomplishment of the redemptive purpose. We may understand also, however, from the same central fact, why it is that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in the New Testament rather in the form of allusions than in express teaching, why it is rather everywhere presupposed, coming only here and there into incidental expression, than formally inculcated. It is because the revelation, having been made in the actual occurrences of redemption, was already the common property of all Christian hearts. In speaking and writing to one another, Christians, therefore, rather spoke out of their common Trinitarian consciousness, and reminded one another of their common fund of belief, than instructed one another in what was already the common property of all. We are to look for, and we shall find, in the New Testament allusions to the Trinity, rather evidence of how the Trinity, believed in by all, was conceived by the authoritative teachers of the church, than formal attempts, on their part, by authoritative declarations, to bring the church into the understanding that God is a Trinity.

9. Implied in the Whole New Testament: The fundamental proof that God is a Trinity is supplied thus by the fundamental revelation of the Trinity in fact: that is to say, in the incarnation of God the Son and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. In a word, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the fundamental proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is as much as to say that all the evidence of whatever kind, and from whatever source derived, that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, and that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, is just so much evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; and that when we go to the New Testament for evidence of the Trinity we are to seek it, not merely in the scattered allusions to the Trinity as such, numerous and instructive as they are, but primarily in the whole mass of evidence which the New Testament provides of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit. When we have said this, we have said in effect that the whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity. For the New Testament is saturated with evidence of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit, Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and of the outpoured Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son and outpoured Spirit. We may analyze this conception and adduce proof for every constituent element of it from the New Testament declarations. We may show that the New Testament everywhere insists on the unity of the Godhead; that it constantly recognizes the Father as God, the Son as God and the Spirit as God; and that it cursorily presents these three to us as distinct Persons. It is not necessary, however, to enlarge here on facts so obvious. We may content ourselves with simply observing that to the New Testament there is but one only living and true God; but that to it Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are each God in the fullest sense of the term; and yet Father, Son and Spirit stand over against each other as I, and Thou, and He. In this composite fact the New Testament gives us the doctrine of the Trinity. For the doctrine of the Trinity is but the statement in wellguarded language of this composite fact. Through out the whole course of the many efforts to formulate the doctrine exactly, which have followed one another during the entire history of the church, indeed, the principle which has ever determined the result has always been determination to do justice in conceiving the relations of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, on the one hand to the unity of God, and, on the other, to the true Deity of the Son and Spirit and their distinct personalities. When we have said these three things, then--that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person--we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.

That this doctrine underlies the whole New Testament as its constant presupposition and determines everywhere its forms of expression is the primary fact to be noted. We must not omit explicitly to note, however, that it now and again also, as occasion arises for its incidental enunciation, comes itself to expression in more or less completeness of statement. The passages in which the three Persons of the Trinity are brought together are much more numerous than, perhaps, is generally supposed; but it should be recognized that the formal collocation of the elements of the doctrine naturally is relatively rare in writings which are occasional in their origin and practical rather than doctrinal in their immediate purpose. The three Persons already come into view as Divine Persons in the annunciation of the birth of our Lord: `The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,' said the angel to Mary, `and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35 margin; compare Matthew 1:18 ff). Here the Holy Ghost is the active agent in the production of an effect which is also ascribed to the power of the Most High, and the child thus brought into the world is given the great designation of "Son of God." The three Persons are just as clearly brought before us in the account of Matthew (Matthew 1:18 ff), though the allusions to them are dispersed through a longer stretch of narrative, in the course of which the Deity of the child is twice intimated (Matthew 1:21: `It is He that shall save His people from their sins'; Matthew 1:23: `They shall call His name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God-with-us') In the baptismal scene which finds record by all the evangelists at the opening of Jesus' ministry (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34), the three Persons are thrown up to sight in a dramatic picture in which the Deity of each is strongly emphasized. From the open heavens the Spirit descends in visible form, and `a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased.' Thus care seems to have been taken to make the advent of the Son of God into the world the revelation also of the Triune God, that the minds of men might as smoothly as possible adjust themselves to the preconditions of the divine redemption which was in process of being wrought out.

10. Conditions the Whole Teaching of Jesus: With this as a starting-point, the teaching of Jesus is conditioned throughout in a Trinitarian way. He has much to say of God His Father, from whom as His Son He is in some true sense distinct, and with whom He is in some equally true sense one. And He has much to say of the Spirit, who represents Him as He represents the Father, and by whom He works as the Father works by Him. It is not merely in the Gospel of John that such representations occur in the teaching of Jesus. In the Synoptics, too, Jesus claims a Sonship to God which is unique (Matthew 11:27; 24:36; Mark 13:32; Luke 10:22; in the following passages the title of "Son of God" is attributed to Him and accepted by Him: Matthew 4:6; 8:29; 14:33; Matthew 27:40, 43-44; Mark 3:11; Mark 12:6-8; 15:39; Luke 4:41; 22:70; compare John 1:34, 49; 9:35; 11:27), and which involves an absolute community between the two in knowledge, say, and power: both Matthew (John 11:27) and Luke (John 10:22) record His great declaration that He knows the Father and the Father knows Him with perfect mutual knowledge: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son." In the Synoptics, too, Jesus speaks of employing the Spirit of God Himself for the performance of His works, as if the activities of God were at His disposal: "I by the Spirit of God"--or as Luke has it, "by the finger of God--cast out demons" (Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20; compare the promise of the Spirit in Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12).

11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses: It is in the discourses recorded in John, however, that Jesus most copiously refers to the unity of Himself, as the Son, with the Father, and to the mission of the Spirit from Himself as the dispenser of the divine activities. Here He not only with great directness declares that He and the Father are one (10:30; compare 17:11,21,22,25) with a unity of interpenetration ("The Father is in me, andI in the Father," 10:38; compare 16:10,11), so that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (14:9; compare 15:21); but He removes all doubt as to the essential nature of His oneness with the Father by explicitly asserting His eternity ("Before Abraham was born,I am," John 8:58), His co-eternity with God ("had with thee before the world was," John 17:5; compare John 17:18; 6:62), His eternal participation in the divine glory itself ("the glory which I had with thee," in fellowship, community with Thee "before the world was," John 17:5). So clear is it that in speaking currently of Himself as God's Son (John 5:25; 9:35; 11:4; compare John 10:36), He meant, in accordance with the underlying significance of the idea of sonship in Semitic speech (founded on the natural implication that whatever the father is that the son is also; compare John 16:15; 17:10), to make Himself, as the Jews with exact appreciation of His meaning perceived, "equal with God" (John 5:18), or, to put it brusquely, just "God" (John 10:33). How He, being thus equal or rather identical with God, was in the world, He explains as involving a coming forth (exelthon) on His part, not merely from the presence of God (apo, John 16:30; compare John 13:3) or from fellowship with God (para, John 16:27; 17:8), but from out of God Himself (ek, John 8:42; 16:28). And in the very act of thus asserting that His eternal home is in the depths of the Divine Being, He throws up, into as strong an emphasis as stressed pronouns can, convey, His personal distinctness from the Father. `If God were your Father,' says Hebrews (John 8:42), `ye would love me: for I came forth and am come out of God; for neither have I come of myself, but it was He that sent me.' Again, He says (John 16:26-27): `In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you that I will make request of the Father for you; for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that it was from fellowship with the Father that I came forth; I came from out of the Father, and have come into the world.' Less pointedly, but still distinctly, He says again (John 17:8): They know of a truth that it was from fellowship with Thee that I came forth, and they believed that it was Thou that didst send me.' It is not necessary to illustrate more at large a form of expression so characteristic of the discourses of our Lord recorded by Jn that it meets us on every page: a form of expression which combines a clear implication of a unity of Father and Son which is identity of Being, and an equally clear implication of a distinction of Person between them such as allows not merely for the play of emotions between them, as, for instance, of love (John 17:24; compare John 15:9 (John 3:35); John 14:31), but also of an action and reaction upon one another which argues a high measure, if not of exteriority, yet certainly of exteriorization. Thus, to instance only one of the most outstanding facts of our Lord's discourses (not indeed confined to those in John's Gospel, but found also in His sayings recorded in the Synoptists, as e.g. Luke 4:43 (compare parallel Mark 1:38); Luke 9:48; 10:16; 4:34; 5:32; 7:19; 19:10), He continually represents Himself as on the one hand sent by God, and as, on the other, having come forth from the Father (e.g. John 8:42; 10:36; 17:3; 5:23, et saepe).

12. Spirit in Johannine Discourses: It is more important to point out that these phenomena of interrelationship are not confined to the Father and Son, but are extended also to the Spirit. Thus, for example, in a context in which our Lord had emphasized in the strongest manner His own essential unity and continued interpenetration with the Father (" If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also"; "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"; "I am in the Father, and the Father in me"; "The Father abiding in me doeth his works," John 14:7, 9-10), we read as follows (John 14:16-26): `And I will make request of the Father, and He shall ive you another (thus sharply distinguished from Our lord as a distinct Person) Advocate, that He may be with you forever, the Spirit of Truth .... He abideth with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I come unto you. .... In that day ye shall know that I am in the Father. .... If a man love me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him and we (that is, both Father and Son) will come unto him and make our abode with him. .... These things have I spoken unto you while abiding with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.' It would be impossible to speak more distinctly of three who were yet one. The Father, Son and Spirit are constantly distinguished from one another--the Son makes request of the Father, and the Father in response to this request gives an Advocate, "another" than the Son, who is sent in the Son's name. And yet the oneness of these three is so kept in sight that the coming of this "another Advocate" is spoken of without embarrassment as the coming of the Son Himself (John 14:18-19, 20-21), and indeed as the coming of the Father and the Son (John 14:23). There is a sense, then, in which, when Christ goes away, the Spirit comes in His stead; there is also a sense in which, when the Spirit comes, Christ comes in Him; and with Christ's coming the Father comes too. There is a distinction between the Persons brought into view; and with it an identity among them; for both of which allowance must be made. The same phenomena meet us in other passages. Thus, we read again (John 15:26): But when there is come the Advocate whom I will send unto you from (fellowship with) the Father, the Spirit of Truth, which goeth forth from (fellowship with) the Father, He shall bear witness of me.' In the compass of this single verse, it is intimated that the Spirit is personally distinct from the Son, and yet, like Him, has His eternal home (in fellowship) with the Father, from whom He, like the Son, comes forth for His saving work, being sent thereunto, however, not in this instance by the Father, but by the Son.

This last feature is even more strongly emphasized in yet another passage in which the work of the Spirit in relation to the Son is presented as closely parallel with the work of the Son in relation to the Father (John 16:5 ff). `But now I go unto Him that sent me .... Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away; for, if I go not away the Advocate will not come unto you; but if I go I will send Him unto you. And He, after He is come, will convict the world .... of righteousness because I go to the Father and ye behold me no more. .... I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He shall guide you into all the truth; for He shall not speak from Himself; but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak, and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I that He taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you.' Here the Spirit is sent by the Son, and comes in order to complete and apply the Son's work, receiving His whole commission from the Son--not, however, in derogation of the Father, because when we speak of the things of the Son, that is to speak of the things of the Father.

It is not to be said, of course, that the doctrine of the Trinity is formulated in passages like these, with which the whole mass of our Lord's discourses in John are strewn; but it certainly is presupposed in them, and that is, considered from the point of view of their probative force, even better. As we read we are kept in continual contact with three Persons who act, each as a distinct person, and yet who are in a deep, underlying sense, one. There is but one God--there is never any question of that--and yet this Son who has been sent into the world by God not only represents God but is God, and this Spirit whom the Son has in turn sent unto the world is also Himself God. Nothing could be clearer than that the Son and Spirit are distinct Persons, unless indeed it be that the Son of God is just God the Son and the Spirit of God just God the Spirit.

13. The Baptismal Formula: Meanwhile, the nearest approach to a formal announcement of the doctrine of the Trinity which is recorded from our Lord's lips, or, perhaps we may say, which is to be found in the whole compass of the New Testament, has been preserved for us, not by John, but by one of the synoptists. It too, however, is only incidentally introduced, and has for its main object something very different from formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. It is embodied in the great commission which the resurrected Lord gave His disciples to be their "marching orders" "even unto the end of the world": "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). In seeking to estimate the significance of this great declaration, we must bear in mind the high solemnity of the utterance, by which we are required to give its full value to every word of it. Its phrasing is in any event, however, remarkable. It does not say, "In the names (plural) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"; nor yet (what might be taken to be equivalent to that), "In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost," as if we had to deal with three separate Beings. Nor, on the other hand does it say, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," as if "the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" might be taken as merely three designations of a single person. With stately impressiveness it asserts the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single Name; and then throws up into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (the King James Version). These three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, each stand in some clear sense over against the others in distinct personality: these three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all unite in some profound sense in the common participation of the one Name. Fully to comprehend the implication of this mode of statement, we must bear in mind, further, the significance of the term, "the name," and the associations laden with which it came to the recipients of this commission. For the Hebrew did not think of the name, as we are accustomed to do, as a mere external symbol; but rather as the adequate expression of the innermost being of its bearer. In His Name the Being of God finds expression; and the Name of God--"this glorious and fearful name, Yahweh thy God" (Deuteronomy 28:58)--was accordingly a most sacred thing, being indeed virtually equivalent to God Himself. It is no solecism, therefore, when we read (Isaiah 30:27), "Behold, the name of Yahweh cometh"; and the parallelisms are most instructive when we read (Isaiah 59:19): `So shall they fear the Name of Yahweh from the west, and His glory from the rising of the sun; for He shall come as a stream pent in which the Spirit of Yahweh driveth.' So pregnant was the implication of the Name, that it was possible for the term to stand absolutely, without adjunction of the name itself, as the sufficient representative of the majesty of Yahweh: it was a terrible thing to `blaspheme the Name' (Leviticus 24:11). All those over whom Yahweh's Name was called were His, His possession to whom He owed protection. It is for His Name's sake, therefore, that afflicted Judah cries to the Hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble: `O Yahweh, Thou art in the midst of us, and Thy Name is called upon us; leave us not' (Jeremiah 14:9); and His people find the appropriate expression of their deepest shame in the lament, `We have become as they over whom Thou never barest rule; as they upon whom Thy Name was not called' (Isaiah 63:19); while the height of joy is attained in the cry, `Thy Name, Yahweh, God of Hosts, is called upon me' (Jeremiah 15:16; compare 2 Chronicles 7:14; Daniel 9:18-19). When, therefore, our Lord commanded His disciples to baptize those whom they brought to His obedience "into the name of ....," He was using language charged to them with high meaning. He could not have been understood otherwise than as substituting for the Name of Yahweh this other Name "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; and this could not `possibly have meant to His disciples anything else than that Yahweh was now to be known to them by the new Name, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The only alternative would have been that, for the community which He was rounding, Jesus was supplanting Yahweh by a new God; and this alternative is no less than monstrous. There is no alternative, therefore, to understanding Jesus here to be giving for His community a new Name to Yahweh, and that new Name to be the threefold Name of "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Nor is there room for doubt that by "the Son" in this threefold Name, He meant just Himself with all the implications of distinct personality which this carries with it; and, of course, that further carries with it the equally distinct personality of "the Father" and "the Holy Ghost," with whom "the Son" is here associated, and from whom alike "the Son" is here distinguished. This is a direct ascription to Yahweh, the God of Israel, of a threefold personality, and is therewith the direct enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not witnessing here the birth of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is presupposed. What we are witnessing is the authoritative announcement of the Trinity as the God of Christianity by its Founder, in one of the most solemn of His recorded declarations. Israel had worshipped the one only true God under the Name of Yahweh; Christians are to worship the same one only and true God under the Name of "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is the distinguishing characteristic of Christians; and that is as much as to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is, according to our Lord's own apprehension of it, the distinctive mark of the religion which He founded.

14. Genuineness of Baptismal Formula: A passage of such range of implication has, of course, not escaped criticism and challenge. An attempt which cannot be characterized as other than frivolous has even been made to dismiss it from the text of Matthew's Gospel. Against this, the whole body of external evidence cries out; and the internal evidence is of itself not less decisive to the same effect. When the "universalism," "ecclesiasticism," and "high theology" of the passage are pleaded against its genuineness, it is forgotten that to the Jesus of Matthew there are attributed not only such parables as those of the Leaven and the Mustard Seed, but such declarations as those contained in 8:11,12; 21:43; 24:14; that in this Gospel alone is Jesus recorded as speaking familiarly about His church (16:18; 18:17); and that, after the great declaration of 11:27 if, nothing remained in lofty attribution to be assigned to Him. When these same objections are urged against recognizing the passage as an authentic saying of Jesus own, it is quite obvious that the Jesus of the evangelists cannot be in mind. The declaration here recorded is quite in character with the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel, as has just been intimated; and no less with the Jesus of the whole New Testament transmission. It will scarcely do, first to construct a priori a Jesus to our own liking, and then to discard as "unhistorical" all in the New Testament transmission which would be unnatural to such a Jesus. It is not these discarded passages but our a priori Jesus which is unhistorical. In the present instance, moreover, the historicity of the assailed saying is protected by an important historical relation in which it stands. It is not merely Jesus who speaks out of a Trinitarian consciousness, but all the New Testament writers as well. The universal possession by. His followers of so firm a hold on such a doctrine requires the assumption that some such teaching as is here attributed to Him was actually contained in Jesus' instructions to His followers. Even had it not been attributed to Him in so many words by the record, we should have had to assume that some such declaration had been made by Him. In these circumstances, there can be no good reason to doubt that it was made by Him, when it is expressly attributed to Him by the record.

15. Paul's Trinitarianism: When we turn from the discourses of Jesus to the writings of His followers with a view to observing how the assumption of the doctrine of the Trinity underlies their whole fabric also, we naturally go first of all to the letters of Paul. Their very mass is impressive; and the definiteness with which their composition within a generation of the death of Jesus may be fixed adds importance to them as historical witnesses. Certainly they leave nothing to be desired in the richness of their testimony to the Trinitarian conception of God which underlies them. Throughout the whole series, from 1 Thessalonians, which comes from about 52 AD, to 2 Timothy, which was written about 68 AD, the redemption, which it is their one business to proclaim and commend, and all the blessings which enter into it or accompany it are referred consistently to a threefold divine causation. Everywhere, throughout their pages, God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit appear as the joint objects of all religious adoration, and the conjunct source of all divine operations. In the freedom of the allusions which are made to them, now and again one alone of the three is thrown up into prominent view; but more often two of them are conjoined in thanksgiving or prayer; and not infrequently all three are brought together as the apostle strives to give some adequate expression to his sense of indebtedness to the divine source of all good for blessings received, or to his longing on behalf of himself or of his readers for further communion with the God of grace. It is regular for him to begin his Epistles with a prayer for "grace and peace" for his readers, "from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ," as the joint source of these divine blessings by way of eminence (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Philemon 1:3; compare 1 Thessalonians 1:1). It is obviously no departure from this habit in the essence of the matter, but only in relative fullness of expression, when in the opening words of the Epistle to the Colossians, the clause "and the Lord Jesus Christ" is omitted, and we read merely: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father." So also it would have been no departure from it in the essence of the matter, but only in relative fullness of expression, if in any instance the name of the Holy Spirit had chanced to be adjoined to the other two, as in the single instance of 2 Corinthians 13:14 it is adjoined to them in the closing prayer for grace with which Paul ends his letters, and which ordinarily takes the simple form of, "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you" (Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; Galatians 6:18; Philippians 4:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; Philemon 1:25; more expanded form, Ephesians 6:23-24; more Compressed, Colossians 4:18; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15). Between these opening and closing passages the allusions to God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are constant and most intricately interlaced. Paul's monotheism is intense: the first premise of all his thought on divine things is the unity of God (Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; compare Romans 16:22; 1 Timothy 1:17). Yet to him God the Father is no more God than the Lord Jesus Christ is God, or the Holy Spirit is God. The Spirit of God is to him related to God as the spirit of man is to man (1 Corinthians 2:11), and therefore if the Spirit of God dwells in us, that is God dwelling in us (Romans 8:10 ff), and we are by that fact constituted temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16). And no expression is too strong for him to use in order to assert the Godhead of Christ: He is "our great God" (Titus 2:13); He is "God over all" (Romans 9:5); and indeed it is expressly declared of Him that the "fulness of the Godhead, that is, everything that enters into Godhead and constitutes it Godhead, dwells in Him. In the very act of asserting his monotheism Paul takes our Lord up into this unique Godhead. "There is no God but one" he roundly asserts, and then illustrates and proves this assertion by remarking that the heathen may have "gods many, and lords many," but "to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him" (1 Corinthians 8:6). Obviously, this "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," are embraced together in the one God who alone is. Paul's conception of the one God, whom alone he worships, includes, in other words, a recognition that within the unity of His Being, there exists such a distinction of Persons as is given us in the "one God, the Father" and the "one Lord, Jesus Christ."

Continued in TRINITY, 2.

Trinity, 2

Trinity, 2 - Continued from TRINITY, 1.

16. Conjunction of the Three in Paul: In numerous passages scattered through Paul's Epistles, from the earliest of them (1 Thessalonians 1:2-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14) to the latest (Titus 3:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:3, 13-14), all three Persons, God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, are brought together, in the most incidental manner, as co-sources of all the saving blessings which come to believers in Christ. A typical series of such passages may be found in Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:2-5, 14, 17; Ephesians 4:4-6; Ephesians 5:18-20. But the most interesting instances are offered to us perhaps by the Epistles to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 Paul presents the abounding spiritual gifts with which the church was blessed in a threefold aspect, and connects these aspects with the three Divine Persons. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all." It may be thought that there is a measure of what might almost be called artificiality in assigning the endowments of the church, as they are graces to the Spirit, as they are services to Christ, and as they are energizings to God. But thus there is only the more strikingly revealed the underlying Trinitarian conception as dominating the structure of the clauses: Paul clearly so writes, not because "gifts," "workings," "operations" stand out in his thought as greatly diverse things, but because God, the Lord, and the Spirit lie in the back of his mind constantly suggesting a threefold causality behind every manifestation of grace. The Trinity is alluded to rather than asserted; but it is so alluded to as to show that it constitutes the determining basis of all Paul's thought of the God of redemption. Even more instructive is 2 Corinthians 13:14, which has passed into general liturgical use in the churches as a benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Here the three highest redemptive blessings are brought together, and attached distributively to the three Persons of the Triune God. There is again no formal teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity; there is only another instance of natural speaking out of a Trinitarian consciousness. Paul is simply thinking of the divine source of these great blessings; but he habitually thinks of this divine source of redemptive blessings after a trinal fashion. He therefore does not say, as he might just as well have said, "The grace and love and communion of God be with you all," but "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Thus he bears, almost unconsciously but most richly, witness to the trinal composition of the Godhead as conceived by Him.

17. Trinitarianism of Other New Testament Writers:

The phenomena of Paul's Epistles are repeated in the other writings of the New Testament. In these other writings also it is everywhere assumed that the redemptive activities of God rest on a threefold source in God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit; and these three Persons repeatedly come forward together in the expressions of Christian hope or the aspirations of Christian devotion (e.g. Hebrews 2:3-4; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:29-31; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Peter 2:3-12; 1 Peter 4:13-19; 1 John 5:4-8; Jude 1:20-21; Revelation 14:1-20-Revelation 6:1-17). Perhaps as typical instances as any are supplied by the two following: "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:2); "Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life" (Jude 1:20-21). To these may be added the highly symbolical instance from the Apocalypse: `Grace to you and peace from Him which is and was and which is to come; and from the Seven Spirits which are before His throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth' (Revelation 1:4-5). Clearly these writers, too, write out of a fixed Trinitarian consciousness and bear their testimony to the universal understanding current in apostolical circles. Everywhere and by all it was fully understood that the one God whom Christians worshipped and from whom alone they expected redemption and all that redemption brought with it, included within His undiminished unity the three: God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, whose activities relatively to one another are conceived as distinctly personal. This is the uniform and pervasive testimony of the New Testament, and it is the more impressive that it is given with such unstudied naturalness and simplicity, with no effort to distinguish between what have come to be called the ontological and the economical aspects of the Trinitarian distinctions, and indeed without apparent consciousness of the existence of such a distinction of aspects. Whether God is thought of in Himself or in His operations, the underlying conception runs unaffectedly into trinal forms.

18. Variations in Nomenclature: It will not have escaped observation that the Trinitarian terminology of Paul and the other writers of the New Testament is not precisely identical with that of our Lord as recorded for us in His discourses. Paul, for example--and the same is true of the other New Testament writers (except John)--does not speak, as our Lord is recorded as speaking, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so much as of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. This difference of terminology finds its account in large measure in the different relations in which the speakers stand to the Trinity. our Lord could not naturally speak of Himself, as one of the Trinitarian Persons, by the designation of "the Lord," while the designation of "the Son," expressing as it does His consciousness of close relation, and indeed of exact similarity, to God, came naturally to His lips. But He was Paul's Lord; and Paul naturally thought and spoke of Him as such. In point of fact, "Lord" is one of Paul's favorite designations of Christ, and indeed has become with him practically a proper name for Christ, and in point of fact, his Divine Name for Christ. It is naturally, therefore, his Trinitarian name for Christ. Because when he thinks of Christ as divine he calls Him "Lord," he naturally, when he thinks of the three Persons together as the Triune God, sets Him as "Lord" by the side of God--Paul's constant name for "the Father"--and the Holy Spirit. Question may no doubt be raised whether it would have been possible for Paul to have done this, especially with the constancy with which he has done it, if, in his conception of it, the very essence of the Trinity were enshrined in the terms "Father" and "Son." Paul is thinking of the Trinity, to be sure, from the point of view of a worshipper, rather than from that of a systematizer. He designates the Persons of the Trinity therefore rather from his relations to them than from their relations to one another. He sees in the Trinity his God, his Lord, and the Holy Spirit who dwells in him; and naturally he so speaks currently of the three Persons. It remains remarkable, nevertheless, if the very essence of the Trinity were thought of by him as resident in the terms "Father," "Son," that in his numerous allusions to the Trinity in the Godhead, he never betrays any sense of this. It is noticeable also that in their allusions to the Trinity, there is preserved, neither in Paul nor in the other writers of the New Testament, the order of the names as they stand in our Lord's great declaration (Matthew 28:19). The reverse order occurs, indeed, occasionally, as, for example, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 (compare Ephesians 4:4-6); and this may be understood as a climactic arrangement and so far a testimony to the order of Matthew 28:19. But the order is very variable; and in the most formal enumeration of the three Persons, that of 2 Corinthians 13:14, it stands thus: Lord, God, Spirit. The question naturally suggests itself whether the order Father, Son, Spirit was especially significant to Paul and his fellow-writers of the New Testament. If in their conviction the very essence of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?

19. Implications of "Son" and "Spirit": Such facts as these have a bearing upon the testimony of the New Testament to the interrelations of the Persons of the Trinity. To the fact of the Trinity--to the fact, that is, that in the unity of the Godhead there subsist three Persons, each of whom has his particular part in the working out of salvation--the New Testament testimony is clear, consistent, pervasive and conclusive. There is included in this testimony constant and decisive witness to the complete and undiminished Deity of each of these Persons; no language is too exalted to apply to each of them in turn in the effort to give expression to the writer's sense of His Deity: the name that is given to each is fully understood to be "the name that is above every name." When we attempt to press the inquiry behind the broad fact, however, with a view to ascertaining exactly how the New Testament writers conceive the three Persons to be related, the one to the other, we meet with great difficulties. Nothing could seem more natural, for example, than to assume that the mutual relations of the Persons of the Trinity are revealed in the designations, "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," which are given them by our Lord in the solemn formula of Matthew 28:19. Our confidence in this assumption is somewhat shaken, however, when we observe, as we have just observed, that these designations are not carefully preserved in their allusions to the Trinity by the writers of the New Testament at large, but are characteristic only of our Lord's allusions and those of John, whose modes of speech in general very closely resemble those of our Lord. Our confidence is still further shaken when we observe that the implications with respect to the mutual relations of the Trinitarian Persons, which are ordinarily derived from these designations, do not so certainly lie in them as is commonly supposed.

It may be very natural to see in the designation "Son" an intimation of subordination and derivation of Being, and it may not be difficult to ascribe a similar connotation to the term "Spirit." But it is quite certain that this was not the denotation of either term in the Semitic consciousness, which underlies the phraseology of Scripture; and it may even be thought doubtful whether it was included even in their remoter suggestions. What underlies the conception of sonship in Scriptural speech is just "likeness"; whatever the father is that the son is also. The emphatic application of the term "Son" to one of the Trinitarian Persons, accordingly, asserts rather His equality with the Father than His subordination to the Father; and if there is any implication of derivation in it, it would appear to be very distant. The adjunction of the adjective "only begotten" (John 1:14; John 3:16-18; 1 John 4:9) need add only the idea of uniqueness, not of derivation (Psalms 22:21; 25:16; 35:17; Wisdom of Solomon 7:22 margin); and even such a phrase as "God only begotten" (John 1:18 margin) may contain no implication of derivation, but only of absolutely unique consubstantiality; as also such a phrase as `the first-begotten of all creation' (Colossians 1:15) may convey no intimation of coming into being, but merely assert priority of existence. In like manner, the designation "Spirit of God" or "Spirit of Yahweh," which meets us frequently in the Old Testament, certainly does not convey the idea there either of derivation or of subordination, but is just the executive name of God--the designation of God from the point of view of His activity--and imports accordingly identity with God; and there is no reason to suppose that, in passing from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the term has taken on an essentially different meaning. It happens, oddly enough, moreover, that we have in the New Testament itself what amounts almost to formal definitions of the two terms "Son" and "Spirit," and in both cases the stress is laid on the notion of equality or sameness. In John 5:18 we read: `On this account, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because, not only did he break the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.' The point lies, of course, in the adjective "own." Jesus was, rightly, understood to call God "his own Father," that is, to use the terms "Father" and "Son" not in a merely figurative sense, as when Israel was called God's son, but in the real sense. And this was understood to be claiming to be all that God is. To be the Son of God in any sense was to be like God in that sense; to be God's own Son was to be exactly like God, to be "equal with God." Similarly, we read in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11: `For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who of men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.' Here the Spirit appears as the substrate of the divine self-consciousness, the principle of God's knowledge of Himself: He is, in a word, just God Himself in the innermost essence of His Being. As the spirit of man is the seat of human life, the very life of man itself, so the Spirit of God is His very life-element. How can He be supposed, then, to be subordinate to God, or to derive His Being from God? If, however, the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence and their derivation from the Father are not implicates of their designation as Son and Spirit, it will be hard to find in the New Testament compelling evidence of their subordination and derivation.

20. The Question of Surbordination: There is, of course, no question that in "modes of operation," as it is technically called--that is to say, in the functions ascribed to the several persons of the Trinity in the redemptive process, and, more broadly, in the entire dealing of God with the world--the principle of subordination is clearly expressed. The Father is first, the Son is second, and the Spirit is third, in the operations of God as revealed to us in general, and very especially in those operations by which redemption is accomplished. Whatever the Father does, He does through the Son (Romans 2:16; 3:22; 1, 11, 17, 21; Ephesians 1:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Titus 3:5) by the Spirit. The Son is sent by the Father and does His Father's will (John 6:38); the Spirit is sent by the Son and does not speak from Himself, but only takes of Christ's and shows it unto His people (John 17:7 ff); and we have our Lord's own word for it that `one that is sent is not greater than he that sent him' (John 13:16). In crisp decisiveness, our Lord even declares, indeed: `My Father is greater than I' (John 14:28); and Paul tells us that Christ is God's, even as we are Christ's (1 Corinthians 3:23), and that as Christ is "the head of every man," so God is "the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3). But it is not so clear that the principle of subordination rules also in "modes of subsistence," as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of subsistence. Question is raised in each case of apparent intimation of subordination in modes of subsistence, whether it may not, after all, be explicable as only another expression of subordination in modes of operation. It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the Persons of the Trinity--a "Covenant" as it is technically called--by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be discoverable before it is assumed. In the case of the relation of the Son to the Father, there is the added difficulty of the incarnation, in which the Son, by the assumption of a creaturely nature into union with Himself, enters into new relations with the Father of a definitely subordinate character. Question has even been raised whether the very designations of Father and Son may not be expressive of these new relations, and therefore without significance with respect to the eternal relations of the Persons so designated. This question must certainly be answered in the negative. Although, no doubt, in many of the instances in which the terms "Father" and "Son" occur, it would be possible to take them of merely economical relations, there ever remain some which are intractable to this treatment, and we may be sure that "Father" and "Son" are applied to their eternal and necessary relations. But these terms, as we have seen, do not appear to imply relations of first and second, superiority and subordination, in modes of subsistence; and the fact of the humiliation of the Son of God for His earthly work does introduce a factor into the interpretation of the passages which import His subordination to the Father, which throws doubt upon the inference from them of an eternal relation of subordination in the Trinity itself. It must at least be said that in the presence of the great New Testament doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption on the one hand, and of the Humiliation of the Son of God for His work's sake and of the Two Natures in the constitution of His Person as incarnated, on the other, the difficulty of interpreting subordinationist passages of eternal relations between the Father and Son becomes extreme. The question continually obtrudes itself, whether they do not rather find their full explanation in the facts embodied in the doctrines of the Covenant, the Humiliation of Christ, and the Two Natures of His incarnated Person. Certainly in such circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to suggest any subordination for the Son or the Spirit which would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted for them throughout the whole fabric of the New Testament.

21. Witness of the Christian Consciousness: The Trinity of the Persons of the Godhead, shown in the incarnation and the redemptive work of God the Son, and the descent and saving work of God the Spirit, is thus everywhere assumed in the New Testament, and comes to repeated fragmentary but none the less emphatic and illuminating expression in its pages. As the roots of its revelation are set in the threefold divine causality of the saving process, it naturally finds an echo also in the consciousness of everyone who has experienced this salvation. Every redeemed soul, knowing himself reconciled with God through His Son, and quickened into newness of life by His Spirit, turns alike to Father, Son and Spirit with the exclamation of reverent gratitude upon his lips, "My Lord and my God!" If he could not construct the doctrine of the Trinity out of his consciousness of salvation, yet the elements of his consciousness of salvation are interpreted to him and reduced to order only by the doctrine of the Trinity which he finds underlying and giving their significance and consistency to the teaching of the Scriptures as to the processes of salvation. By means of this doctrine he is able to think clearly and consequently of his threefold relation to the saving God, experienced by him as Fatherly love sending a Redeemer, as redeeming love executing redemption, as saving love applying redemption: all manifestations in distinct methods and by distinct agencies of the one seeking and saving love of God. Without the doctrine of the Trinity, his conscious Christian life would be thrown into confusion and left in disorganization if not, indeed, given an air of unreality; with the doctrine of the Trinity, order, significance and reality are brought to every element of it. Accordingly, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of redemption, historically, stand or fall together. A Unitarian theology is commonly associated with a Pelagian anthropology and a Socinian soteriology. It is a striking testimony which is borne by E. Koenig (Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament, 1882, I, 125): "I have learned that many cast off the whole history of redemption for no other reason than because they have not attained to a conception of the Triune God." It is in this intimacy of relation between the doctrines of the Trinity and redemption that the ultimate reason lies why the Christian church could not rest until it had attained a definite and well-compacted doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing else could be accepted as an adequate foundation for the experience of the Christian salvation. Neither the Sabellian nor the Arian construction could meet and satisfy the data of the consciousness of salvation, any more than either could meet and satisfy the data of the Scriptural revelation. The data of the Scriptural revelation might, to be sure, have been left unsatisfied: men might have found a modus vivendi with neglected, or even with perverted Scriptural teaching. But perverted or neglected elements of Christian experience are more clamant in their demands for attention and correction. The dissatisfied Christian consciousness necessarily searched the Scriptures, on the emergence of every new attempt to state the doctrine of the nature and relations of God, to see whether these things were true, and never reached contentment until the Scriptural data were given their consistent formulation in a valid doctrine of the Trinity. Here too the heart of man was restless until it found its rest in the Triune God, the author, procurer and applier of salvation.

22. Formulation of the Doctrine: The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church's profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian conception of God from the first origins of Christianity turned. The guiding principle in the formulation of the doctrine was supplied by the Baptismal Formula announced by Jesus (Matthew 28:19), from which was derived the ground-plan of the baptismal confessions and "rules of faith" which very soon began to be framed all over the church. It was by these two fundamental principia--the true Deity of Christ and the Baptismal Formula--that all attempts to formulate the Christian doctrine of God were tested, and by their molding power that the church at length found itself in possession of a form of statement which did full justice to the data of the redemptive revelation as reflected in the New Testament and the demands of the Christian heart under the experience of salvation.

In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. The influence of inherited conceptions and of current philosophies inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the intellect the immanent faith of Christians. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether. A reaction which, under the name of Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large. In the conflict between these two opposite tendencies the church gradually found its way, under the guidance of the Baptismal Formula elaborated into a "Rule of Faith," to a better and more well-balanced conception, until a real doctrine of the Trinity at length came to expression, particularly in the West, through the brilliant dialectic of Tertullian. It was thus ready at hand, when, in the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism, to which the Son was a creature, though exalted above all other creatures as their Creator and Lord; and the church was thus prepared to assert its settled faith in a Triune God, one in being, but in whose unity there subsisted three consubstantial Persons. Under the leadership of Athanasius this doctrine was proclaimed as the faith of the church at the Council of Nice in 325 AD, and by his strenuous labors and those of "the three great Cappadocians," the two Gregories and Basil, it gradually won its way to the actual acceptance of the entire church. It was at the hands of Augustine, however, a century later, that the doctrine thus become the church doctrine in fact as well as in theory, received its most complete elaboration and most carefully grounded statement. In the form which he gave it, and which is embodied in that "battle-hymn of the early church," the so-called Athanasian Creed, it has retained its place as the fit expression of the faith of the church as to the nature of its God until today. The language in which it is couched, even in this final declaration, still retains elements of speech which owe their origin to the modes of thought characteristic of the Logos-Christology of the 2nd century, fixed in the nomenclature of the church by the Nicene Creed of 325 AD, though carefully guarded there against the subordinationism inherent in the Logos-Christology, and made the vehicle rather of the Nicene doctrines of the eternal generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit, with the consequent subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence as well as of operation. In the Athanasian Creed, however, the principle of the equalization of the three Persons, which was already the dominant motive of the Nicene Creed--the homoousia--is so strongly emphasized as practically to push out of sight, if not quite out of existence, these remanent suggestions of derivation and subordination. It has been found necessary, nevertheless, from time to time, vigorously to reassert the principle of equalization, over against a tendency unduly to emphasize the elements of subordinationism which still hold a place thus in the traditional language in which the church states its doctrine of the Trinity. In particular, it fell to Calvin, in the interests of the true Deity of Christ--the constant motive of the whole body of Trinitarian thought--to reassert and make good the attribute of self-existence (autotheotos) for the Son. Thus Calvin takes his place, alongside of Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine, as one of the chief contributors to the exact and vital statement of the Christian doctrine of the Triune God.

LITERATURE.

F. C. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit Gottea, 3 volumes, Tubingen, 1841-43; Dionysius Petavius, De Trinitate (vol II, of De Theologicis Dogmaticis, Paris, 1647); G. Bull, A Defence of the Nicene Creed (1685), 2 volumes, Oxford, 1851; G. S. Faber, The Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 2 volumes, 1832; Augustine, On the Holy Trinity (Volume III of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1-228), New York, 1887; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, chapter xiii; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology and Index, I, New York, 1873, 442-82; H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatick(2), II, Kampen, 1908, 260-347 (gives excellent references to literature); S. Harris, God, Creator, and Lord of All, New York, 1896; R. Rocholl, Der christliche Gottesbegriff, Gottingen, 1900; W. F. Adeney, The Christian Conception of God, London, 1909, 215-46; J. Lebreton, Lea origines du dogme de la Trinite, Paris, 1910; J. C. K. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis(2), Nordlingen, 1857-60, I, 85-111; J. L. S. Lutz, Biblische Dogmatik, Pforzheim, 1817, 319-94; R. W. Landis, A Plea for the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, Philadelphia, 1832; E. H. Bickersteth, The Rock of Ages, etc., London, 1860, New York, 1861; E. Riggenbach, "Der trinitarische Taufbefehl, Matthew 28:19" (in Schlatter and Cremer, Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie, 1903, VII; also 1906, X); F. J. Hall, The Trinity, London and New York, 1910, 100-141; J. Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed, edition Chevallier and Sinker, Cambridge, 1899; J. Howe," Calm Discourse on the Trinity," in Works, edition Hunt, London, 1810-22; J. Owen, `Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity," and" Saint's Fellowship with the Trinity," in Works, Gould's edition, London, 1850-55; J. Edwards, Observations concerning the Scripture Economy of the Trinity, etc., New York, 1880, also An Unpublished Essay on the Trinity, New York, 1903; J. R. Illingworth, The Doctrine of the Trinity Apologetically Considered, London and New York, 1907; A. F. W. Ingrain, The Love of the Trinity, New York, 1908.

(NOTE.--In this article the author has usually given his own renderings of original passages, and not those of any particular version--EDITORS.)

Benjamin B. Warfield

Tripolis

Tripolis - trip'-o-lis (Tripoils, "triple city"): Demetrius the son of Seleucus, having fled from Rome, collected "a mighty host and fleet," sailed into the haven of Tripoils, took the city, obtained possession of the country, and put to death his cousin, Antiochus V, along with his guardian Lysias (2 Maccabees 14:1 ff; Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 1). After a period of unsuccessful guerrilla warfare against Hyrcanus in Samaria, Antiochus Cyzicenus retired to Tripells (Ant., XII, x, 2). The city was founded by the Phoenicians and was a member of the Phoenician league. It was divided into 3 quarters by walls--hence, the name "triple city"--and these were occupied by settlers from Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus, respectively. The federal council of these states sat here. Its position on the Phoenician seacoast, with easy access to the interior, gave it many advantages from the commercial point of view. The Seleucid monarchs, the Romans, and Herod the Great did much to beautify the city; the last-named building a gymnasium (Josephus, BJ, I, xxi, 11). When attacked by the Arabs the inhabitants took ship and escaped. Later their places were taken by Jews and Persians. Captured by the Crusaders in 1109, it was taken by the Egyptians in 1289. The ancient city was surrounded on three sides by the sea. The site is now occupied by el-Mina, the harbor of the modern city, Tarabulus, which stands on the bank of Nahr Kadisha, about 2 miles away. The inhabitants number about 23,000. The town gives its name to a district under the vilayet of Beirut, which has always been famous for its fruitfulness.

W. Ewing

Triumph

Triumph - tri'-umf (thriambeuo, "to lead in triumph"): The word is used by Paul to express an idea very familiar to antiquity, and to the churches at Corinth and Colosse: "But thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:14); "Having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (Colossians 2:15).

A triumph in Rome was a magnificent procession in honor of a victorious general, and the highest military distinction which he could obtain. It was granted by the senate only to one who had held the office of dictator, consul, or praetor, and after a decisive victory in the complete subjugation of a province. In a Roman triumph the victorious general entered the city in a chariot drawn by four horses. He was crowned with laurel, having a scepter in one hand and a branch of laurel in the other. He was preceded by the senate and magistrates, musicians, the spoils of his victory, and the captives in fetters; and followed by his army on foot, in marching order. The procession thus advanced along the Via Sacra to the Capitol, where a bull was sacrificed to Jupiter, and the laurel wreath deposited in the lap of the god. During the triumphal entry the priests burned incense, and hence, the reference of the apostle: "For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a savor from life unto life" (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). The incense that was to the victor the "savor" of his triumph would be to the wretched captives the "savor," or intimation, of a rapidly approaching death in the Roman arena or in the damp vaults of the Tullianum. Thus the "incense," or influence, of the apostolic gospel would be to the believer the assurance of redemption through Christ, and to the unbeliever the assurance of spiritual death.

After the suicide of Antony in Alexandria (30 BC) Augustus Caesar succeeded in getting Cleopatra into his power. She had hoped to subdue him by her charms, but without avail. Aware that she was doomed, she revolted against the thought of being led in triumph to Rome, and, as tradition states, took her own life by allowing an asp to bite her, saying, "I will not be led in triumph"; see Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, V, ii:

"He'll lead me, then, in triumph? ....

Thou, an Egyptian puppet, shalt be shown

In Rome as well as I: mechanic slaves,

With greasy aprons, rules, and hammers shall

Uplift us to the view. ....

Arthur Walwyn Evans

Troas

Troas - tro'-as (Troas): The chief city in the Northwest of Asia Minor, on the coast of Mysia in the Roman province of Asia. From here, according to Acts 16:8, Paul sailed. Here, also, according to Acts 20:5-12, Paul raised Eutychus from the dead. The name Troas was not confined to the town itself, but it was also applied to the surrounding district, or to that part of the coast which is now generally known as the Troad. In its early history it bore the name of Antigona Troas, which was given it by its founder Antigonus, but after 300 BC it was generally known to the classical writers as Alexander Troas, a name given to it by Lysimachus. For a time the Seleucid kings made their homes at Troas. Later, when the city became free, it struck its own coins, of which vast numbers are found; a common type is one upon which is stamped a grazing horse. In 133 BC Troas came into the possession of the Romans, and later, during the reign of Augustus, it was made a Roman colonia, independent of the Roman governor of the province of Asia. Its citizens were then exempt from poll and land tax. During Byzantine times Troas was the seat of a bishopric.

The ruins of Troas, now bearing the name of Eski Stambul, are extensive, giving evidence of the great size and importance of the ancient city. They have, however, long been used as a quarry, and the columns of the public buildings were taken to Constantinople for use in the construction of the mosque known as the Yeni Valideh Jami. The site is now mostly overgrown with oaks, but from the higher portions of the ruins there is an extensive view over the sea and the neighboring islands. It is only with difficulty that one may now trace the city walls and locate the square towers which flanked them at intervals. Within the walls are the remains of theater, the temple and the gymnasium, which was provided with baths. The port from which Paul sailed was constructed by means of a mole, with an outer and an inner basin. The most imposing of the ruins, however, is a large aqueduct which was built in the time of Trajan.

E. J. Banks

Trogyllium

Trogyllium - tro-jil'-i-um, tro-gil'-i-um (Trogullion): According to Acts 20:15 the King James Version, the American Revised Version margin, the ship in which Paul sailed to Caesatea on his return from his Acts 3:11-26rd missionary journey tarried at Trogyllium. Several of the early manuscripts omit the words, "tarried at Trogyllium" (Westcott and Hort omit as "Western" interpolation); yet, whether the words belonged to the text or not, Paul evidently passed the promontory, and probably stopped there. From the coast near Miletus the promontory projects into the sea toward the island of Samos; the strait separating the mainland from the island is scarcely a mile wide. It was in this strait which is now called Kutchuk Boghaz by the Turks that the battle of Mycale was fought in 479 BC. The promontory now bears the name of Santa Maria, and the place of anchorage is called Saint Paul's port.

E. J. Banks

Troop

Troop - troop.

See ARMY.

Trophimus

Trophimus - trof'-i-mus (Trophimos, literally, "a foster child" (Acts 20:4; 21:29; 2 Timothy 4:20)): An Asiatic Christian, a friend and companion-in-travel of the apostle Paul.

1. An Ephesian: In the first of the three passages in which Trophimus is mentioned, he and Tychicus are called Asianoi, that is, natives of the Roman province of Asia; and making it still more definite, in Acts 21:29, he is termed an "Ephesian." Trophimus was one of eight friends, who accompanied Paul at the close of his 3rd missionary journey, and traveled with him from Greece through Macedonia into Asia, and onward by sea until Jerusalem was reached (see TYCHICUS). Trophimus went with Paul all the way, for, in the second of the passages referred to, he is mentioned as being with Paul in Jerusalem immediately on the close of this journey.

2. Cause of Paul's Arrest: He was the innocent cause of Paul being assaulted, in the courts of the temple by the Jewish mob, and then of his being arrested and imprisoned by the Romans. The occasion of this outrage was that the Jews supposed that Paul had "brought Greeks also into the temple, and .... defiled this holy place" (Acts 21:28). The modicum of fact lying at the root of this false accusation was that they had seen Paul and Trophimus in each other's company in the city. On this slender basis "they supposed" that Paul had brought Trophimus past the barrier or middle wall of partition (Ephesians 2:14; see PARTITION), beyond which no Gentile was allowed to penetrate on pain of death. They supposed that Trophimus who was neither a Jew nor a proselyte, but Gentile Christian, had been introduced into the temple itself by Paul--which would have been profanation. Hence, their fury against the apostle.

How strongly they insisted on the crime which Trophimus was falsely alleged to have committed on that occasion, is seen again in the way in which the orator Tertullus repeated the charge against Paul before the Roman governor Felix, who moreover assayed to profane the temple" (Acts 24:6).

3. At Miletus: The third reference to Trophimus is in 2 Timothy 4:20, "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick." This final notice shows that he was again--several years after the date indicated in the previous passages--traveling with Paul on one of the missionary journeys which the apostle undertook after being liberated from his first imprisonment in Rome. It is exceedingly difficult, perhaps impossible, to trace the course of the different journeys which Paul now made, as there is no such narrative as is given in Acts for the former journeys, but merely incidental notices of his later travels, in the Pastoral Epistles. In this, the last of all his letters--2 Timothy--Paul indicates various places which he had visited, and also the names of friends who traveled with him on this the last of his apostolic journeys.

Among other places, he had visited Miletus, a city on the coast of the province of Asia; and there his old friend Trophimus had been laid down with illness, so severe that he could travel no farther, but Paul left him "at Miletus sick." It is to be noted that Miletus was not far from Ephesus, which was Trophimus' native city. There would be much intercourse between the two cities (see Acts 17:1-34, where Paul sends for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come to him at Miletus, which they did). Trophimus therefore, in his sickness, could easily reach Ephesus, or his friends from that city could quickly come to him at Miletus, and give him whatever attention and nursing he might require.

4. The Description of 2 Corinthians 8:18: It has been conjectured that Trophimus is to be identified with the person mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:16-24. Paul there speaks in the highest terms of one of his companions--but without giving his name--whom he sent with Titus. Titus and this disciple were evidently those to whose care Paul entrusted the carrying of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians to its destination. The apostle says of this unnamed brother, not only that his praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches, but also that he was chosen by the churches to travel with him, i.e. with Paul, with this grace, i.e. with the contribution of money collected in the Gentile churches for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Now it is certain that at the close of his 3rd missionary journey Paul carried these gifts to Jerusalem ("I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings," Acts 24:17); and some of the eight friends who accompanied him on the journey (Acts 20:4) were those who had been entrusted by the churches with the safe conveyance of the money. Speaking of these collections, Paul writes (1 Corinthians 16:3-4). "Whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me." These conditions were fulfilled, when Paul and his eight friends traveled from Greece to Jerusalem, carrying the money with them. There is therefore certainty that one of the eight is the brother referred to in 2 Corinthians 8:18, whose praise in the gospel was in all the churches, and whom the churches had appointed to travel with Paul for the purpose of carrying the money contribution, and whom Paul had "many times proved earnest in many things" (2 Corinthians 8:18-19, 22). The eight were Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus, both from Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus, both "Asians," and lastly Luke.

There is certainly the possibility that the unnamed brother was Trophimus: if not Trophimus, then he was one of the other seven. Of these seven, by the process of elimination, the unnamed brother could only be one of those who traveled with Paul the whole distance as far as Jerusalem, for this was the work which "the brother" had been appointed by the churches to do. Now it is certain that Luke and Trophimus were with him on his arrival in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17, 29). Therefore the brother whose praise in the gospel was in all the churches may very well have been Trophimus: if not Trophimus, then possibly Luke or Aristarchus. Gaius and Aristarchus are termed "Paul's companions in travel" (Acts 19:29); and Aristarchus was afterward with Paul in Palestine, and sailed with him to Rome. It is quite remarkable that the same word, sunekdemos, "companion in travel," is applied to the unnamed brother (2 Corinthians 8:19), and to Gaius and Aristarchus in Acts 19:29.

As the conditions do not seem to be satisfied in Sopater, Secundus or Timothy, the brother so highly commended must have been either Luke or Gaius or Aristarchus or Tychicus or Trophimus.

John Rutherfurd

Trough

Trough - trof.

See SHEEP TENDING; BREAD.

Trow

Trow - tro: An obsolete verb meaning "to believe"; compare "trust" and the German trauen. It occurs only in Luke 17:9, the King James Version "Doth he thank that servant. ...? I trow not," as a translation of ou doko, "I believe not." The words ou doko, however, are not part of the original text, but are a later gloss to supply an answer to the question, and hence, "I trow not" is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American).

Trucebkeaker

Trucebkeaker - troos'-brak-er: The King James Version rendering in 2 Timothy 3:3 of aspondos, literally, "without a libation." As a libation always accompanied the making of a treaty in Greek lands, the lack implied that no treaty had been made, or, by a natural extension of meaning, could be made. Hence, the word came to mean "implacable" (Revised Version).

Trump; Trumpet

Trump; Trumpet - trump, trum'-pet, trum'pit.

See MUSIC.

Trumpets, Feast of

Trumpets, Feast of - 1. Description: In Leviticus 23:23-25 the first day (new moon) of the seventh month is set apart as a solemn rest, "a memorial of blowing of trumpets" (the Hebrew leaves "of trumpets" to be understood), signalized further by "a holy convocation," abstinence from work, and the presentation of "an offering made by fire." In Numbers 29:1-6 these directions are repeated, with a detailed specification of the nature of the offering. In addition to the usual daily burnt sacrifices and the special offerings for new moons, there are to be offered one bullock, one ram, and seven he-lambs, with proper meal offerings, together with a he-goat for a sin offering.

2. Significance: The significance of the feast lay in the fact that it marked the beginning of the new year according to the older calendar. Originally the "revolution" of the year was reckoned in the fall (Exodus 23:16; 34:22), and the change to the spring never thoroughly displaced the older system. In fact the spring New Year never succeeded in becoming a specially recognized feast, and to Jewish ears "New Year's Day" (ro'sh ha-shanah) invariably signifies an autumnal festival. So the Mishna (Ro'sh ha-shanah, i.1): "There are four periods of commencement of years: On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for kings and for festivals; the 1st of Elul is a new year for the tithe of cattle. .... The 1st of Tishri is new year's (day) for the ordinary or civil year, for the computation of 7th years, and of the jubilees; also for the planting of trees, and for herbs. On the 1st of Shebat is the new year for trees."

3. Ritual: The ritual for the day consequently needs little explanation. All new moons were heralded by trumpeting (Numbers 10:10), and so the custom was of course observed on this feast also. There is nothing in the language of either Leviticus 23:1-44 or Numbers 29:1-40 to require a prolongation of the music on this special new moon, but its special distinction was no doubt marked by special trumpeting at all times, and at a later period (see below) elaborate rules were laid down for this feature. The additional sacrifices simply involved an increase of those prescribed for new moons (Numbers 28:11-15), without changing their type. Perhaps Psalms 81:1-16 was especially written for this feast (compare Psalms 81:3).

4. Origin: Mentions of a special observance of the 1st of Tishri are found also in Ezekiel 45:20 (reading, as is necessary, "first day of seventh month" here for "seventh day") and Nehemiah 8:1-12. In the former passage, the day is kept by offering a bullock as a sin offering and sprinkling its blood in a way that recalls the ritual of the Day of Atonement. In Nehemiah an assembly of the people was held to hear Ezra read the Law. The day was kept as a festival on which mourning was forbidden (Nehemiah 8:9). Apart from these references there is no mention of the feast elsewhere in the Old Testament, and, indeed, there is some reason to think that at one time the 10th, and not the 1st, of Tishri was regarded as the beginning of the year. For Ezekiel 40:1 specifically calls this day ro'sh hashanah, and Leviticus 25:9 specifies it as the opening of the Jubilee year (contrast the Mishna passage, above). Consequently scholars generally are inclined to assign Leviticus 23:23-25 and Numbers 29:1-6 to the latest part of the Pentateuch (Ps). This need not mean that the observance of the 1st (or 10th) of Tishri was late, but only that the final adoption of the day into Israel's official calendar, with a fixed ritual for all Israelites, was delayed. If the original New Year's Day fell on the 10th of Tishri, its displacement ten days earlier was certainly due to the adoption of the 10th for the Day of Atonement. An explanation of the date of the latter feast would be gained by this supposition.

5. Later History: The instrument to be used in the trumpeting is not specified in the Bible, but Jewish tradition decided in favor of the horn and not the metal trumpet, permitting for synagogue use any kind of horn except a cow's, but for temple use only a straight (antelope's) horn and never a crooked

(ram's) horn (Ro'-sh ha-shanah, iii. 2-4). According to iv. 1, when the new year began on a Sabbath the horns were blown only in the temple, but after its destruction they were blown in every synagogue. Every Israelite was obliged to come within hearing distance of the sound (iii.7). In the synagogue liturgy of iv.5-9 (which forms the basis of the modern Jewish practice), four sets of "benedictions" were read, and after each of the last three sets the horn blown nine times. Modern Judaism sees in the signals a call to self-examination and repentance, in view of the approaching Day of Atonement.

See TRUMPET,III , 2, (8).

Burton Scott Easton

Trust, Breach of

Trust, Breach of - The clearest reference to the crime designated by this modern expression is found in Leviticus 6:2-7, where the transgression is defined and the penalty set forth. Breach of covenant or contract and the removal of landmarks (Deuteronomy 19:14; 27:17; Proverbs 22:28; 23:10) may be included.

Truth

Truth - trooth (`emeth, emunah, primary idea of "firmness," "stability" (compare Exodus 17:12), hence "constancy," "faithfulness," etc.; the Septuagint's Apocrypha and the New Testament, aletheia (Romans 3:7), pistis (Romans 3:3); in adjectival and adverbial sense, "in truth," "of a truth," "faithful," etc.; alethos (Luke 21:3; John 6:14; 7:40; 1 Thessalonians 2:13); alethinos (John 17:3); ontos (1 Corinthians 14:25); pistos (1 Timothy 3:1); in the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American), the American Standard Revised Version, as generally, "faithful"; Anglo-Saxon: treow, tryw with Teutonic stem, trau-, "to believe," "to keep faith"):

I. TERMS

II. GENERAL VIEW

1. Aspects of Truth

(1) Ontological

(2) Logical

(3) Moral

(4) Religious

2. Standards of Truth

3. Special Features in Biblical Writings

III. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

1. Truth in God

2. Truth in Man

3. Truth in Religion

I. Terms. The English word has developed and maintained the broadest, most general and varied usage, going beyond both Hebrew and Greek, which were already extended in connotation. It is possible to analyze and classify the special applications of the term almost indefinitely, using other terms to indicate specific meanings in special connections, e.g. loyalty (Judges 9:15); honesty (Exodus 18:21); fidelity (Deuteronomy 32:4); justice (Romans 2:2); uprightness (Isaiah 38:3); faith (Isaiah 26:2); righteousness (Psalms 85:10); reality (John 17:19); veracity (Genesis 42:16). It is unfortunate that translators have generally adhered to single terms to represent the original words. On the other hand, they have sometimes introduced words not represented in the original, and thus unduly limited the meaning. An example is Ephesians 4:15, where the original meaning "being true," i.e. in all respects, is narrowed to "speaking the truth."

II. General View. No term is more familiar and none more difficult of definition.

With applications in every phase of life and thought the word has varying general senses which may be classified as:

1. Aspects of Truth: (1) Ontological

Ontological truth, i.e. accurate and adequate idea of existence as ultimate reality. In this sense it is a term of metaphysics, and will be differently defined according to the type of philosophical theory accepted. This aspect of truth is never primary in Scripture unless in the question of Pilate (John 18:38). He had so far missed the profound ethical sense in which Jesus used the word that Jesus did not at all answer him, nor, indeed, does Pilate seem to have expected any reply to what was probably only the contemptuous thrust of a skeptical attitude. In Proverbs where, if at all, we might look for the abstract idea, we find rather the practical apprehension of the true meaning and method of life (23:23). Ontological reality and possible ideas of reality apprehending it are obviously presupposed in all Scripture. There is objective reality on which subjective ideas depend for their validity; and all knowing is knowledge of reality. There is also in the whole of Scripture a subjective idea, the product of revelation or inspiration in some form of working, that constitutes an ideal to be realized objectively. The Kingdom of God, for example, is the formative idea of Scripture teaching. In a definite sense the kingdom exists and still it is to be created. It must be kept in mind, however, that only vaguely and indirectly does truth have abstract, meta-physical meaning to the Biblical writers. For John it approaches this, but the primary interest is always concrete.

(2) Logical

Logical truth is expressive of the relation between the knower and that which is known, and depends upon the arrangement of ideas with reference to a central or composite idea. Truth in this sense involves the correspondence of concepts with facts. While this meaning of truth is involved in Scripture, it is not the primary meaning anywhere, save in a practical religious application, as in Ephesians 4:21; 1 John 2:4, 21.

(3) Moral

Moral truth is correspondence of expression with inner conception. Taken in its full meaning of correspondence of idea with fact, of expression with thought and with intention, of concrete reality with ideal type, this is the characteristic sense of the word in the Scriptures. Here the aim of religion is to relate man to God in accordance with truth. In apprehension man is to know God and His order as they are in fact and in idea. In achievement, man is to make true in his own experience the idea of God that is given to him. Truth is thus partly to be apprehended and partly to be produced. The emphatically characteristic teaching of Christianity is that the will to produce truth, to do the will of God, is the requisite attitude for apprehending the truth. This teaching of Jesus in John 7:17 is in accord with the entire teaching of the Bible. Ephesians 1:18 suggests the importance of right attitude for learning, while Ephesians 4:18 shows the effect of a wrong attitude in ignorance of vital truth.

(4) Religious

Religious truth is a term frequently met in modern literature, but it has no sound basis in reason and it has none at all in the Bible. All truth is ultimately religious and only in a superficial way can religious truth be spoken of as an independent conception. Least of all can religious truth and scientific truth be at variance.

2. Standards of Truth: Philosophy has continuously tried to find tests for truth, and so has wrought out theories of knowledge--epistemologies, Not to go back into the Greek philosophy, we have in modern times such theories as (1) the Kantian, (2) the scholastic, (3) the Hegelian, (4) the pragmatic, (5) that of the "new realism"; and these include only such as may be defined with some clearness, for the tendencies of current thought have been toward confusion concerning all standards of truth and reality, and so toward widespread agnosticism and skepticism. This temper has, naturally, reacted on thinking in practical ethics and upon the sanctions of religion. There is thus in religion and morals a tendency to obscure the distinction between what is and what ought to be.

See AUTHORITY; ETHICS; PHILOSOPHY; RIGHT; SIN.

In the Bible, the known will of God is final for man as a standard of truth, not as arbitrary, but as expressive of God's nature. God's nature is all-comprehensive of fact and goodness, and so is, all and in all, the source, support and objective of all concrete being. The will of God thus reveals, persuades to and achieves the ideals and ends of complete existence. The term "truth" is sometimes, therefore, nearly equivalent to the revealed will of God.

3. Special Features in Biblical Writings: (1) The Old Testament uses the term "truth" primarily of God and applies the principle to man. The practical objective is ever prominent.

(2) The Synoptic Gospels and Acts use the term chiefly in popular idiomatic phrases "of a truth," "in truth," "surely" (compare Luke 22:59; Acts 4:27). In Matthew 22:16 there is a more serious and comprehensive application, but it is in the flattering words of Pharisaic hypocrisy (compare Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21). To be sure, we are to understand that even in the phrases of common speech Jesus employed the term in all seriousness (Luke 4:25; 9:27).

(3) In Paul the sense of divine faithfulness, as in the Old Testament, is occasionally met (Romans 3:3, 7; 15:8). Again the term emphasizes sincerity (1 Corinthians 5:8; 2 Corinthians 7:14). Generally it has direct or clearly implied reference to God's revelation in Jesus Christ with a view to redeeming men. In a general way the term is thus equivalent to the gospel, but there is never identification of the two terms (see Romans 2:8; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Timothy 3:15). In Galatians 2:5; 5:7, "the truth of the gospel" is its content in the purpose of God, in contrast with misconceptions of it: the true gospel as against false representations of the gospel.

(4) In the Johannine writings we find occasionally the emphatic phrase of genuineness (1 John 3:18; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1) and emphatic reality (John 8:46; 16:7). In Revelation we have "true" in the sense of trustworthy, because ultimately real or in accord with ultimate reality (John 3:7, 14; 6:10; 15:3; 9, 11, etc.). Generally, as in the Gospel, we approach more nearly than elsewhere in Scripture a metaphysical use, yet always with the practical religious end dominant. Truth is reality in relation to the vital interests of the soul. It is primarily something to be realized and done, rather than something to be learned or known. In the largest aspect it is God's nature finding expression in His creation, in revelation, in Jesus Christ in whom "grace and truth came" (John 1:17), and finally in man apprehending, accepting and practically realizing the essential values of life, which are the will of God (John 1:14; 8:32; 17:19; 18:37 f; 1 John 2:21; 3:19). Truth is personalized in Jesus Christ. He truly expresses God, presents the true ideal of man, in Himself summarizes the harmony of existence and becomes the agent for unifying the disordered world. Hence, He is the Truth (John 14:6), the true expression (Logos, John 1:1) of God. See the same idea without the terminology in Paul (Colossians 1:14 ff; Colossians 2:9). Similarly, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth because His function is to guide into all truth (John 16:13; 1 John 2:27; 5:7).

(5) It is understood by many that in James, Peter, Hebrews, and possibly the Pastoral Epistles, the term connotes "the body of Christian teaching" (compare James 1:18; 3:14; 1 Peter 1:22; 2 Peter 2:2; Hebrews 10:26; 1 Timothy 3:15). The use of the article here cannot be conclusive, and instead of "the body of Christian teaching," it seems more correct to understand the reality of life values as represented in the gospel plan of salvation and of living. In a general way this would include "the body of Christian teaching," but the reference would be less concrete. James is too early a writing to employ the term in this so specific a sense.

III. Analytical Summary. 1. Truth in God: (1) Truth is presented in Scripture as a chief element in the nature of God (Psalms 31:5; Isaiah 65:16). (2) But this quality is never given as an abstract teaching, but only as qualifying God in His relations and activities. So it is a guaranty of constancy (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 100:5; 146:6; James 1:17); especially a ground of confidence in His promises (Exodus 34:6; Psalms 91:4; 146:6); of right dealing with men without reference to any explicit pledges (Psalms 85:11; 89:14); a basis of security in the correctness of His teachings (Nehemiah 9:13; Psalms 119:142; Isaiah 25:1); of assurance within His covenant relations (Psalms 89:5; Isaiah 55:3). (3) God's truth is especially noteworthy as a guaranty of merciful consideration of men. This is an important element in theology of the Old Testament, as it is a point guarded also in the New Testament (Psalms 25:10; 31:5; 61:7; 85:10; 98:3; John 3:16; Romans 3:23-26). (4) Equally is the truth of God an assurance to men of righteous judgment in condemnation of sin and sinners (1 Samuel 15:29; Psalms 96:13; Romans 2:2, 8). In general the truth of God stands for the consistency of His nature and guarantees His full response in all the relations of a universe of which He is the Maker, Preserver, and End.

2. Truth in Man: As related to God in origin and obligation, man is bound morally to see and respond to all the demands of his relations to God and to the order in which he lives under God. (1) Truthfulness in speech, and also in the complete response of his nature to the demand upon it, is urged as a quality to be found in man and is commended where found, as its lack is condemned. It is essential to true manhood. Here, as in the case of truth in God, truth is regarded as revealed in social relations and responsibilities. Truth is not merely in utterance, nor is it only response to a specific command or word, but lies in the response of the will and life to the essential obligations of one's being (Psalms 15:2; 119:30; Proverbs 12:19; 23:23; Isaiah 59:4, 14-15; Jeremiah 7:28; 9:3; Hosea 4:1; Romans 1:18, 25; Ephesians 4:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 12).

(2) Truth in man is in response to truth in God, and is to be acquired on the basis of a gift from God. This gift comes by way of teaching and also by way of the working of the Divine Spirit in the life of man. Highest truth in correspondence to ideal is possible only by the working of "the God of truth" in the spirit of the man. Man's freedom to realize his being is dependent upon his receptive attitude toward the Son of God. Hence salvation in its fullest idea is stated in terms of truth (John 11:3 ff; Philippians 3:10 ff). See in general, Psalms 51:6; Isaiah 25:1; John 3:21; 8:32; 16:13; 17:19; 18:37; Ephesians 4:21, 24; 5:9; Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 2:27.

3. Truth in Religion: The modern study of religion on an evolutionary hypothesis and the comparative study of religions have contributed to an extensive questioning whether there is any absolute truth in religion, or at least any standards by which truth in religion may be known. Isaiah 43:1-28 and Isaiah 44:1-28 and Paul in Acts 17:1-34 and Galatians 3:1-29 accord with modern findings that there is an element of truth in religions generally, and that God's faithfulness pledges Him to bring the light of fuller truth to all men. This He does through the religion and the testimony of them to whom He has already come with this fuller light. This light is contained in the revealed word of the Old Testament prophets and of the New Testament witnesses to Jesus. In a definite way the Scriptures preserve these standards of religious truth. But always the attitude of the individual, as also of the group, determines the measure of apprehension of the truth and the certainty with which it is held. It is always important to keep in mind that truth in religion is not primarily an intellectualistic affair, to be cognized, but is essentially a voluntaristic experience and a duty to be done for the glory of God in the realization of the complete truth of God. Jesus Christ as the truth of God becomes the standard and test for truth in the religion of men. And this not in any objective and formal way of a series of propositions, to be accepted and contended for, but in the subjective way of experience, in a series of ideals to be realized and propagated. If anyone wishes to do God's will, he shall be able to decide the truth of religious teaching, and the Son who is true will give the freedom of truth (John 7:17; 8:32).

William Owen Carver

Tryphaena

Tryphaena - tri-fe'-na (Truphaina; the King James Version, Tryphena): Tryphaena is coupled with "Tryphosa"--among those members of the Christian community at Rome to whom Paul sends greetings (Romans 16:12). He describes them as those "who labor in the Lord." "The names, which might be rendered `Dainty' and `Disdain' (see James 5:5; Isaiah 66:11), are characteristically pagan, and unlike the description" (Denney). They were probably sisters or near relatives, for "it was usual to designate members of the same family by derivatives of the same root" (Lightfoot, Phil, 175). Both names are found in inscriptions connected with the imperial household, "Tryphosa" occurring more frequently than "Tryphaena."

S. F. Hunter

Tryphon

Tryphon - tri'-fon (Truphon): The surname of Diodotus, a usurper of the Syrian throne. He was a native of Apamea, and had been in the service of Alexander Balas. On the death of Balas (145 BC), Tryphon, taking advantage of the complaints of discontent among the troops of Demetrius II (Nicator), set up the younger son of Balas, Antiochus VI, as claimant to the throne against Demetrius (1 Maccabees 11:39). The Jews under Jonathan came to the assistance of Demetrius in his difficulties against his revolting subjects. But Demetrius, when confirmed on his throne, soon made it apparent that he did not intend to fulfill his promises to his Jewish allies (1 Maccabees 11:53). Consequently, Jonathan and Simon joined Tryphon and Antiochus VI, securing many advantages for their country (1 Maccabees 11:54 ff). Jonathan inflicted a severe defeat on the forces of Demetrius. The successes of the Jewish leaders awakened the jealousy and suspicion of Tryphon, who determined to thwart the further plans of Jonathan and to remove him as an obstacle in the way of his securing the crown for himself. By an act of shrewd treachery, Tryphon captured Jonathan at Ptolemais and butchered all his followers (1 Maccabees 12:48). Simon, brother of Jonathan, now undertook the conduct of affairs and thwarted Tryphon in his attempts upon Jerusalem, whereupon the latter murdered Jonathan at Bascama (1 Maccabees 13:1 ff) in 143 BC. Tryphon next murdered the young Antiochus VI (1 Maccabees 13:31) and claimed the throne of Syria for himself (143 BC) (but see the chronology as given in Schurer,HJP , 4th edition, I, 172). Simon now went over to the side of Demetrius on condition that Judea should be free from tribute to Syria--a privilege that was rather in the power of Tryphon than of Demetrius to give, and so "in the 170th year (143 BC) was the yoke of the heathen taken away from Israel" (1 Maccabees 13:41). In 138 BC Demetrius was captured by Mithridates I (Arsaces), king of Parthia (1 Maccabees 14:2). His brother, Antiochus VII (Sidetes), continued the struggle against Tryphon, first with the aid of Simon, but later repudiating it. Tryphon was obliged to flee before Sidetes to Dor (1 Maccabees 15:11), where Antiochus refused the assistance of Simon (1 Maccabees 15:26). He next escaped to Ptolemais, then to Orthosia, and finally to his native Apamea, where he was driven to suicide (Josephus, Ant, XIII, vii, 2; Strabo, 668; Appian, Syriac, 68). (The best account is given in Schurer, 4th edition, I, 172 ff; compare also Speaker's Commentary in the place cited.)

See ANTIOCHUS; DEMETRIUS.

S. Angus

Tryphosa

Tryphosa - tri-fo'-sa (Truphosa): Greetings are sent by Paul to "Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord" (Romans 16:12).

See TRYPHAENA.

Tsadhe

Tsadhe - tsa-tha' ("ts"): The eighteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in Psalms 119:1-176 to designate the Psalms 18:11-50th part, every verse of which begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "ts". It came also to be used for the number 90. For name, etc., see ALPHABET; TSADHE.

Tubal

Tubal - tu'-bal (tubhal, tubhal; Septuagint Thobel, Codex Alexandrinus in Ezekiel 39:1, Thober): As the text stands, Tubal and Meshech are always coupled, except in Isaiah 66:19 (Massoretic Text) and Psalms 120:5. In the former passage Tubal is yoked with Javan; in the latter Meshech occurs in Psalms 120:5 and Kedar in Psalms 120:6. In Genesis 10:2 parallel, they are sons of Japheth. In Ezekiel (Genesis 27:13) the two are mentioned as exporters of slaves and copper, as a warlike people of antiquity (Genesis 32:26), in the army of Gog (Genesis 38:2 ff; Genesis 39:1). Josephus identifies them with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively; but they are most probably the Tibarenoi, and Moschoi, first mentioned in Herodotus iii.94 as belonging to the 19th satrapy of Darius, and again (vii.78) as furnishing a contingent to the host of Xerxes. Equally obvious is their identity with the Tabali and Muski of the Assyrian monuments, where the latter is mentioned as early as Tiglath-pileser I, and the former under Shalmaneser II; both are described as powerful military states. They appear together in Sargon's inscriptions; and during this entire period their territory must have extended much farther South and West than in Greek-Roman times. They are held (Winckler and Jeremias) to have been remnants of the old Hittite population which were gradually driven (probably by the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district Southeast of the Black Sea.

Horace J. Wolf

Tubal-cain

Tubal-cain - tu'-bal-kan (tubhal qayin): One of the sons of Lamech (Genesis 4:22). He is a brother of Jabal and Jubal, who appear to have been the founders of several industries and articles The text (loTesh kol choresh nechosheth u-bharzel) has been the cause of endless dispute. Holzinger and Gunkel hold that laTash was a marginal gloss to charash, and that, as in Genesis 4:20 and Genesis 21:1-34, there stood before kal originally hu hayah 'abhi. This would make Tubal-cain the founder of the metal industry, and place him in a class similar to that of his brothers. The Septuagint, however, has no equivalent of qayin. This omission leads Dillmann, Wellhausen, and others to the position that "Tubal" originally stood alone, and qayin, being a later addition, was translated "smith." Many commentators identify Tubal with the Assyrian Tubal, a people living Southwest of the Black Sea; in later times they were called "Tibareni" (Ezekiel 27:13). Tubal may be the eponymous ancestor of these people, whose principal industry seems to have been the manufacture of vessels of bronze and iron.

Horace J. Wolf

Tubias

Tubias - tu'-bi-as (en tois Tobiou; the King James Version "in the places of Tobie," the Revised Version (British and American) "in the land of Tubias"): A place in Gilead where 1,000 men of the Jews were slaughtered by the Gentiles, their wives and children being carried away captive (1 Maccabees 5:13). It is identified with the land of TOB (which see).

Tubieni

Tubieni - tu-bi-e'-ni (pros tous legomenous Toubienous Ioudaious, "unto the Jews that are called Tubieni"): Men of TOB (which see) who had occupied the town of Charax (2 Maccabees 12:17).

Tumor

Tumor - tu'-mer, tu'-mor (`ophel): the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes this word for "emerods" in 1 Samuel 5:12; 6:4; Deuteronomy 28:27 margin.

See EMERODS.

Turban

Turban - tur'-ban (Leviticus 16:4 margin).

See DRESS, V.

Turpentine Tree

Turpentine Tree - tur'-pen-tin.

See TEREBINTH.

Turtle-dove

Turtle-dove - tur'-t'-l-duv.

See DOVE.

Tutor

Tutor - tu'-ter: In modern English an "instructor," more particularly a private instructor, but the word properly means a "guardian." Hence its use in Galatians 4:2 the King James Version for epitropos, here "guardian" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), and 1 Corinthians 4:15; Galatians 3:24-25 the Revised Version (British and American) for paidagogos.

See SCHOOLMASTER.

Twelve

Twelve - twelv (shenem `asar; dodeka).

See APOSTLE; NUMBER.

Twelve Apostles, Gospels of The

Twelve Apostles, Gospels of The - See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

Twelve Patriarchs; Testaments of The

Twelve Patriarchs; Testaments of The - See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, sec. IV, 1.

Twelve Stars

Twelve Stars - See ASTRONOMY, sec. II, 12.

Twenty

Twenty - twen'-ti.

See NUMBER.

Twilight

Twilight - twi'-lit (nesheph): The twilight of Palestine is of short duration, owing to the low latitude, there being scarcely more than an hour between sunset and complete darkness. It is a distinct boundary between daytime and the darkness. The people of Palestine still give the time of an event as so many hours before or after sunrise or sunset: "David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day" (1 Samuel 30:17), and "They rose up in the twilight to go" (2 Kings 7:5). The word is evidenly used in the sense of darkness in "the stars of twilight" (Job 3:9) and "The adulterer waiteth for the twilight" (Job 24:15). the King James Version has "twilight" in Ezekiel 12:6 ff, but the Revised Version (British and American) has "dark."

Alfred H. Joy

Twin Brothers

Twin Brothers - (Acts 28:11).

See DIOSCURI.

Twine

Twine - twin (shazar, "to be twined"): The word is used in Exodus 26:1 ff; Exodus 36:8 ff, etc., of the "fine twined linen" used for the curtains and hangings of the tabernacle, and for parts of the priests' dress. It denotes linen the finely spun threads of which consisted of two or more smaller threads twined together.

See LINEN; TABERNACLE.

Two

Two - too.

See NUMBER.

Tychicus

Tychicus - tik'-i-kus (Tuchikos, lit. "chance"): Mentioned 5 times in the New Testament (Acts 20:4; Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12); an Asiatic Christian, a friend and companion of the apostle Paul.

(1) In the first of these passages his name occurs as one of a company of the friends of Paul. The apostle, at the close of his 3rd missionary journey, was returning from Greece through Macedonia into Asia, with a view to go to Jerusalem. This journey proved to be the last which he made, before his apprehension and imprisonment. It was felt, both by himself and by his friends, that this journey was a specially important one. He was on his way to Jerusalem, "bound in the spirit" (Acts 20:22). But another cause which gave it particular importance was that he and his friends were carrying the money which had been collected for several years previous in the churches of the Gentiles, for the help of the poor members of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 24:17). No fewer than eight of his intimate friends companied him into Asia, and one of these was Tychicus Luke uses the word "Asian" (English Versions of the Bible "of Asia," Acts 20:4) to describe Tychicus. He was with Paul at Troas, and evidently journeyed with him, as one of "Paul's company" (Acts 21:8 the King James Version), all the way to Jerusalem.

(2) The 2nd and 3rd passages in which the name of Tychicus occurs (see above) give the information that he was with Paul in Rome during his first imprisonment. In Colossians Paul writes, "All my affairs shall Tychicus make known unto you, the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord: whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our state, and that he may comfort your hearts" (4:7,8). In almost identical words he writes in Ephesians, "But that ye also may know my affairs, how I do, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things: whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our state, and that he may comfort your hearts" (6:21,22).

Paul had entrusted Tychicus with a very important mission. He was to deliver the Epistle to the Ephesians, that is, "the circular letter" (see LAODICEANS,EPISTLE TO THE ) to the churches in proconsular Asia, to which it was sent, giving a copy of it to the church in Laodicea. He was then to proceed to Colosse, with the Epistle to the church there. In Colosse Tychicus would plead the cause of Onesimus, who accompanied him from Rome. "Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he encountered Philemon alone" (Lightfoot, Commentary on Colossians, 314). In Laodicea and Colosse Tychicus would not only deliver the Epistles from Paul, but he would also, as the apostle had written to the churches in those places, Communicate to them all information about his "state," that is, how things were going with him in regard to his appeal to the emperor, and his hope of being soon set at liberty. Tychicus would make known to them all things.

(3) The passages in the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy show that Tychicus was again with Paul, after the appeal to the emperor had resulted in the apostle regaining his freedom. The passage in Titus evidently refers to the interval between Paul's first and second Roman imprisonments, and while he was again engaged in missionary journeys. The apostle writes to Titus, who was in Crete in charge of the churches there, that he intended to send either Artemas or Tychicus to him, so as to take the oversight of the work of the gospel in that island, that Titus might be free to come to be with the apostle at Nicopolis.

(4) The last passage where Tychicus is mentioned occurs in 2 Timothy, which was written in Rome not long before Paul's execution. To the very end Paul was busy as ever in the work of the gospel; and though it would have been a comfort to him to have his friends beside him, yet the interests of the kingdom of Christ are uppermost in his thoughts, and he sends these friends to help the progress of the work. To the last, Tychicus was serviceable as ever: "Tychicus I sent to Ephesus" (4:12). As Timothy was in charge of the church in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), the coming of Tychicus would set him free, so as to enable him to set off at once to rejoin Paul at Rome, as the apostle desired him (2 Timothy 4:9, 21).

It should also be noted that at Ephesus Tychicus would be able to visit his old friend Trophimus, who was, at that very time, only a few miles away, at Miletus, sick (2 Timothy 4:20).

It is possible that Tychicus is the brother referred to in 2 Corinthians 8:22-23 as one "whom we have many times proved earnest in many things .... (one of) the messengers of the churches .... the glory of Christ."

(5) The character and career of Tychicus are such as show him altogether affectionate, faithful and worthy of the confidence reposed in him by Paul, who, as already seen, sent him again and again on important work, which could be performed only by a man of ability and of high Christian worth and experience. Thus, all that is known regarding Tychicus fully bears out the description of his character given by the apostle himself, that he was a beloved brother, a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord.

John Rutherfurd