FABLE <fa’-b’-l > ([mu~qov, muthos ]): (1) Primitive man conceives of the objects around him as possessing his own characteristics. Consequently in his stories, beasts, trees, rocks, etc., think, talk and act exactly as if they were human beings. Of course, but little advance in knowledge was needed to put an end to this mode of thought, but the form of story-telling developed by it persisted and is found in the folk-tales of all nations. More particularly, the archaic form of story was used for the purpose of moral instruction, and when so used is termed the fable. Modern definitions distinguish it from the parable (a) by its use of characters of lower intelligence than man (although reasoning and speaking like men), and (b) by its lesson for this life only. But, while these distinctions serve some practical purpose in distinguishing (say) the fables of Aesop from the parables of Christ, they are of little value to the student of folk-lore.

For fable, parable, allegory, etc., are all evolutions from a common stock, and they tend to blend with each other. See ALLEGORY; PARABLE. (2) The Semitic mind is peculiarly prone to allegorical expression, and a modern Arabian storyteller will invent a fable or a parable as readily as he will talk. And we may be entirely certain that the very scanty appearance of fables in the Old Testament is due only to the character of its material and not at all to an absence of fables from the mouths of the Jews of old. Only two examples have reached us. In Judges 9:7 through 15 Jotham mocks the choice of AbimeItch as king with the fable of the trees that could find no tree that would accept the trouble of the kingship except the worthless bramble. And in 2 Kings 14:9 Jehoash ridicules the pretensions of Amaziah with the story of the thistle that wished to make a royal alliance with the cedar. Yet that the distinction between fable and allegory, etc., is artificial is seen in Isaiah 5:1,2, where the vineyard is assumed to possess a deliberate will to be perverse. (3) In the New Testament, “fable” is found in 1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7; Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16, as the translation of muthos (“myth”). The sense here differs entirely from that discussed above, and “fable” means a (religious) story that has no connection with reality — contrasted with the knowledge of an eyewitness in 2 Peter 1:16. The exact nature of these “fables” is of course something out of our knowledge, but the mention in connection with them of “endless genealogies” in 1 Timothy 1:4 points with high probability to some form of Gnostic speculation that interposed a chain of eons between God and the world. In some of the Gnostic systems that we know, these chains are described with a prolixity so interminable (the Pistis Sophia is the best example) as to justify well the phrase “old wives’ fables” in 1 Timothy 4:7. But that these passages have Gnostic reference need not tell against the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, as a fairly well developed “Gnosticism” is recognizable in a passage as early as Colossians 2, and as the description of the fables as Jewish in Titus 1:14 (compare 3:9) is against 2nd-century references. But for details the commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles must be consulted. It is worth noting that in 2 Timothy 4:4 the adoption of these fables is said to be the result of dabbling in the dubious. This manner of losing one’s hold on reality is, unfortunately, something not confined to the apostolic age. Burton Scott Easton FACE <fas > : In Hebrew the translation of three expressions: (1) [ µyniP; , panim ] (2) [ ˆyi[“ , `ayin ], literally, “eye” and (3) [ ta” , ‘aph ], literally, “nose,” “nostril,” already noted under the word COUNTENANCE , which see. The first and second of these words are used synonymously, even in metaphorical expressions, as, e.g. in the phrase “the face of the earth,” where panim is used ( Deuteronomy 6:15 et passim ) and `ayin ( Numbers 22:5 et passim ). The third expression preserves more clearly its original meaning. It is generally used in the phrases “to bow one’s self to the earth,” “to fall on one’s face,” where the nose actually touched the ground. Often “my face,” “thy face” is mere oriental circumlocution for the personal pronoun “I,” “me,” “thou,” “thee.” “In thy face” means “in thy presence;” and is often so translated. A very large number of idiomatic Hebrew expressions have been introduced into our language through the medium of the Bible translation. We notice the most important of these phrases. “To seek the face” is to seek an audience with a prince or with God, to seek favor ( Psalm 24:6; 27:8 bis; 105:4; Proverbs 7:15; Hosea 5:15; compare Proverbs 29:26, where the Revised Version (British and American) translates “Many seek the ruler’s favor,” literally, many seek the face (Hebrew pene ) of a ruler).

If God “hides his face” He withdraws His presence, His favor ( Deuteronomy 32:20; Job 34:29; Psalm 13:1; 30:7; 143:7; Isaiah 54:8; Jeremiah 33:5; Ezekiel 39:23,14; Micah 3:4).

Such withdrawal of the presence of God is to be understood as a consequence of man’s personal disobedience, not as a wrathful denial of God’s favor ( Isaiah 59:2). God is asked to “hide his face,” i.e. to disregard or overlook ( Psalm 51:9; compare 10:11). This is also the idea of the prayer: “Cast me not away from thy presence” (literally, “face,” Psalm 51:11), and of the promise: “The upright shall dwell in thy presence” (literally, “face,” <19E013> Psalm 140:13). If used of men, “to hide the face” expresses humility and reverence before an exalted presence ( Exodus 3:6; Isaiah 6:2); similarly Elijah “wrapped his face in his mantle” when God passed by ( 1 Kings 19:13). The “covering of the face” is a sign of mourning ( 2 Samuel 19:4 = Ezekiel 12:6,12); a “face covered with fatness” is synonymous with prosperity and arrogance ( Job 15:27); to have one’s face covered by another person is a sign of hopeless doom, as if one were already dead. This was done to Human, when judgment had been pronounced over him ( Nehemiah 7:8). “To turn away one’s face” is a sign of insulting indifference or contempt ( 2 Chronicles 29:6; Ezekiel 14:6; Sirach 4:4; compare Jeremiah 2:27; 18:17; 32:33); on the part of God an averted face is synonymous with rejection ( Psalm 13:1; 27:9; 88:14). “To harden the face” means to harden one’s self against any sort of appeal ( Proverbs 21:29; Isaiah 50:7; Jeremiah 5:3; compare Ezekiel 3:9). See also SPIT.

In this connection we also mention the phrase “to respect persons,” literally, to “recognize the face” (Leviticus19:15, or, slightly different in expression, Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19; Proverbs 24; 23; 28:21), in the sense of unjustly favoring a person, or requiting him with undue evil.

Compare also the Hebrew hadhar ( Exodus 23:3 the King James Version), “to countenance” (see under the word).

The “showbread” meant literally, “bread of the face,” “of the presence,” Hebrew lechem panim ; Greek artoi enopioi, artoi tes protheseos . H. L. E. Luering FACT Lit. “a deed.” The word occurs only in the heading of the chapter, 2 Kings 10 the King James Version, “Jehu excuseth the fact by the prophecy of Elijah,” and in 2 Macc 4:36, with reference to the murder of Onias, “certain of the Greeks that abhorred the fact (the deed) also” (summisoponerounton , literally, “hating wickedness together with (others),” the Revised Version (British and American) “the Greeks also joining with them in hatred of the wickedness.”

FADE <fad > ([ lben; , nabhel ]; [marai>nw, maraino ]): “To fade” is in the Old Testament the translation of nabhel , “to droop or wither,” figuratively, “to fade,” or “pass way” ( Psalm 18:45; Isaiah 1:30; 24:4; 28:1,4; 40:7,8); once it is the translation of balal “to well up,” “to overflow”; perhaps from nabhal ( Isaiah 64:6, “We all do fade as a leaf”); in the New Testament of maraino , “to come to wither or to fade away” (Jas 1:11, “So also shall the rich man fade away in his ways,” the Revised Version (British and American) “in his goings”); compare The Wisdom of Solomon 28, “Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they be withered” (maraino ); amarantinos (amaranth ), “unfading,” occurs in Peter 5:4, “the crown of glory that fadeth not away,” and amarantos ( Peter 1:4), “an inheritance .... that fadeth not away”; compare The Wisdom of Solomon 6:12, “Wisdom is glorious (the Revised Version (British and American) “radiant”), and fadeth not away.”

For “fade” ( Ezekiel 47:12), the Revised Version (British and American) has “wither”; for “fall” “falleth” “falling” ( Isaiah 34:4), “fade,” “fadeth,” “fading. W. L. Walker FAIL <fal > ([ hl;K; , kalah ], [ tr”K; , karath ]; [ejklei>pw, ekleipo ]): “Fail” is both intransitive, “to fall short,” “be wanting,” and trans, “to be wanting to.”

Of the many words translated “fail” in the Old Testament, kalah is the most frequent, meaning “to be consumed,” “ended” ( Job 11:20; 17:5; Psalm 69:3; 71:9, etc.; Proverbs 22:8; Isaiah 15:6, etc.; Jeremiah 14:6; Lamentations 2:11; 3:22; 4:17); it is the translation of karath , “to be cut off” ( 2 Samuel 3:29, of failure in succession; so 1 Kings 2:4, etc.); `adhar , “to marshal,” “to be missed” or “lacking” ( Isaiah 34:16 the King James Version; Isaiah 40:26 the King James Version; Isaiah 59:15 the King James Version; Zephaniah 3:5); of raphah , “to become faint” or “to make feeble” ( Deuteronomy 31:6,8; “I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee,” Joshua 1:5; 1 Chronicles 28:20); of ‘-abhadh , “to perish,” “be lost” ( <19E204> Psalm 142:4, “Refuge hath failed me”; Ezekiel 12:22, “Every vision faileth”). Many other Hebrew words are translated “fail,” “faileth,” for the most part in single instances.

In the New Testament, ekleipo , “to leave out” or “off,” is thrice rendered “fail” ( Luke 16:9 “when it shall fail”; 22:32, “that thy faith fail not”; Hebrews 1:12, “Thy years shall not fail”); ekpipto , “to fall off or away” ( 1 Corinthians 13:8, “Charity (the Revised Version (British and American) “love”) never faileth”); katargeo , “to make useless” ( Corinthians 13:8 the King James Version, “Whether prophecies, they shall fail”); hustereo , “to be behind,” “to lack” ( Hebrews 12:15 the King James Version); apopsucho , “to swoon away,” “failing” ( Luke 21:26 the King James Version).

The Revised Version (British and American) has “fail,” in a new translation of Jeremiah 18:14, for “fall” ( Lamentations 1:14, margin “stumble”); “his hand fail” for “fallen in decay” (Leviticus25:35); “I will in no wise fail thee” for “I will never leave thee” ( Hebrews 13:5; compare Deuteronomy 31:6; Joshua 1:5); “failed to enter” for “entered not” ( Hebrews 4:6); “faileth” (American Standard Revised Version) for “ceaseth” ( Psalm 49:8), the English Revised Version “must be let alone for ever”; “failing” for “was darkened” ( Luke 23:45); for “fail” (Ezr 4:22), “be slack,” “be missing” ( Isaiah 34:16); “falleth short of” ( Hebrews 12:15, maqrgin, “falleth bacf from”); for “failed,” “was all spent” ( Genesis 47:15); “wholly” ( Joshua 3:16); “fail (in looking)” ( Lamentations 4:17); for “faileth,” “is lacking” ( Isaiah 40:26; 59:15); for “men’s hearts failing them” ( Luke 21:26), “men fainting,” margin “expiring.” W. L. Walker FAIN <fan > (advb.): Occurs twice in English Versions of the Bible, in the sense of “gladly”: (1) in Job 27:22 as the rendering of [ jr”B; , barach ], “to flee with haste” (from anything), “He would fain flee out of his hand,” literally, as in in of the King James Version, “in fleeing he would flee”; (2) in Luke 15:16, as the translation of [ejpiqume>w, epithumeo ], “to fix the mind or desire on,” “He would fain have filled his belly with the husks which the swine did eat.” the Revised Version (British and American) adds two instances: (1) Luke 13:31, “Herod would fain kill thee”; (2) Acts 26:28, “Thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. See ALMOST.

FAINT <fant > ([ tye[; , `ayeph ], [ tW[ , `uph ], [ t[“y; , ya`aph ], [ tl”[; , `alaph ], [ tf”[; , aTaph ], [ yW;D” , dawway ], [ [“gey; , yaghea `], [ ss”m; , macac ], [ Ëk”r; , rakhakh ], [ rg”P; , paghar ], [ hh;K; , kahah ]; [ejklu>w, ekluo ], [ejkkake>w, ekkakeo ], [ka>mnw, kamno ]): The Hebrew vocabulary for the depressing physical conditions and mental emotions which are rendered in the King James Version by the English words “faint,” “fainthess,” and other compounds of that stem, is, as will be seen above, wide and varied in derivation. The 11 Hebrew and 3 Greek words and their derivatives are used in 62 passages in the King James Version to express these conditions. `Ayeph is used to express the exhaustion from fatigue and hunger in the case of Esau ( Genesis 25:29,30). This and its variants come from a root which primarily means “to cover or conceal,” therefore “to be dark or obscure,” and so, figuratively, “to be faint or depressed.” Israel’s helpless state when harassed by Amalek ( Deuteronomy 25:18) and the plight of Gideon’s weary force when they sought in vain for help at Succoth ( Judges 8:4) are described by the same word. Isaiah also uses it to picture the disappointed and unsatisfied appetite of the thirsty man awakening from his dream of refreshment ( Isaiah 29:8). In 2 Samuel 16:14, `ayephim is probably a proper name of a place (Revised Version, margin). `Uph in 1 Samuel 14:28-31 describes the exhaustion of Saul’s host in pursuit of the Philistines after the battle of Michmash. The same word expresses the failure of David’s strength when in conflict with the same foes, which led to his imminent peril and to the consequent refusal of the commander of his army to allow him to take part personally in the combat ( 2 Samuel 21:15). Ya`-aph is used by Ziba when he brought refreshments to David’s men on the flight from Absalom ( 2 Samuel 16:2); see also its use in Isaiah 40:28. Cognate verbal forms occur in Isaiah 40:30,31; Jeremiah 2:24; 51:58,64; Habakkuk 2:13, as also in Judges 8:15, meaning in all cases the faintness or exhaustion of fatigue or weariness. `Alpah expresses the faintness from thirst in Amos 8:13, or from the heat of the sun ( Jonah 4:8), and figuratively, the despondency which was the result of the captivity ( Isaiah 51:20). Ezekiel uses it allegorically as describing the withering of the trees for grief at the death of the Assyrian kings ( Ezekiel 31:15). `ATaph is the weariness of the wanderers in the desert ( <19A705> Psalm 107:5), the faintness from hunger ( Lamentations 2:19), or the despondency of Jonah dispelled by his remembrance of God’s mercies ( Jonah 2:7). Dawway , from a root which signifies the sickness produced by exhaustion from loss of blood, is used in Isaiah 1:5 for the faintness of heart, the result of remorse for sin, and in Jeremiah 8:18 for the prophet’s sorrow for the sins of Israel. A cognate form expresses his sorrow on account of the judgments of God which were incurred as punishments for the national backsliding ( Lamentations 1:13,12; 5:17). Macac , literally, “dissolving or melting,” is applied to the contagious fear which the example of a cowardly soldier produces among his comrades ( Deuteronomy 20:8, the Revised Version (British and American) “melt”). In the remarkable passage in Isaiah 10:18, in which God pronounces the doom of Assyria when his purposes of chastisement on Israel have been fulfilled, the collapse of Assyria is said to be “as when a standard-bearer fainteth.” For this the Revised Version, margin substitutes “as when a sick man pineth away,” which is probably the correct rendering.

The word macac may mean either a sick man, or else something glittering and seen from afar, such as a standard, but the former sense is more intelligible and suggestive in the context. The rarely used verbal form cognate to macac is used on account of its assonance. Yaghea` (yagha` ), which is usually translated “grieved” or “tormented” or “fatigued,” is rendered as “fainted” in Jeremiah 45:3. This passage, “I fainted in my sighing” the King James Version, is in Hebrew the same as that which reads, “I am weary with my groaning” in Psalm 6:6, and is similarly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American). Rakhakh , like macac , primarily signifies “to melt” or “to become soft,” and is used in prophetic exhortations in which the people are encouraged not to be panic-stricken in the presence of enemies ( Deuteronomy 20:3, and also Jeremiah 51:46; Isaiah 7:4). Another related word, morekh , in the sense of despair and utter loss of courage, is used in expressing the consequences of God’s wrath against Israel (Leviticus26:36). In its literal sense it signifies “blandness,” as of the words of a hypocritical enemy ( Psalm 55:21). Paghar is the prostration of utter fatigue whereby one is unable to raise himself or to proceed on a journey, as were some of David’s little band ( 1 Samuel 30:10-21). A cognate word describes the prostration of amazement and incredulity with which Jacob heard of Joseph’s condition in Egypt ( Genesis 45:26). Kahah , the pining of earnest, longing desire, is translated “fainteth” in Psalm 84:2; 119:81; elsewhere it is rendered by words expressing wasting or languishing. The panic in Canaan due to famine is expressed ( Genesis 47:13) by the word lahah , which implies a state of frenzy.

The only records of actual fainting are (1) Daniel, in Daniel 8:27, where the word used is the Niphal of the verb hayah , literally, “became,” meaning that he became weak; (2) swooning is mentioned in Additions to Esther 15:7-15.

In the New Testament “faint” is used in the sense of physical exhaustion ( Matthew 9:36 the King James Version; Matthew 15:32; Mark 8:3), where it is part of the verb ekluo , “to relax.” Otherwise it is used figuratively of discouragement of spirit. The same verb is used in Galatians 6:9; Hebrews 12:3,5; but in Luke 18:1; <470401> Corinthians 4:1-16; Ephesians 3:13 it is part of the verb ekkakeo (according to some authorities egkakeo , pronounced enkakeo , meaning “to be faint-hearted” or “to be culpably negligent”). In Revelation 2:3 it is [kopia>w, kopiao ], literally, “to be tired.” Alexander Macalister FAIR <far > : The word translated in the King James Version from 9 Hebrew and 4 Greek expressions has nowhere in the Bible the modern sense of “blond,” “fair-skinned.” The translation of Isaiah 54:11, “fair colors,” refers to the cosmetic use of [ ËWP, pukh ], stibium, antimony powder, with which black margins were painted around the eyelids, so as to make the eyes appear large and dark. The stones of rebuilt Jerusalem, beautifully laid in their black mortar, are compared with such eyes. We can distinguish the following varieties of meaning: (1) Beautiful, attractive, [ bwOf , Tobh ], [ hp;y; , yaphah ], [ hp,y; , yapheh ]; Aramaic [ ryPiv” , shappir ]; Septuagint [kalo>v, kalos ]; in the New Testament [ajstei~ov, asteios ]. This latter word is in both places where it is found used of Moses ( Acts 7:20; Hebrews 11:23, the Revised Version (British and American) “goodly”), and means literally, town bred (as opposed to boorish), polite, polished in manners, urbane, then nice, pretty. (2) Pure, free of defilement, the Revised Version (British and American) “clean,” [ rwOhf; , Tahor ] (Zec 3:5). (3) “Fair speech,” plausible, persuasive ([ jq”l, , leqah ], Proverbs 7:21; [eu]lalov, eulalos ], Sirach 6:5; compare [eujlogi>a, eulogia ], Romans 16:18). (4) Making a fine display ([eujproswpei~n, euprosopein ], Galatians 6:12, “to make a fair show”). (5) Good (of weather) ([ bh;z; , zahabh ], “golden,” “clear,” Job 37:2,2, the Revised Version (British and American) “golden splendor”); [eujdi>a, eudia ] ( Matthew 16:2). H. L. E. Luering FAIR HAVENS <far ha’-v’-nz > ([ Kaloi< Lime>nev, Kaloi Limenes ]): A roadstead on the South coast of Crete, about 5 miles East of Cape Matala, the most southerly point of the island. The harbor is formed by a bay, open to the East, and sheltered on the Southwest by two small islands. Here Paul waited for a considerable time ( Acts 27:9); but while it afforded good anchorage and a shelter from North and Northwest winds, “the haven was not commodious to winter in” ( Acts 27:8,12). See CRETE.

FAIRS <farz > : Found only 5 times in the King James Version ( Ezekiel 27:12,14,16,19,27), apparently incorrect translation of [ ˆwIbZ;[i , `izzabhon ], according to modern Hebraists (though Gesenius gives “fair” as one of its meanings). The Septuagint translates the Hebrew of the above five passages by two different words, [ajgora>, agora ], “market-place” ( Ezekiel 27:12,14,16,19), and [misqo>v, misthos ], “hire,” “pay” ( Ezekiel 27:27,33). The King James Version follows the Wyclif version in Ezekiel 27:12 and the Geneva version throughout, although it properly translates “wares” in 27:33. the Revised Version (British and American) gives “wares” (which see) throughout.

FAITH <fath > :

In the Old Testament (the King James Version) the word occurs only twice: Deuteronomy 32:20 ([ ˆWmae , ‘emun ]); Habakkuk 2:4 ([ hn;Wma,] , ‘emunah ]). In the latter the Revised Version (British and American) places in the margin the alternative rendering, “faithfulness.” In the New Testament it is of very frequent occurrence, always representing [pi>stiv, pistis ], with one exception in the King James Version (not the Revised Version (British and American)), Hebrews 10:23, where it represents [ejlpi>v, elpis], “hope.”

1. ETYMOLOGY:

The history of the English word is rather interesting than important; use and contexts, alike for it and its Hebrew and Greek parallels, are the surest guides to meaning. But we may note that it occurs in the form “feyth,” in Havelok the Dane (13th century); that it is akin to fides and this again to the Sanskrit root bhidh, “to unite,” “to bind.” It is worth while to recall this primeval suggestion of the spiritual work of faith, as that which, on man’s side, unites him to God for salvation.

2. MEANING: A DIVERGENCY:

Studying the word “faith” in the light of use and contexts, we find a bifurcation of significance in the Bible. We may distinguish the two senses as the passive and the active; on the one side, “fidelity,” “trustworthiness”; and “faith,” “trust,” on the other. In Galatians 5:22, e.g. context makes it clear that “fidelity” is in view, as a quality congruous with the associated graces. (the Revised Version (British and American) accordingly renders pistis there by “faithfulness.”) Again, Romans 3:3 the King James Version, “the faith of God,” by the nature of the case, means His fidelity to promise. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, “faith,” as rendering pistis, means “reliance,” “trust.” To illustrate would be to quote many scores of passages. It may be enough here to call attention to the recorded use of the word by our Lord. Of about twenty passages in the Gospels where pistis occurs as coming from His lips, only one ( Matthew 23:23) presents it in the apparent sense of “fidelity.” All the others conspicuously demand the sense of “reliance,” “trust.” The same is true of the apostolic writings. In them, with rarest exceptions, the words “reliance,” “trust,” precisely fit the context as alternatives to “faith.”

3. FAITH IN THE SENSE OF CREED:

Another line of meaning is traceable in a very few passages, where pistis, “faith,” appears in the sense of “creed,” the truth, or body of truth, which is trusted, or which justifies trust. The most important of such places is the paragraph Jas 2:14-26, where an apparent contradiction to some great Pauline dicta perplexes many readers. The riddle is solved by observing that the writer uses “faith” in the sense of creed, orthodox “belief.” This is clear from Jas 2:19, where the “faith.” in question is illustrated: “Thou believest that God is one.” This is the credal confession of the orthodox Jew (the [shema`]; see Deuteronomy 6:4), taken as a passport to salvation. Briefly, James presses the futility of creed without life, Paul the necessity of reliance in order to receive “life and peace.”

4. A LEADING PASSAGE EXPLAINED:

It is important to notice that Hebrews 11:1 is no exception to the rule that “faith” normally means “reliance,” “trust.” There “Faith is the substance (or possibly, in the light of recent inquiries into the type of Greek used by New Testament writers, “the guaranty”) of things hoped for, the evidence (or “convincing proof”) of things not seen.” This is sometimes interpreted as if faith, in the writer’s view, were, so to speak, a faculty of second sight, a mysterious intuition into the spiritual world. But the chapter amply shows that the faith illustrated, e.g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen. In short, the phrase here, “faith is the evidence,” etc., is parallel in form to our familiar saying, “Knowledge is power.”

5. REMARKS:

A few detached remarks may be added: (a) The history of the use of the Greek pistis is instructive. In the Septuagint it normally, if not always, bears the “passive” sense “fidelity,” “good faith,” while in classical Greek it not rarely bears the active sense, “trust.” In the koine, the type of Greek universally common at the Christian era, it seems to have adopted the active meaning as the ruling one only just in time, so to speak, to provide it for the utterance of Him whose supreme message was “reliance,” and who passed that message on to His apostles. Through their lips and pens “faith,” in that sense, became the supreme watchword of Christianity. See JUSTIFICATION; UNION WITH CHRIST.

6. CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other articles, we call the reader’s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being, in its true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of Another, it is precisely that which, on man’s side, adjusts him to the living and merciful presence and action of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all. Thus “faith” is our side of union with Christ. And thus it is our means of possessing all His benefits, pardon, justification, purification, life, peace, glory.

As a comment on our exposition of the ruling meaning of “faith” in Scripture, we may note that this precisely corresponds to its meaning in common life, where, for once that the word means anything else, it means “reliance” a hundred times. Such correspondence between religious terms (in Scripture) and the meaning of the same words in common life, will be found to be invariable. Handley Dunelm FAITHFUL; FAITHFULNESS <fath’-fool > , <fath’-fool-nes > :

Faithfulness is a quality or attribute applied in the Scripture to both God and man. This article is limited to the consideration of the Scripture teaching concerning the meaning of faithfulness in its application to God.

Faithfulness is one of the characteristics of God’s ethical nature. It denotes the firmness or constancy of God in His relations with men, especially with His people. It is, accordingly, one aspect of God’s truth and of His unchangeableness. God is true not only because He is really God in contrast to all that is not God, and because He realizes the idea of Godhead, but also because He is constant or faithful in keeping His promises, and therefore is worthy of trust (see TRUTH ). God, likewise, is unchangeable in His ethical nature. This unchangeableness the Scripture often connects with God’s goodness and mercy, and also with His constancy in reference to His covenant promises, and this is what the Old Testament means by the Faithfulness of God (see UNCHANGEABLENESS ).

1. FAITHFULFULNESS OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

In the Old Testament this attribute is ascribed to God in passages where the Hebrew words denoting faithfulness do not occur. It is implied in the covenant name Yahweh as unfolded in Exodus 3:13-15, which not only expresses God’s self-existence and unchangeableness, but, as the context indicates, puts God’s immutability in special relation to His gracious promises, thus denoting God’s unchangeable faithfulness which is emphasized in the Old Testament to awaken trust in God ( Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 36:5 (Hebrew 6); Isaiah 11:5; Hosea 12:6,9). (For fuller remarks on the name Yahweh in Exodus 3:13-15, see article UNCHANGEABLENESS .) It is, moreover, God’s faithfulness as well as His immutability which is implied in those passages where God is called a rock, as being the secure object of religious trust ( Deuteronomy 32:4,15; Psalm 18:2 (Hebrew 3); 42:9 (Hebrew 10); Isaiah 17:10, etc.). This same attribute is also implied where God reveals Himself to Moses and to Israel as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their fathers’ God ( Exodus 3:6,15,16). The truth concerning God here taught is not simply that He stood in a gracious relation to the Patriarchs, but that He is faithful to His gracious promise to their fathers, and that what He was to them He will continue to be to Moses and to Israel. This is the fundamental idea in the Old Testament concerning the faithfulness of God.

This can be seen also from the Hebrew words which are used to express this quality of God’s nature and activity. These words are ne’eman , the Niphal participle of the verb ‘aman used as an adjective — ”faithful” — and the nouns ‘emeth and ‘emunah — ”faithfulness.” The verbal stem ‘aman means “to be secure or firm.” In the Qal it denotes the firmness of that which supports something, being used in the participle of a nurse who carries a child ( Numbers 11:12; 2 Samuel 4:4; Isaiah 49:23). In the Niphal it denotes the firmness of that which is supported, for example, a child which is carried ( Isaiah 60:4); a well-founded house ( Samuel 2:35; 25:28); a wall which firmly holds a nail ( Isaiah 22:23,15); a kingdom firmly established ( 2 Samuel 7:16); persons secure in political station ( Isaiah 7:9); a heart which is faithful ( Nehemiah 9:8). Hence, in the Niphal the verb comes to have the meaning of being true in the sense of the agreement of words and assertions with reality; for example, of words and revelations ( Genesis 42:20; Hosea 5:9); and of persons ( Isaiah 8:2; Jeremiah 42:5). It has also the meaning of being faithful, being applied to men in Numbers 12:7; <19A106> Psalm 101:6; Nehemiah 13:13, etc. In this sense the term is applied to the covenantkeeping Yahweh to express the truth that He is firm or constant, that is, faithful in regard to His covenant promises, and will surely fulfill them ( Deuteronomy 7:9; Isaiah 49:7; and possibly Hosea 11:12 (Hebrew 12:1)).

A similar use is made of the nouns ‘emeth and ‘emunah . Apart from the instances where ‘emeth denotes the idea of truth or the correspondence of words and ideas with reality, and the instances where it denotes the agreement of acts and words with the inner disposition, that is, sincerity, it is also used to denote the idea of faithfulness as above defined. As regards the noun ‘emunah , apart from a few passages where it is doubtful whether it means truth or faithfulness, it usually denotes the latter idea. Both these nouns, then, are used to signify the idea of faithfulness, that is, constancy or firmness, especially in the fulfillment of all obligations. In this sense these words are not only applied to men, but also to God to express the idea that He is always faithful to His covenant promises. It is this attribute of God which the Psalmist declares ( Psalm 40:10 (Hebrew 11)), and the greatness of which he affirms by saying that God’s faithfulness reacheth to the clouds ( Psalm 36:5 (Hebrew 6)). It is this which he makes the object of praise ( Psalm 89:1,2 (Hebrew 2,3); Psalm 92:2 (Hebrew 3)); and which he says should be praised and reverenced by all men ( Psalm 89:5,8 (Hebrew 6,9)). And even this faithfulness is itself characterized by constancy, if we may so speak, for the Psalmist says that it endures to all generations ( <19A005> Psalm 100:5). Being thus a characteristic of God, it also characterizes His salvation, and becomes the basis of confidence that God will hear prayer ( <19E301> Psalm 143:1). It thus becomes the security of the religious man ( Psalm 91:4); and the source of God’s help to His people ( Psalm 31:5 (Hebrew 6)). Accordingly in the teaching of prophecy, the salvation of the covenant people rests upon no claim or merit of their own, but solely upon Yahweh’s mercy, grace and faithfulness. When Israel incurred God’s judgments, it might have appeared as if His promise was to fail, but, so far from this being true, as Yahweh, He is faithful to His word of promise which stands forever ( Isaiah 40:8). Even from eternity His counsels are characterized by faithfulness and truth ( Isaiah 25:1); and this is not because of Israel’s faithfulness, but it is for His own sake that Yahweh blotteth out their transgressions ( Isaiah 43:22-25; Micah 7:18-20). It is, moreover, this same characteristic of Yahweh which is asserted in many cases where the Hebrew words ‘emeth and ‘emunah are translated by the word “truth” in the King James Version. In Exodus 34:6 it is God’s faithfulness (‘emeth ) which is referred to, since it evidently signifies His constancy from generation to generation; and in Deuteronomy 32:4 it is also God’s faithfulness (‘emunah ) which is mentioned, since it is contrasted with the faithlessness of Israel. The same is true of ‘emeth in Micah 7:20; Psalm 31:5 (Hebrew 6)); 91:4; 146:6. This is also true of the numerous instances where God’s mercy and truth (‘emeth ) are combined, His mercy being the source of His gracious promises, and His truth the faithfulness with which He certainly fulfills them ( Psalm 25:10; 57:3 (Hebrew 4); 61:7 (Hebrew 8); 85:10 (Hebrew 11); 86:15). And since the covenantkeeping Yahweh is faithful, faithfulness comes also to be a characteristic of the New Covenant which is everlasting ( Psalm 89:28 (Hebrew 29)); compare also for a similar thought, Isaiah 54:8 ff; Jeremiah 31:35 ff; Hosea 2:19 f; Ezekiel 16:60 ff.

It is in this connection, moreover, that God’s faithfulness is closely related to His righteousness in the Old Testament. In the second half of the prophecy of Isaiah and in many of the psalms, righteousness is ascribed to God because He comes to help and save His people. Thus righteousness as a quality parallel with grace, mercy and faithfulness is ascribed to God ( Isaiah 41:10; 42:6; 45:13,19,21; 63:1). It appears in these places to widen out from its exclusively judicial or forensic association and to become a quality of God as Savior of His people. Accordingly this attribute of God is appealed to in the Psalms as the basis of hope for salvation and deliverance ( Psalm 31:1 (Hebrew 2); 35:24; 71:2; 143:11). Hence, this attribute is associated with God’s mercy and grace ( Psalm 36:5 (Hebrew 6); 36:9 (Hebrew 10); 89:14 (Hebrew 15)); also with His faithfulness (Zec 8:8; Psalm 36:6 (Hebrew 7)); Psalm 40:10 (Hebrew 11); 88:11,12 (Hebrew 12,13); 89:14 (Hebrew 15); 96:13; 119:137,142; 143:1). Accordingly the Old Testament conception of the righteousness of God has been practically identified with His covenant faithfulness, by such writers as Kautzsch, Riehm and Smend, Ritschl’s definition of it being very much the same. Moreover, Ritschl, following Diestel, denied that the idea of distributive and retributive justice is ascribed to God in the Old Testament. In regard to this latter point, it should be remarked in passing that this denial that the judicial or forensic idea of righteousness is ascribed to God in the Old Testament breaks down, not only in view of the fact that the Old Testament does ascribe this attribute to God in many ways, but also in view of the fact that in a number of passages the idea of retribution is specifically referred to the righteousness of God (see RIGHTEOUSNESS ; compare against Diestel and Ritschl, Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament).

That which concerns us, however, in regard to this close relation between righteousness and faithfulness is to observe that this should not be pressed to the extent of the identification of righteousness with covenant faithfulness in these passages in the Psalms and the second half of Isaiah The idea seems to be that Israel has sinned and has no claim upon Yahweh, finding her only hope of deliverance in His mercy and faithfulness. But this very fact that Yahweh is merciful and faithful becomes, as it were, Israel’s claim, or rather the ground of Israel’s hope of deliverance from her enemies. Hence, in the recognition of this claim of His people, God is said to be righteous in manifesting His mercy and faithfulness, so that His righteousness, no less than His mercy and faithfulness, becomes the ground of His people’s hope. Righteousness is thus closely related in these cases to faithfulness, but it is not identified with it, nor has it in all cases lost entirely its forensic tone. This seems to be, in general, the meaning of righteousness in the Psalms and the second half of Isaiah, with which may also be compared Micah 6:9; Zec 8:8.

The emphasis which this attribute of God has in the Old Testament is determined by the fact that throughout the whole of the Old Testament the covenant relation of Yahweh to His people is founded solely in God’s grace, and not on any merit of theirs. If this covenant relation had been based on any claim of Israel, faithfulness on God’s part might have been taken for granted. But since Yahweh’s covenant relation with Israel and His promises of salvation spring solely from, and depend wholly upon, the grace of God, that which gave firm assurance that the past experience of God’s grace would continue in the future was this immutable faithfulness of Yahweh. By it the experience of the fathers was given a religious value for Israel from generation to generation. And even as the faithfulness of God bridged over the past and the present, so also it constituted the connecting link between the present and the future, becoming thus the firm basis of Israel’s hope; compare Psalm 89 which sets forth the faithfulness of God in its greatness, its firmness as the basis of the covenant and the ground it affords of hope for future help from Yahweh, and for hope that His covenant shall endure forever. When God’s people departed from Him all the more emphasis was put upon His faithfulness, so that the only hope of His wayward people lay not only in His grace and mercy but also in His faithfulness, which stands in marked contrast with the faithlessness and inconstancy of His people. This is probably the meaning of the difficult verse Hosea 11:12 (Hebrew 12:1).

2. FAITHFULNESS OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

In the New Testament teaching concerning the faithfulness of God the same idea of faithfulness to His gracious promises is emphasized and held up as the object of a confident trust in God. This idea is usually expressed by the adjective pistos, and once by the noun pistis , which more frequently has the active sense of faith or trust.

An attempt has been made by Wendt (SK, 1883, 511 f; Teaching of Jesus, English translation, I, 259 f) to interpret the words aletheia and alethes in many instances, especially in the Johannine writings, as denoting faithfulness and rectitude, after the analogy of the Septuagint rendering eleos kai aletheia for the Hebrew phrase “mercy and truth,” in which truth is equivalent to faithfulness. But the most that could be inferred from the fact that the Septuagint uses the word aletheia to translate the Hebrew word ‘emeth , and in about one-half the cases where ‘emunah occurs, would be that those Greek words might have been prepared for such a use in the New Testament. But while it is true that there is one usage of these words in John’s writings in an ethical sense apparently based on the Old Testament use of ‘emeth and ‘emunah , the Greek words do not have this meaning when employed to denote a characteristic of God. Neither is the adjective alethinos so used. See TRUTH.

In the Epistles of Paul the word aletheia occurs quite frequently to denote the truth revealed by God to man through reason and conscience, and to denote the doctrinal content of the gospel. In two passages, however, the words alethes and aletheia seem to signify the faithfulness of God ( Romans 3:4,7; 15:8). In the former passage Paul is contrasting the faithfulness of God with the faithlessness of men, the word alethes , 3:4, and aletheia , 3:7, apparently denoting the same Divine characteristic as the word pistis , 3:3. In the latter passage ( Romans 15:8), the vindication of God’s covenant faithfulness, through the realization of His promises to the fathers, is declared to have been the purpose of the ministry of Jesus Christ to the Jews.

This faithfulness of God to His covenant promises is frequently emphasized by Paul, the words he employs being the noun pistis (once) and the adjective: pistos. The noun pistis is used once by Paul in this sense ( Romans 3:3 ff). In this place Paul is arguing that the unbelief of the Jews cannot make void God’s faithfulness. Both Jew and Gentile, the apostle had said, are on the same footing as regards justification.

Nevertheless the Jews had one great advantage in that they were the people to whom the revelation of God’s gracious promises had been committed. These promises will certainly be fulfilled, notwithstanding the fact that some of the Jews were unfaithful, because the fulfillment of these promises depends not on human conduct but on the faithfulness of God, which cannot be made void by human faithlessness and unbelief. And to the supposition that man’s faithlessness could make of none effect God’s faithfulness, Paul replies `let God be faithful (alethes) and every man a liar’ ( Romans 3:4), by which Paul means to say that in the fulfillment of God’s promises, in spite of the fact that men are faithless, the faithfulness of God will be abundantly vindicated, even though thereby every man should be proven untrue and faithless. And not only so, but human faithlessness will give an opportunity for a manifestation of the faithfulness (aletheia) of God, abounding to His glory ( Romans 3:7). God’s faithfulness here is His unchangeable constancy and fidelity to His covenant promises; and it is this fidelity to His promises, or the fact that God’s gracious gifts and election are without any change of mind on His part, which gave to Paul the assurance that all Israel should finally be saved ( Romans 11:25-29). Moreover this covenant faithfulness of God is grounded in His very nature, so that Paul’s hope of eternal life rests on the fact that God who cannot lie promised it before the world began ( Titus 1:2); and the certainty that God will abide faithful notwithstanding human faithlessness rests on the fact that God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13). It is because God is faithful that His promises in Christ are yea and amen ( 2 Corinthians 1:18,20). This attribute of God, moreover, is the basis of Paul’s confident assurance that God will preserve the Christian in temptation ( 1 Corinthians 10:13); and establish him and preserve him from evil ( 2 Thessalonians 3:3). And since God is faithful and His gracious promises trustworthy, this characteristic attaches to the “faithful sayings” in the Pastoral Epistles which sum up the gospel, making them worthy of trust and acceptance ( 1 Timothy 1:15; 4:9; Titus 3:8).

This faithfulness of God in the sense of fidelity to His promises is set forth as the object of sure trust and hope by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was the basis of Sarah’s faith that she would bear a child when she was past age ( Hebrews 11:11); and it is because God is faithful to His promise in Christ that we can draw nigh to Him with full assurance of faith, holding fast without wavering the profession of hope ( Hebrews 10:23).

John also ascribes this attribute to God. Since one of the most precious of God’s promises through Christ is the pardon of sin through the “blood of Jesus Christ,” John says that God’s faithfulness, as well as His righteousness, is manifested in the forgiveness of sin ( 1 John 1:9).

The faithfulness of God is viewed from a slightly different point by Peter when he tells his readers that those who suffer as Christians and in accordance with God’s will should “commit their soul’s in well-doing unto a faithful Creator” ( 1 Peter 4:19). The quality of faithfulness, which in the Scripture is more frequently ascribed to God in His relation to man as gracious Savior, and as the ground of hope in His gracious promises, is here applied by Peter to God in His relation to man as his Creator, and is made the ground of comfort under persecution and suffering. The omission of the article before the words “faithful Creator” makes emphatic that this is a characteristic of God as Creator, and the position of the words in the sentence throws great emphasis on this attribute of God as the basis of comfort under suffering. It is as if Peter would say to suffering Christians, “You suffer not by chance but in accordance with God’s will; He, the almighty Creator, made you, and since your suffering is in accordance with His will, you ought to trust yourselves to Him who as your Creator is faithful.” It is, of course, Christians who are to derive this comfort, but the faithfulness of God is extended here to cover all His relations to His people, and to pledge all His attributes in their behalf.

This attribute is also ascribed to Christ in the New Testament. Where Jesus is called a faithful high priest, the idea expressed is His fidelity to His obligations to God and to His saving work ( Hebrews 2:17; 3:2,6). But when in the Book of Revelation Jesus Christ is called the “faithful witness” or absolutely the “Faithful and True,” it is clear that the quality of faithfulness, in the most absolute sense in which it is characteristic of God in contrast with human changeableness, is ascribed to Christ ( Revelation 1:5; 3:14; 19:11). This is especially clear in the last-named passage. The heavens themselves open to disclose the glorified Christ, and He appears not only as a victorious warrior whose name is faithful and true, but also as the one in whom these attributes have their highest realization, and of whom they are so characteristic as to become the name of the exalted Lord. This clearly implies the Deity of Jesus.

In summing up the Scripture teaching concerning God’s faithfulness, three things are noteworthy. In the first place, this characteristic of God is usually connected with His gracious promises of salvation, and is one of those attributes which make God the firm and secure object of religious trust. As is the case with all the Scripture teaching concerning God, it is the religious value of His faithfulness which is made prominent. In the second place, the so-called moral attributes, of which this is one, are essential in order to constitute God the object of religion, along with the so-called incommunicable attributes such as Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Unchangeableness. Take away either class of attributes from God, and He ceases to be God, the object of religious veneration and trust. And in the third place, while these moral attributes, to which faithfulness belongs, have been called “communicable,” to distinguish them from the “incommunicable” attributes which distinguish God from all that is finite, it should never be forgotten that, according to the Scripture, God is faithful in such an absolute sense as to contrast Him with men who are faithful only in a relative sense, and who appear as changeable and faithless in comparison with the faithfulness of God. See RIGHTEOUSNESS; TRUTH; UNCHANGEABLENESS.

LITERATURE.

Besides the Commentaries on the appropriate passages, see Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English translation, 95, 112 f 505:

Dillmann, Handbuch der alttest. Theol., 268-76, 269-70; Schlatter, Der Glaube im New Testament, 21-22, 259-60. In the works on New Testament theology this subject is treated under the sections on the truthfulness of God.

On the relation of God’s truth and faithfulness, see Wendt, Der Gebrauch der Worter, [ajlh>qeia, ajlhqh>v und ajlhqino>v im New Testament, SK, 1883, 511 f; Stanton, article “Truth,” in HDB, IV, 816 f; and the abovementioned work of Schlatter. On the relation of the faithfulness to the righteousness of God, see Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit vorzuglich im Altes Testament,” Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1860, 173 f; Kautzsch, Ueber die Derivate des Stammes qdx , im Altes Testament Sprachgebrauch ; Riehm, Altes Testament Theol., 271 f; Smend, Alttest.

Religionsgeschichte, 363 f; Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation; Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im Altes Testament; and the abovementioned Old Testament Theologies of Dillmann and Oehler. Gaspar Wistar Hodge FAITHFUL SAYINGS <sa’-inz > ([pistogov, pistos he logos ]): “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation” (the King James Version). These words form a striking formula which is found — with slight variations — only in the Pastoral Epistles, in 1 Timothy 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8. A similar expression occurs in Revelation (21:5 and 22:6 the King James Version), “These sayings are faithful and true.”

THE FIVE “SAYINGS.”

Paul’s faithful sayings are thus five in number, and “were no doubt rehearsed constantly in the assemblies, till they became well-known watchwords in the various churches scattered over the Mediterraneanwashed provinces of the Roman empire” (Ellicott, New Testament Commentary on 1 Timothy 1:15).

1. THE FIRST “SAYING”:

The first of the faithful sayings speaks of the pre-existence of Christ, of His coming into the world, and the purpose why He came is distinctly stated — to save the lost, irrespective of race or nationality, sinners who, apart from Christ, are without God and without hope.

2. THE SECOND “SAYING”:

The second of the faithful sayings refers to the work of being a minister of the gospel, a work then so full of danger and always full of difficulty. The office in question is honorable and Christlike, and, in those early days, it meant stern and ceaseless work, grave and constant danger. This faithful saying would act as a call to young men to offer themselves for the work of proclaiming the gospel to the world, and of witnessing for Christ.

3. THE THIRD “SAYING”:

The third saying is that godliness has an influence that is world-wide; it consists, not merely in holiness and in that fellowship and communion with God which is the very life of the soul; it is also an active force which springs from “the love of Christ constraining us,” and manifests itself in love toward all our fellow-men, for they are God’s creatures. Godliness transfigures every rank and condition of life. It has the promise of the life that now is: to those who seek the kingdom of God first, all other things will be added. And it has the promise of the life that is to come, the rich prospect of eternal blessedness with Christ. Compare with this saying the remarkable words in Titus 1:2, “in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal.” Godliness gives all gladness here, and future glory too. This is a faithful saying.

4. THE FOURTH “SAYING”:

The fourth of the faithful sayings speaks of the Christian believer’s union with Christ, and of the blessedness of that union. The Christian is “dead with Christ,” he “suffers with Christ.” But the union with Christ is eternal, “We shall also live with him; .... we shall also reign with him” in life that is fadeless, endless and full of glory. Surely then, no one will draw back, for “if we deny him,” “if we believe not,” “he also will deny us,” for “he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself.”

5. THE FIFTH “SAYING”:

The fifth and last of the faithful sayings speaks of our former unconverted state, “for we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures. But .... the kindness and love of God .... toward man appeared, not by works which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us.” Blessedness is now the Christian’s lot, and this is the result not of our works: we owe it all to the tender love of God, to His Divine pity, to His redeeming grace. Yes, this is a faithful saying. John Rutherfurd FAITHLESS <fath’-les > : The translation of [a]pistov, apistos ], “without faith,” having the sense of “unbelieving,” “disbelieving.” Jesus upbraids the people, “O faithless and perverse generation!” ( Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41); He says to Thomas, “Be not faithless, but believing” ( John 20:27); the Revised Version (British and American) adds, “If we are faithless,” instead of “believe not” ( 2 Timothy 2:13); compare Corinthians 7:12-15; 10:27; 14:22,24, etc.; Titus 1:15. In Luke 12:46 apistos has the sense of “unfaithful,” so the Revised Version (British and American); perhaps also Revelation 21:8, “unbelieving.”

FALCON <fo’-k’-n > , <fol’-k’-n > , <fal’-kun > : The Hebrews did not know the word.

Their bird corresponding to our falcon, in all probability, was one of the smaller kestrels covered by the word nets , which seemed to cover all lesser birds of prey that we include in the hawk family. That some of our many divisions of species were known to them is indicated by the phrase “after its kind.” The word occurs in the Revised Version (British and American) in Job 28:7, to translation ‘ayyah , Greek [gu>y, gups ] (compare Leviticus11:14; Deuteronomy 14:13): “That path no bird of prey knoweth, Neither hath the falcon’s eye seen it.” This substitutes “falcon” for “vulture” in the King James Version. The change weakens the force of the lines. All ornithologists know that eagles, vultures and the large hawks have such range of vision that they at once descend from heights at which we cannot see them to take prey on earth or food placed to tempt them. The falcons and sparrow hawks are small members of the family, some of which feed on little birds, some on insects.

They are not celebrated for greater range of vision than other birds of the same location and feeding habits. The strength of these lines lay in the fact that if the path to the mine were so well concealed that the piercing eye of the vulture failed to find it, then it was perfectly hidden indeed. Gene Stratton-Porter FALL <fol > (vb.): The idea of falling is most frequently expressed in Hebrew by [ lp”n; , naphal ], but also by many other words; in Greek by [pi>ptw, pipto ], and its compounds. The uses of the word in Scripture are very varied. There is the literal falling by descent; the falling of the countenance in sorrow, shame, anger, etc. ( Genesis 4:5,6); the falling in battle ( Genesis 14:10; Numbers 14:3, etc.); the falling into trouble, etc. ( Proverbs 24:16,17); prostration in supplication and reverence ( Genesis 17:3; Numbers 14:5, etc.); falling of the Spirit of Yahweh ( Ezekiel 11:5; compare 3:24; 8:1); of apostasy ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Hebrews 6:6; Jude 1:24), etc. the Revised Version (British and American) frequently changes “fall” of the King James Version into other words or phrases, as “stumble” (Leviticus26:37; Psalm 64:8; 2 Peter 1:10, etc.), “fade” ( Isaiah 33:4), etc.; in Acts 27, the Revised Version (British and American) reads “be cast ashore on rocky ground” for “have fallen upon rocks” ( Acts 27:29), “perish” for “fall” ( Acts 27:34), “lighting upon” for “falling into” ( Acts 27:41). W. L. Walker FALL, THE <fol > :

The question concerning the origin, the age and the written record of the history of the Fall in Genesis 3 need not be discussed here. For in the first place, science can never reach to the oldest origins and the ultimate destinies of humanity, and historical and critical inquiry will never be able to prove either the veracity or the unveracity of this history. And in the second place, exactly as it now lies before us, this history has already formed for centuries a portion of holy Scripture, an indispensable element in the organism of the revelation of salvation, and as such has been accepted in faith by the Hebrew congregation (Jewish people), by Christ, by the apostles, and by the whole Christian church. 1. Meaning of Genesis 3: That Genesis 3 gives us an account of the fall of man, of the loss of his primitive innocence and of the misery, particularly death, to which he has since been subjected, cannot reasonably be denied. The opinion of the Ophites, Kant, Schiller, Hegel, etc., that Genesis 3 relates the awakening of man to self-consciousness and personality (see ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE APOCRYPHA ), and therefore does not tell us of a fall, but a marked progression, is disputed by the name which the forbidden tree bears, as indicating to man not merely a tree of knowledge in the ordinary way, but quite specially a tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3 is not in the least meant to relate to us how man obtained the idea of his nakedness and sexual passions, and from a state of childlike innocence changed in this respect to manlike maturity (Eerdman’s De Beteekenis van het Paradijsverhaal, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1905, 485- 511). For according to Genesis, man was created full-grown, received a wife immediately as helpmeet, and at the same time saw himself allotted the task of multiplying and replenishing the earth. Moreover, the idea that sexual desire is something sinful and deserves punishment was entirely foreign to ancient Israel.

Finally, the interpretation of Wellhausen (Geschichte Israels, 1878, 344) cannot be accepted, that man in Genesis 3 should obtain “die intellektuelle Welterkenntniss, die metaphysische Erkenntniss der Dinge in ihrem Zusammenhange, ihrem Werth oder Unwerth, ihrem Nutzen oder Schaden” (“the intellectual knowledge of the world, the metaphysical knowledge of things in their connection, their worth or unworth, their utility or hurtfulness”). For in the first place, according to Genesis, this was man’s peculiar province from the beginning; he received indeed the vocation to subdue the earth, to keep and till the ground, to give the animals their names. And in the second place, the acquiring of this knowledge among the Israelites, who esteemed practical wisdom so highly, is difficult to represent as a fall, or as a punishment deserved for disobedience.

There is no other explanation possible of Genesis 3 than that it is the narration of a fall, which consists in the transgression of an explicit command of God, thus bearing a moral significance, and therefore followed by repentance, shame, fear and punishment. The context of the chapter places this interpretation beyond all doubt, for before his fall man is represented as a creature made after God’s image and receiving paradise as a dwelling-place, and after the fall he is sent into a rough world, is condemned to a life of labor and sorrow, and increases more and more in sin until the judgment of the Flood. 2. Genesis 3 in the Old and the New Testaments: It is indeed remarkable how very seldom the Old Testament refers to this history of the Fall. This is not a sufficient reason for pronouncing it of later origin, for the same peculiarity presents itself at the time when, according to all criticism, it was recorded in literature. Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs never quote it; at the most, allusions may be found to it in Hosea 6:7 and Ecclesiastes 7:29; and even Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament very seldom appeal to Genesis 3 ( John 8:44; Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14).

But it may be considered that the Prophets, Psalms and Proverbs only mention special facts of the past by way of exception, that the apostles even hardly ever quote the words and deeds of Jesus, and that all lived at a time when revelation itself was still proceeding and did not lie before them as a complete whole. With us it is quite a different matter; we are in a certain sense outside revelation, make it a subject of our study and meditation, try to discover the unity which holds all its parts together, and devote our special interest to Adam as a figure and counterpart of Christ.

The creation and fall of man occupy therefore a much broader place in the province of our thoughts than they did among the writers of the books of the Old and New Testaments.

Nevertheless, the Fall is the silent hypothesis of the whole Biblical doctrine of sin and redemption; it does not rest only on a few vague passages, but forms an indispensable element in the revelation of salvation. The whole contemplation of man and humanity, of Nature and history, of ethical and physical evil, of redemption and the way in which to obtain it, is connected in Scripture with a Fall, such as Genesis 3 relates to us. Sin, for example, is common to all men ( 1 Kings 8:46; Psalm 14:3; 130:3; 143:2), and to every man from his conception ( Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; Psalm 51:7). It arouses God’s anger and deserves all kinds of punishment, not only of an ethical but of a physical nature ( Genesis 3:14-19; 4:14; 6:7,13; 11:8; Leviticus26:14 f; Deuteronomy 28:15; Psalm 90:7, etc.); the whole of Scripture proceeds from the thought that sin and death are connected in the closest degree, as are also obedience and life. In the new heaven and new earth all suffering ceases with sin ( Revelation 21:4). Therefore redemption is possible only in the way of forgiveness ( Psalm 32:1; Isaiah 43:25, etc.), and circumcision of the heart ( Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:16; Jeremiah 4:4), and this includes, further, life, joy, peace, salvation. When Paul in Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22 indicates Adam as the origin of sin and death, and Christ as the source of righteousness and life, he develops no ideas which are contrary to the organism of revelation or which might be neglected without loss; he merely combines and formulates the data which are explicitly or silently contained in it. 3. The Fall and the Theory of Evolution: Tradition does little toward the confirmation and elucidation of the Biblical narrative of the Fall. The study of mythology is still too little advanced to determine the ideal or historical value which may be contained in the legend of a Golden Age, in many people’s obsequious honoring of the serpent, in the equally widespread belief in a tree of life. The Babylonian representation also (a seal on which a man and woman, seated, are figured as plucking fruit from a tree, while a serpent curls up behind the woman as if whispering in her ear), which G. Smith, Lenormant and Friedrich Delitzsch compare with the Paradise narrative, shows no similarity on nearer view (A. Jeremias, Das Altes Testament im Lichte des alten Orients2, Leipzig, 1906, 203). Indirectly, however, a very powerful witness for the fall of man is furnished by the whole empirical condition of the world and humanity. For a world, such as we know it, full of unrighteousness and sorrow, cannot be explained without the acceptance of such a fact. He who holds fast to the witness of Scripture and conscience to sin as sin (as [ajnomi>a, anomia ]) cannot deduce it from creation, but must accept the conclusion that it began with a transgression of God’s command and thus with a deed of the will. Pythagoras, Plato, Kant, Schelling, Baader have all understood and acknowledged this with more or less clearness. He who denies the Fall must explain sin as a necessity which has its origin in the Creation, in the nature of things, and therefore in God Himself; he justifies man but accuses God, misrepresents the character of sin and makes it everlasting and indefeasible. For if there has not been a fall into sin, there is no redemption of sin possible; sin then loses its merely ethical signif