RAAMA <ra’-a-ma > ([ am;[]r” , ra`ma’ ]): Thus spelled only in 1 Chronicles 1:9; elsewhere “Raamah” ([ hm;[]r” , ra`mah ]). A son of Cush and father of Sheba and Dedan ( Genesis 10:7 = 1 Chronicles 1:9). In Ezekiel’s lament over Tyre ( Ezekiel 27:22) the tribe of Raamah is mentioned along with Sheba as a mercantile people who provided the inhabitants of Tyre with spices, precious stones and gold. It has generally been identified with Regina, mentioned by Ptolemy and Steph. Byzantr. as a city in Southeastern Arabia on the shores of the Persian Gulf. The Septuagint ([ JRegma>, Rhegma ]) itself supposes this site. But the Arabic name of the city here indicated is spelled with a “g” and so gives rise to a phonological difficulty. A more probable identification has been found in the Sabean ra`mah in Southwestern Arabia near Me`in in the north of Marib. Me`in was the capital of the old Minaean kingdom. A. S. Fulton RAAMIAH <ra-a-mi’-a > ([ hy;m][“r” , ra`amyah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Naamia>, Naamia ]; Codex Alexandrinus, [ JReelma>, Rheelma ): One of the leading men who returned with Zerubbabel from captivity ( Nehemiah 7:7). In the corresponding passage in Ezra 2:2, where the same list is named, a slight variation in form is given. “Reelaiah” is the name found in this passage. Doubtless, one is a corruption of the other. Both have the same root meaning.

RAAMSES; RAMESES <ra-am’-sez > , <ram’-e-sez > ( Exodus 1:11), ( Genesis 47:11; Exodus 12:37; Numbers 33:3,5) ([ ssem][]r” , ra`mecec ], [ ssem][“r” , ra`amcec ]; [ JRamessh~, Rhamesse ]; Egyptian Ra-messu, “Ra created him” (or “it”)): 1. THE MEANING OF “STORE-CITIES”:

One of the two “settlements” (mickenoth) built, or “built up,” by the Hebrews for the Pharaoh, the other being Pithom, to which the Septuagint adds a third, namely, “On which is Heliopolis,” a town near Cairo ( Exodus 1:11). The Hebrew term mickenoth comes from a root meaning “to settle down” (Arabic sakan, “settlement,” Assyrian sakanu or shakanu, “to set”), but it is rendered “strong cities” in Septuagint, “treasure cities” in the King James Version, and (incorrectly) “store-cities” in the Revised Version: The “land of Rameses,” where Jacob and his sons settled, was apparently the “field of Zoan” (see ZOAN), thus lying in the Delta East of the Bubastic branch of the Nile. 2. THE MEANING OF THE NAME:

It is often assumed that no city called Rameses would have existed before the time of Rameses II, or the 14th century BC, though even before Rameses I the name occurs as that of a brother of Horemhib under the XVIIIth Dynasty. The usual translation “Child of Ra” is grammatically incorrect in Egyptian and as Ra was an ancient name for the “sun” it seems possible that a town may have borne the title “Ra created it” very early.

The mention of Rameses in Genesis (47:11) is often regarded as an anachronism, since no scholar has supposed that Jacob lived as late as the time of Rameses II. This would equally apply to the other notices, and at most would serve to mark the age of the passages in the Pentateuch where Rameses is mentioned, but even this cannot be thought to be proved (see EXODUS ). According to Deuteronomy Rouge (see Pierret, Vocab.

Hieroglyph., 1875, 143) there were at least three towns in Lower Egypt that bore the name Pa Rames-ses (“city of Rameses”); but Brugsch supposes that the place mentioned in the Old Testament was Zoan, to which Rameses II gave this name when making it his capital in the Delta.

Dr. Budge takes the same view, while Dr. Naville and others suppose that the site of Raamses has still to be found. 3. SITUATION:

There appears to have been no certain tradition preserving the site, for though Silvia (about 385 AD) was told that it lay 4 miles from the town of Arabia (see GOSHEN ), she found no traces of such a place. Brugsch (“A New City of Rameses, 1876,” Aegyptische Zeitschrift, 69) places one such city in the southern part of Memphis itself. Goodwin (Rec. of Past, Old Series, VI, 11) gives an Egyptian letter describing the “city of Rameses- Miamun,” which appears to be Zoan, since it was on the seacoast. It was a very prosperous city when this letter was written, and a pa-khennu or “palace city.” It had canals full of fish, lakes swarming with birds, fields of lentils, melons, wheat, onions and sesame, gardens of vines, almonds and figs. Ships entered its harbor; the lotus and papyrus grew in its waters. The inhabitants greeted Rameses II with garlands of flowers. Besides wine and mead, of the “conqueror’s city,” beer was brought to the harbor from the Kati (in Cilicia), and oil from the “Lake Sagabi.” There is no reason to suppose that Zoan was less prosperous in the early Hyksos age, when the Hebrews dwelt in its plain, whatever be the conclusion as to the date when the city Rameses received that name. The description above given agrees with the Old Testament account of the possession given by Joseph to his family “in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses” ( Genesis 47:11). C. R. Conder RABBAH <rab’-a > : (1) ([ hB;r” , rabbah ]; [ JRabba>, Rhabba ], [ JRabba>q, Rhabbath ], [ JRabba>n, Rhabban ]. The full name is [ yneB] tB”r” ˆwOM[“ , rabbath bene `ammon ]; [hJ a]kra tw~n uiJw~n jAmmw>n, he akra ton huion Ammon ], [ JRabba>q uiJw~n jAmmw>n, Rhabbath huion Ammon ], “Rabbah of the children of Ammon”): This alone of the cities of the Ammonites is mentioned in Scripture, so we may take it as the most important. It is first named in connection with the “bed” or sarcophagus of Og, king of Bashan, which was said to be found here ( Deuteronomy 3:11). It lay East of the territory assigned to Gad ( Joshua 13:25). Whatever may have been its history in the interval, it does not appear again in Scripture till the time of David. This monarch sent an embassy of sympathy to King Hanun when his father Nahash died. The kindness was met by wanton insult, which led to the outbreak of war. The Ammonites, strengthened by Aramean allies, were defeated by the Israelites under Joab, and took refuge in Rabbah. After David’s defeat of the Arameans at Helam a year later, the Ammonites were exposed alone to the full-force of Israel, the ark of the covenant being carried with the troops. The country was ravaged and siege was laid to Rabbah. It was during this siege that Uriah the Hittite by David’s orders was exposed “in the forefront of the hottest battle” ( Samuel 11:15), where, treacherously deserted by his comrades, he was slain. How long the siege lasted we do not know; probably some years; but the end was in sight when Joab captured “the city of waters” ( Samuel 12:27). This may mean that he had secured control of the water supply. In the preceding verse he calls it the “royal city.” By the chivalry of his general, David was enabled in person to enjoy the honor of taking the city. Among the booty secured was the crown of Melcom, the god of the Ammonites. Such of the inhabitants as survived he treated with great severity ( 2 Samuel 12:26-31; 1 Chronicles 20:1 ff).

In the utterances of the prophets against Ammon, Rabbah stands for the people, as their most important, or perhaps their only important, city ( Jeremiah 49:2,3; Ezekiel 21:20; 25:5; Amos 1:14). Jeremiah 49:4 speaks of the “flowing valley” — a reference perhaps to the abundance of water and fruitfulness — and the treasures in which she gloried. Ezekiel 21:21 represents the king of Babylon at “the head of the two ways” deciding by means of the divining arrows whether he should march against Jerusalem or against Rabbah. Amos seems to have been impressed with the palaces of Rabbah.

The city retained its importance in later times. It was captured by Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC), who called it Philadelphia. It was a member of the league of ten cities. Antiochus the Great captured it by means of treachery (Polyb. v.71). Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 3) names it as lying East of Peraea. In the 4th century AD, it ranked with Bostra and Gerasa as one of the great fortified cities of Coele-Syria (Ritter, Erdkunde, XV, ii, 1154 f).

It became the seat of a bishop. Abulfeda (1321 AD) says that Rabbah was in ruins at the time of the Moslem conquest.

Rabbah is represented by the modern `Amman, a ruined site with extensive remains, chiefly from Roman times, some 14 miles Northeast of Heshbon, and about 22 miles East of the Jordan. It lies on the northern bank of Wady `Amman, a tributary of the upper Jabbok, in a well-watered and fruitful valley. Possibly the stream which rises here may be “the waters” referred to in 2 Samuel 12:27. Ancient Rabbah may have stood on the hill now occupied by the citadel, a position easy of defense because of its precipitous sides. The outer walls of the citadel appear to be very old; but it is quite impossible to say that anything Ammonite is now above ground.

The citadel is connected by means of an underground passage with a large cistern or tank to the North, whence probably it drew its watersupply. This may be the passage mentioned in the account of the capture of the city by Antiochus. “It is,” says Conder (Heth and Moab, 158), “one of the finest Roman towns in Syria, with baths, a theater, and an odeum, as well as several large private masonry tombs built in the valley probably in the 2nd century. The fortress on the hill, now surrounding a considerable temple, is also probably of this same date. The church with two chapels farther North, and perhaps some of the tombs, must belong to a later age, perhaps the 4th century. The fine mosque and the fine Moslem building on the citadel hill cannot be earlier than the 7th, and are perhaps as late as the 11th century; and we have thus relics of every building epoch except the Crusading, of which there appears to be no indication.”

The place is now occupied by Arabs and Circassians who profit by the riches of the soil. It is brought into contact with the outside world by means of the Damascus-Hejaz Railway, which has a station here. (2) ([ hB;r”h; , ha-rabbah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Swqhba~, Sotheba ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jArebba>, Arebba ]): An unidentified city of Judah named along with Kiriath-jearim ( Joshua 15:60). W. Ewing RABBI <rab’-i > , <rab’-i > ([ yBir” , rabbi ]; [rJabbi>, rhabbi ], or [rJabbei>, rhabbei ]): A term used by the Jews of their religious teachers as a title of respect, from [ br” , rabh ], “great,” so “my great one” (compare Latin magister), once of masters of slaves, but later of teachers ( Matthew 23:7); therefore translated by [dida>skalov, didaskalos ], “teacher” ( Matthew 23:8; John 1:38; compare 1:49). In the King James Version frequently rendered “Master” ( Matthew 26:25,49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 4:31; 9:2; 11:8). John the Baptist ( John 3:26), as well as Christ, is addressed with the title ( John 1:49; 6:25), both by disciples and others. Jesus forbade its use among His followers ( Matthew 23:8). Later (Galilean) form of same, RABBONI (which see). See TALMUD for Rabbinical literature. Edward Bagby Pollard RABBITH <rab’-ith > ([ tyBir”h; , ha-rabbith ]; Codex Vaticanus [ Dabeirw>n, Dabeiron ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRabbw>q, Rhabboth ]): A town in the territory of Issachar ( Joshua 19:20) which is probably represented today by Raba, a village in the southern part of the Gilboa range and North of Ibzaq . The “ha” is, of course, the definite article.

RABBLE <rab’-l > : This word is not found in the King James Version. the Revised Version (British and American) has it once as the translation of [ajgorai~ov, agoraios ] (literally, “lounger in the market place”), in Acts 17:5, where it replaces “baser sort” of the King James Version. It has the common meaning of an unruly, lawless set who are ready to join a mob.

RABBONI <rab-o’-ni > , <rab-o’-ni > ([rJabboni>, rhabboni ], “my great master” ( Mark 10:51); [rJabbouni>, rhabbouni ] (Westcott-Hort rhabbounei , ( John 20:16)). See RABBI.

RAB-MAG <rab’-mag > ([ gm;Abr” , rabh-magh ];. Septuagint has it as a proper noun, [ JRabama>q, Rhabamath ]): The name of one of the Babylonian princes who were present at the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah ( Jeremiah 39:3,13). The word is a compound, the two parts seemingly being in apposition and signifying tautologically the same thing. The last syllable or section of the word, magh, was the designation among the Medes, Persians and Babylonians for priests and wise men. Its original significance was “great” or “powerful”; Greek [me>gav, megas ], Latin magis, magnus. The first syllable, rabh, expresses practically the same idea, that of greatness, or abundance in size, quantity, or power. Thus it might be interpreted the “allwise” or “all-powerful” prince, the chief magician or physician. It is, therefore, a title and not a name, and is accordingly put in appositive relations to the proper name just preceding, as “Nergal-sharezer, the Rabmag,” translated fully, “Nergal-sharezer the chief prince or magician.” See NERGAL-SHAREZER.

In harmony with the commonly accepted view, the proper rendering of the text should be, “All the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, to wit, Nergal-sharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, (the) Rab-saris, Nergal-sharezer, (the) Rab-mag” ( Jeremiah 39:3); and “so Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard sent, and Nebushazban, (the) Rabsaris, and Nergal-sharezer, (the) Rab-mag, and all the chief officers of the king of Babylon” ( Jeremiah 39:13). Walter G. Clippinger RAB-SARIS <rab’-sa-ris > ([ syris;Abr” , rabh-caric ]): As with Rab-mag, which is not regarded as a name, but a title, so this is to be regarded as a descriptive title for the person whose name precedes it (see RAB-MAG ). The first part, rabh , signifies “great” or “chief,” the second, caric , is the title for eunuch or chamberlain. The translation then would be chief eunuch or the chief of the eunuchs (or chamberlains).

The oriental custom was for the king to surround himself with a number of eunuchs, who performed varied kinds of services, both menial and dignified. They usually had charge of his harem; sometimes they occupied court positions. Frequently they superintended the education of the youth.

The term itself was sometimes used to designate persons in places of trust who were not emasculated. The above title describes the highest or chief in rank of these eunuchs. See EUNUCH.

The full title is used 3 times, once in connection with the titles of other important officers who were sent by the king of Assyria with a large army to demand the surrender of Jerusalem. The passage would be translated properly, `And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan and the Rab-saris (the chief eunuch) and the Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah’ ( Kings 18:17). Again, it refers to a Babylonian whose real name was Sarsechim, who with the other Babylonian princes sat in the middle gate during the capture of Jerusalem. This event is described as having occurred in the 11th year of Zedekiah, king of Judah ( Jeremiah 39:3). The third use is in connection with the name Nebushazban, who, with the other chief officers of the king of Babylon, sent and took Jeremiah out of the court of the guard and committed him to Gedaliah, who was to take him home to dwell with his own people ( Jeremiah 39:13).

Thus, it is seen that based upon this accepted theory the three titles would be in their connections as follows: (1) simply “the chief eunuch,” (2) Sarsechim, the Rab-saris (or chief eunuch), and (3) Nebushazban, the Rab-saris (or chief eunuch). See also ASSYRIA, X.

Walter G. Clippinger RABSHAKEH <rab’-sha-ke > , <rab-sha’-ke > ([ hqev;b]r” , rabhshaqeh ]): A compound word, the first part, [rabh], indicating “head” or “chief” (see RAB-MAG; RAB-SARIS ). The second part, which in the Aramaic, probably meant “cupbearer,” had in this connection and elsewhere, according to later discoveries, an extended significance, and meant chief officer, i.e. chief of the heads or captains.

Rabshakeh was one of the officers sent by Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, with the Tartan and the Rabsaris to demand the surrender of Jerusalem, which was under siege by the Assyrian army ( 2 Kings 18:17,19,26,27,28,37; 19:4,8; Isaiah 36:2,4,11,12,13,22; 37:4,8). The three officers named went from Lachish to Jerusalem and appeared by the conduit of the upper pool. Having called upon King Hezekiah, his representatives Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, Shebnah, the scribe, and Joah, the recorder, appeared. Rabshakeh sent through them a message to the king in which he represented himself as the spokesman for the king of Assyria. He derided King Hezekiah in an insolent fashion in representing his trust in Egypt as a bruised reed which would pierce the hand. Likewise his confidence in Yahweh was vain, for He also would be unable to deliver them. Then the officers of the king replied, requesting him to speak in the Syrian language-which they understood, and not in the Jews’ language which the people on the wall understood. This he refused to do, speaking still more loudly in order that they might hear and be persuaded. By bribery and appeal, by promise and by deception he exhorted them to turn traitor to Hezekiah and surrender to him. The people, however, true to the command of Hezekiah ( 2 Kings 18:36), “held their peace, and answered him not a word.” Afterward Rabshakeh returned and “found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah”. ( 2 Kings 19:8). From this description it is inferred that Rabshakeh was a man of considerable literary attainment, being able, in all probability, to speak in three languages. He had, in addition to his official power, dauntless courage, an insolent spirit and a characteristic oriental disregard for veracity. Walter G. Clippinger RACA <ra’-ka, <ra-ka’ > ([rJaka>, rhaka ], Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek with Codices Sinaiticus (corrected), Vaticanus, Codex E, etc.; [rJaca>, rhacha ], Tischendorf with Codices Sinaiticus (original hand) and Bezae; Aramaic [ aq;yre , reqa’ ], from [ qyre , req ], “empty”):

Vain or worthless fellow; a term of contempt used by the Jews in the time of Christ. In the Bible, it occurs in Matthew 5:22 only, but John Lightfoot gives a number of instances of the use of the word by Jewish writers (Hot. Hebrew., edition by Gandell, Oxford, 1859, II, 108).

Chrysostom (who was acquainted with Syriac as spoken in the neighborhood of Antioch) says it was equivalent to the Greek [su>, su ], “thou,” used contemptuously instead of a man’s name. Jerome rendered it inanis aut vacuus absque cerebro. It is generally explained as expressing contempt for a man’s intellectual capacity (= “you simpleton!”), while [mwre>, more ] (translated “thou fool”), in the same verse is taken to refer to a man’s moral and religious character (= “you rascal!” “you impious fellow!”). Thus we have three stages of anger, with three corresponding grades of punishment: (1) the inner feeling of anger ([ojrgizo>menov, orgizomenos ]), to be punished by the local or provincial court ([th~| kri>sei, te krisei ], “the judgment”); (2) anger breaking forth into an expression of scorn (Raca), to be punished by the Sanhedrin ([tw~| sunedri>w|, to sunedrio ], “the council”); (3) anger culminating in abusive and defamatory language (More ), to be punished by the fire of Gehenna. This view, of a double climax, which has been held by foremost English and Gor. commentators, seems to give the passage symmetry and gradation. But it is rejected among others by T. K. Cheyne, who, following J. P. Peters, rearranges the text by transferring the clause “and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council” to the end of the preceding verse (Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV, cols. 4001 f). There certainly does not seem to be trustworthy external evidence to prove that the terms “the judgment,” “the council,” “the Gehenna of fire” stand to each other in a relation of gradation, as lower and higher legal courts, or would be so understood by Christ’s hearers. What is beyond dispute is that Christ condemns the use of disparaging and insulting epithets as a supreme offense against the law of humanity, which belongs to the same category as murder itself. It should be added, however, that it is the underlying feeling and not the verbal expression as such that constitutes the sin. Hence, our Lord can, without any real inconsistency, address two of His followers as “foolish men” ( Luke 24:25, [ajno>htoi, anoetoi ], practically equivalent to Raca, as is also James’s expression, “O vain man,” James 2:20). D. Miall Edwards RACAL <ra’-kal > ([ lk;r; , rakhal ], “trader”): A place in Judah, enumerated among “the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt,” to the elders of which he sent a share of his spoils ( 1 Samuel 30:29). The Septuagint reading “Carmel” has been adopted, by many, because of the similarity of the words in Hebrew ([ lkr , rakal ] and [ lmrk , karmel ]) and because there was a Carmel in the neighborhood of Hebron ( Joshua 15:55; 1 Samuel 15:12), which figures in the story of David’s adventures when pursued by Saul (1 Samuel 25) in a manner that makes it improbable that he would overlook the place in his good fortune (the King James Version “Rachal”). Nathan Isaacs RACE <ras > ([ 6wOrme , merox ]; [ajgw>n, agon ], [dro>mov, dromos ]). See GAMES, I, 2; II, 3.

RACES <ras’-iz > . See TABLE OF NATIONS.

RACHAB <ra’-kab > ([ JRaca>b, Rhachab ]): the King James Version; Greek form of “Rahab” (thus Matthew 1:5 the Revised Version (British and American)).

RACHAL <ra’-kal > . See RACAL.

RACHEL <ra’-chel > ([ ljer; , rachel ], “ewe”; [ JRach>l, Rhachel ] ( Genesis 29:6; Jeremiah 31:15, the King James Version “Rahel”)): 1. BIOGRAPHY:

An ancestress of Israel, wife of Jacob, mother of Joseph and Benjamin.

Rachel was the younger daughter of Laban, the Aramean, the brother of Jacob’s mother; so Rachel and Jacob were cousins. They met for the first time upon the arrival of Jacob at Haran, when attracted by her beauty he immediately fell in love with her, winning her love by his chivalrous act related in Genesis 29:10 ff. According to the custom of the times Jacob contracted with Laban for her possession, agreeing to serve him 7 years as the stipulated price (29:17-20). But when the time had passed, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel. When Jacob protested, Laban gave him Rachel also, on condition that Jacob serve years more (29:21-29). To her great dismay “Rachel was barren” ( Genesis 29:30,31), while Leah had children. Rachel, envious of her sister, complained to Jacob, who reminded her that children are the gift of God. Then Rachel resorted to the expedient once employed by Sarah under similar circumstances (16:2 ff); she bade Jacob take her handmaid Bilhah, as a concubine, to “obtain children by her” (30:3). Daniel and Naphtali were the offspring of this union. The evil of polygamy is apparent from the dismal rivalry arising between the two sisters, each seeking by means of children to win the heart of Jacob. In her eagerness to become a mother of children, Rachel bargained with Leah for the mandrakes, or love-apples of her son Reuben, but all to no avail ( Genesis 30:14). Finally God heard her prayer and granted her her heart’s desire, and she gave birth to her firstborn whom she named Joseph ( Genesis 30:22-24).

Some years after this, when Jacob fled from Laban with his wives, the episode of theft of the teraphim of Laban by Rachel, related in Genesis 31:19,34,35, occurred. She hoped by securing the household gods of her father to bring prosperity to her own new household. Though she succeeded by her cunning in concealing them from Laban, Jacob later, upon discovering them, had them put away (35:2-4). In spite of all, she continued to be the favorite of Jacob, as is clearly evidenced by 33:2, where we are told that he assigned to her the place of greatest safety, and by his preference for Joseph, her son. After the arrival in Canaan, while they were on the way from Beth-el to Ephrath, i.e. Bethlehem, Rachel gave birth to her second son, Benjamin, and died (35:16 ff). 2. CHARACTER:

In a marked manner Rachel’s character shows the traits of her family, cunning and covetousness, so evident in Laban, Rebekah and Jacob.

Though a believer in the true God ( Genesis 30:6,8,22), she was yet given to the superstitions of her country, the worshipping of the teraphim, etc. ( Genesis 31:19). The futility of her efforts in resorting to self-help and superstitious expedients, the love and stronger faith of her husband ( Genesis 35:2-4), were the providential means of purifying her character. Her memory lived on in Israel long after she died. In Ruth 4:11, the names of Rachel and Leah occur in the nuptial benediction as the foundresses of the house of Israel.

RACHEL’S TOMB ([ ljer; tr”buq] tb,X,m” , matstsebheth qebhurath rachel ): In Genesis 35:20 we read: “Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave: the same is the Pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day,” i.e. the time of the writer. Though the pillar, i.e sepulchral monument, has long disappeared, the spot is marked until this day, and Christians, Jews and Mohammedans unite in honoring it.

The present tomb, which, apparently, is not older than the 15th century, is built in the style of the small-domed buildings raised by Moslems in honor of their saints. It is a rough structure of four square walls, each about 23 ft. long and 20 ft. high; the dome rising 10 ft. higher is used by Mohammedans for prayer, while on Fridays the Jews make supplication before the empty tomb within. It is doubtful, but probable, that it marks the exact spot where Rachel was buried. There are, apparently, two traditions as to the location of the place. The oldest tradition, based upon Genesis 35:16-20; 48:7, points to a place one mile North of Bethlehem and 4 miles from Jerusalem. Matthew 2:18 speaks for this place, since the evangelist, reporting the slaughter of the innocents of Bethlehem, represents Rachel as weeping for her children from her neighboring grave.

But according to 1 Samuel 10:2 ff, which apparently represents another tradition, the place of Rachel’s grave was on the “border of Benjamin,” near Beth-el, about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, at another unknown Ephrath. This location, some believe, is corroborated by Jeremiah 31:15, where the prophet, in relating the leading away of the people of Ramah, which was in Benjamin, into captivity, introduces Rachel the mother of that tribe as bewailing the fate of her descendants. Those that believe this northern location to be the place of Rachel’s grave take the words, “the same is Beth-lehem,” in Genesis 35:19; 48:7, to be an incorrect gloss; but that is a mere assumption lacking sufficient proof.

Mr. Nathan Strauss, of New York City, has purchased the land surrounding Rachel’s grave for the purpose of erecting a Jewish university in the Holy Land. S. D. Press RADDAI <rad’-a-i > , <ra-da’-i > ([ yD”r” , radday ], “beating down”(?)): The 5th of the 7 sons of Jesse, father of David, according to 1 Chronicles 2:14 Septuagint, Codex Alexdrinus, “Rhaddai”; Lucian, “Rhedai”; others, “Zaddai”).

RADIANT <ra’-di-ant > ([ rh”n; , nahar ], “to sparkle” i.e. (figurative) be cheerful; hence (from the sheen of a running stream), to flow, i.e. (figurative) assemble; flow (together), be lightened): the American Standard Revised Version substitutes the active “radiant” for the passive “were lightened” in Psalm 34:5; Isaiah 60:5 (English Revised Version, the King James Version “flow together”). As the earth and moon, both being dark, face a common sun and lighten each other, they are not only lightened, but radiant. So with the believers, “They looked unto him (Yahweh), and were radiant.” Thus nahar combines the two ideas of being lightened and flowing together. This appears, also, in a different connection, in Isaiah 60:5, “Then thou shalt see and be radiant.” “It is liquid light — light that ripples and sparkles and runs across the face; .... the light which a face catches from sparkling water” (G.A. Smith, Isaiah, II, 430). M. O. Evans RAFT <raft > . See SNIPS AND BOATS, II, 1, (2).

RAFTER <raf’-ter > (Song 1:17). See GALLERY; HOUSE.

RAG Plural in Proverbs 23:21, “Drowsiness will clothe a man with rags” ([ µy[ir;q] , qera’im ] “torn garment”; compare 1 Kings 11:30), and figuratively in Isaiah 64:6 the King James Version, “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,” in the sense of “tattered clothing” ([ dg,B, , beghedh ], the Revised Version (British and American) “garment”).

In Jeremiah 38:11,12 the American Standard Revised Version translates [ hb;j;s] , cechabhah ], as “rag” (the King James Version, the English Revised Version “old cast clout”), while the King James Version, the English Revised Version use “rotten rag” for [ jl”m, , melach ] (the American Standard Revised Version “worn-out garment”). Both cechabhah and melach mean “worn out.”

RAGAU <ra’-go > ([ JRagau~, Rhagau ] (Westcott-Hort): the King James Version; Greek form of “Reu” (thus, the Revised Version (British and American)) ( Luke 3:35).

RAGES; RAGAU <ra’-jez > , <ra’-go > 1. LOCATION: (“Rages,” Tobit 1:14; 4:1,20; 5:5; 6:9,12; 9:2; “Ragau,” Judith 1:5,15; [ JRagai>, Rhagai ], [ JRa>ga, Rhaga ], [ JRa>gh, Rhage ], [ JRagau>, Rhagau ]; in Darius’ Behistun Inscriptions, II, 71, 72, Raga , a province; in Avesta, Vend. I, 15, Ragha , city and province; perhaps, “the excellent”): In Eastern Media, one forced march from Caspian Gates,11 days’ journey from Ecbatana, 5 1/2 miles South of present Tehran ; the capital of the province of the same name, though by Ptolemy called Rhagiana. 2. HISTORY: (1) Ancient.

A very ancient city, the traditional birthplace of Zoroaster (Zarathustra; Pahlavi Vendidad, Zad sparad XVI, 12, and Dabistan i Mazahib). In Yasna XIX, 18, of the Avesta, it is thus mentioned: “The Zoroastrian, four-chiefpossessing Ragha, hers are the royal chiefs, both the house-chief, the village-chief, and the town-chief: Zoroaster is the fourth.” In Vend. I, 15: “As the tenth, the best of both districts and cities, I, who am Ahura Mazda, did create Ragha, which possesses the three classes,” i.e. fire-priests, charioteers, husbandmen. Later it was the religious center of magism. A large colony of captive Israelites settled there. Destroyed in Alexander’s time, it was rebuilt by Seleucus Nicator (circa 300 BC), who named it Europos. Later, Arsaces restored it and named it Arsacia. (2) Medieval.

In the early Middle Ages Ragha, then called Rai, was a great literary and often political center with a large population. It was the birthplace of Harun’al Rashid (763 AD). It was seized and plundered (1029 AD) by Sultan Machmud, but became Tughril’s capital. In the Vis o Roman (circa 1048 AD) it is an important place, 10 days journey across the Kavir desert from Merv. It was a small provincial town in about 1220 AD. It was sacked by Mongols in 1220 AD and entirely destroyed under Ghazan Khan circa 1295. A Zoroastrian community lived there in 1278 AD, one of whom composed the Zardtusht-Namah. (3) Present Condition.

Near the ruins there now stands the village of Shah Abdu’l ‘Acim, connected with Tehran by the only railway in Persia (opened in 1888).

LITERATURE Ptolemy, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny, Strabo; Ibnu’l Athir, Jami’u t Tawarikh, Tarikh i Jahan-gusha Yaqut; Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch; E.G. Browne, Literary Hist of Persia; modern travelers. W. St. Clair Tisdall RAGUEL (1) <ra-gu’-el > , <rag’-u-el > ([ JRagouh>l , Rhagouel ): “The friend of God,” of Ecbatana, the husband of Edna, father of Sarah, and father-in-law of Tobias (Tobit 3:7,17; 6:10; 7:2 f; 14:12). In Tobit 7:2 he is called cousin of Tobit, and in Tobit 6:10 the King James Version he is erroneously represented as “cousin” of Tobias = “kinsman” in the Revised Version (British and American). In Enoch 20:4 Raguel appears as one of the archangels, perhaps by confusion for Raphael (Tobit 3:17). Another form of the name is REUEL (which see).

RAGUEL (2) <ra-gu’-el > , <rag’-u-el > ([ laeW[r] , re`u’-el ]; Septuagint: Rhagouel ): The Midianite chothen , i.e. either father-in-law or brother-in-law of Moses ( Numbers 10:29 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “Reuel”), the father of Hobab, called a Kenite, who is likewise described as a chothen of Moses ( Judges 4:11). See RELATIONSHIPS , FAMILY. Moses’ wife’s father is called re`u’el in Exodus 2:18 where Lucian reads “Iothor” and English Versions of the Bible “Reuel,” which transliteration is adopted in the Revised Version (British and American) in Numbers 10:29 also. In other passages the chothen of Moses is called “Jether” or “Jethro.” Among the harmonizations suggested the following are worthy of consideration: (a) that all are names or perhaps titles of one man (Rashi); (b) that Reuel was the father of Hobab and Jethro, that Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses, and that the word “father” is used for grandfather in Exodus 2:18; (c) that Reuel was the father-in-law and Jethro and Hobab brothers-inlaw; (d) that either Reuel or Hobab is to be identified with Jethro. None of these views is free from difficulty, nor is the view of those who would give Jethro as the name in the Elohist (E) and Reuel as that in the Jahwist (Jahwist) and (J-E). See also REUEL.

Nathan Isaacs RAHAB <ra’-hab > : (1) ([ bj;r; , rachabh ], “broad”; in Josephus, Ant, V, i, 2, 7, [ JRa>cab, Rhachab ]; Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25, [ JRa>ab, Rhaab ]): A zonah , that is either a “harlot,” or, according to some, an “innkeeper” in Jericho; the Septuagint [po>rnh, porne ], “harlot”). The two spies sent by Joshua from Shittim came into her house and lodged there ( Joshua 2:1). She refused to betray them to the king of Jericho, and when he demanded them, she hid them on the roof of her house with stalks of flax that she had laid in order to dry. She pretended that they had escaped before the shutting of the gate, and threw their pursuers off their track. She then told the spies of the fear that the coming of the Israelites had caused in the minds of the Canaanites — “Our hearts did melt .... for Yahweh your God, he is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath” — and asked that the men promise to spare her father, mother, brothers and sisters, and all that they had. They promised her to spare them provided they would remain in her house and provided she would keep their business secret. Thereupon she let them down by a cord through the window, her house being built upon the town wall, and gave them directions to make good their escape ( Joshua 2:1-24). True to their promise, the Israelites under Joshua spared Rahab and her family ( Joshua 6:16 ff the King James Version); “And,” says the author of Josh, “she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day.” Her story appealed strongly to the imagination of the people of later times. Hebrews 11:31 speaks of her as having been saved by faith; James, on the other hand, in demonstrating that a man is justified by works and not by faith only, curiously chooses the same example ( James 2:25).

Jewish tradition has been kindly disposed toward Rahab; one hypothesis goes so far as to make her the wife of Joshua himself (Jew Encyclopedia, under the word). Naturally then the other translation of zonah , deriving it from zun , “to feed,” instead of zanah , “to be a harlot,” has been preferred by some of the commentators. (2) ( JRa>cab, Rhachab ): Josephus, Ant, V, 1, 2, 7, so spells the name of (1) Septuagint and New Testament contra). The wife of Salmon and mother of Booz (Boaz) according to the genealogy in Matthew 1:5.

Query, whether there was a tradition identifying (1) and (2); see Lightfoot, Horae Hob on Matthew 1:5. (3) ([ bh”r” , rahabh ], literally, “storm,” “arrogance”): A mythical sea-monster, probably referred to in several passages where the word is translated as a common noun “pride” ( Job 9:13), “the proud” ( Job 26:12; compare Psalm 89:10). It is used in parallelism with tannin, “the dragon” ( Isaiah 51:9). It is most familiar as an emblem of Egypt, `the boaster that sitteth still’ ( Isaiah 30:7; Psalm 87:4; compare 89:10). The Talmud in Babha’ Bathra’ speaks of rahabh as sar ha-yam , “master of the sea.” See also ASTRONOMY.

Nathan Isaacs RAHAM <ra’-ham > ([ µj”r” , racham ], “pity,” “love”): Son of Shema, and father of Jorkeam ( 1 Chronicles 2:44).

RAHEL <ra’-hel > ( Jeremiah 31:15 the King James Version). See RACHEL.

RAID <rad > ( 1 Samuel 27:10). See WAR, 3.

RAIL; RAILING; RAILER, <ral > , <ral’-ing > , <ral’-er > : To “rail” on (in modern usage “against”) anyone is to use insolent or reproachful language toward one. It occurs in the Old Testament as the translation of [ tr”j; , charaph ] ( Chronicles 32:17, “letters to rail on Yahweh”), and of [ fy[i , `it ] ( Samuel 25:14, of Nabal, “he railed at them,” the English Revised Version “flew upon them,” margin “railed on”). In the New Testament “to rail” is the translation of [blasfhme>w, blasphemeo ] ( Mark 15:29; Luke 23:39; “railing,” 1 Timothy 6:4; 2 Peter 2:11; Jude 1:9). The word loidoria , rendered railing” in 1 Peter 3:9 the King James Version, is in the Revised Version (British and American) “reviling,” and loidoros, “railor,” in 1 Corinthians 5:11 is in the Revised Version (British and American) “reviler.” See also RACA.

W. L. Walker RAIMENT <ra’-ment > . See DRESS.

RAIMENT, SOFT ([malako>v, malakos ]): In Matthew 11:8 English Versions of the Bible, where Jesus, speaking of John the Baptist, asks “What went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment?” where “raiment,” though implied, is not expressed in the best text, but was probably added from Luke 7:25 parallel. It is equivalent to “elegant clothing,” such as courtiers wore, as shown by the words following, “Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in kings’ houses.” John had bravely refused to play courtier and had gone to prison for it. In the early days of Herod the Great some scribes who attached themselves to him laid aside their usual plain clothing and wore the gorgeous raiment of courtiers (Jost, in Plumptre). George B. Eager RAIN <ran > ([ rf;m; , maTar ], Arabic maTar , “rain” [ µvo,G, , geshem ], “heavy rain” [ hr,wOm , moreh ], “early rain,” [ hr,wOy , yoreh ], “former rain,” [ vwOql]m” , malqosh ], “latter rain”; [bre>cw, brecho ], [uJeto>v, huetos ]): 1. WATER-SUPPLY IN EGYPT AND PALESTINE:

In Egypt there is little or no rainfall, the water for vegetation being supplied in great abundance by the river Nile; but in Syria and Palestine there are no large rivers, and the people have to depend entirely on the fall of rain for water for themselves, their animals and their fields. The children of Israel when in Egypt were promised by Yahweh a land which “drinketh water of the rain of heaven” ( Deuteronomy 11:11). Springs and fountains are found in most of the valleys, but the flow of the springs depends directly on the fall of rain or snow in the mountains. 2. IMPORTANCE OF RAIN IN SEASON:

The cultivation of the land in Palestine is practically dry farming in most of the districts, but even then some water is necessary, so that there may be moisture in the soil. In the summer months there is no rain, so that the rains of the spring and fall seasons are absolutely essential for starting and maturing the crops. The lack of this rain in the proper time has often been the cause of complete failure of the harvest. A small difference in the amount of these seasonal rains makes a large difference in the possibility of growing various crops without irrigation. Ellsworth Huntington has insisted on this point with great care in his very important work, Palestine and Its Transformation. The promise of prosperity is given in the assurance of “rain in due season” ( Leviticus 26:4 the King James Version). The withholding of rain according to the prophecy of Elijah ( 1 Kings 17:1) caused the mountain streams to dry up ( 1 Kings 17:7), and certain famine ensued. A glimpse of the terrible suffering for lack of water at that time is given us. The people were uncertain of another meal ( 1 Kings 17:12), and the animals were perishing ( 1 Kings 18:5). 3. AMOUNT OF RAINFALL:

Palestine and Syria are on the borderland between the sea and the desert, and besides are so mountainous, that they not only have a great range of rainfall in different years, but a great variation in different parts of the country.

The amount of rain on the western slopes is comparable with that in England and America, varying from 25 to 40 inches per annum, but it falls mostly in the four winter months, when the downpour is often very heavy, giving oftentimes from 12 to 16 inches in a month. On the eastern slopes it is much less, varying from 8 to 20 inches per annum. The highest amount falls in the mountains of Lebanon where it averages about 50 inches. In Beirut the yearly average is 35,87 inches. As we go South from Syria, the amount decreases (Haifa 27,75, Jaffa 22,39, Gaze 17,61), while in the Sinaitic Peninsula there is little or none. Going from West to East the change is much more sudden, owing to the mountains which stop the clouds. In Damascus the average is less than 10 inches. In Jerusalem the average for 50 years is 26,16 in., and the range is from 13,19 in 1870 to 41,62 in 1897. The yearly records as given by J. Glaisher and A. Datzi in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly from 1861 to 1910, 50 years, are given in the accompanying table.

RAINFALL IN JERUSALEM IN INCHES YEAR AMOUNT 1861 27.30” 1862 21.86” 1863 26.54” 1864 15.51” 1865 18.19” 1866 18.55” 1867 29.42” 1868 29.10” 1869 18.61” 1870 13.19” 1871 23.17” 1872 22.26” 1873 22.72” 1874 29.75” 1875 27.01” 1876 14.41” 1877 26.00” 1878 32.21” 1879 18.04” 1880 32.11” 1881 16.50” 1882 26.72” 1883 31.92” 1884 23.16” 1885 29.47” 1886 31.69” 1887 29.81” 1888 37.79” 1889 13.16” 1890 35.51” 1891 34.72” 1892 31.23” 1893 30.54” 1894 35.38” 1895 23.15” 1896 32.90” 1897 41.62” 1898 28.66” 1899 22.43” 1900 21.20” 1901 17.42” 1902 25.51” 1903 18.04” 1904 34.48” 1905 34.22” 1906 28.14” 1907 27.22” 1908 31.87” 1909 21.13” 1910 24.64” The amount of rainfall in ancient times was probably about the same as in present times, though it may have been distributed somewhat differently through the year, as suggested by Huntington. Conder maintains that the present amount would have been sufficient to support the ancient cities (Tent-Work in Palestine). Trees are without doubt fewer now, but meteorologists agree that trees do not produce rain. 4. DRY AND RAINY SEASONS; The rainfall is largely on the western slopes of the mountains facing the sea, while on the eastern slopes there is very little. The moisture-laden air comes up from the sea with the west and southwest wind. When these currents strike the hills they are thrown higher up into the cooler strata, and the moisture condenses to form clouds and rain which increases on the higher levels. Having passed the ridge of the hills, the currents descend on the other side to warmer levels, where the moisture is easily held in the form of vapor so that no rain falls and few clouds are seen, except in the cold mid-winter months.

The summer months are practically rainless, with very few clouds appearing in the sky. From May 1 to the middle of October one can be sure of no rain; “The winter is past; the rain is over” (Song 2:11), so many sleep on the roofs of the houses or in tents of leaves and branches in the fields and vineyards throughout the summer. The continuous hot droughts make the people appreciate the springs and fountains of fresh running water and the cool shade of rock and tree.

The rainy season from October to May may be divided into three parts, the former, the winter, and the latter rains, and they are often referred to under these names in the Old Testament.

The “former rains” are the showers of October and the first part of November. They soften the parched ground so that the winter grain may be sown before the heavy continuous rains set in. The main bulk of the rain falls in the months of December, January and February. Although in these months the rains are frequent and heavy, a dark, foggy day is seldom seen.

The “latter rains” of April are the most highly appreciated, because they ripen the fruit and stay the drought of summer. They were considered a special blessing: Yahweh “will come .... as the latter rain that watereth the earth” ( Hosea 6:3); “They opened their mouth wide as for the latter rain” ( Job 29:23); and as a reason for worshipping Yahweh who sent them, “Let us now fear Yahweh our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in its season” ( Jeremiah 5:24).

The rain storms always come from the sea with a west or southwest wind.

The east wind is a hot wind and the “north wind driveth away rain” ( Proverbs 25:23, the King James Version). “Fair weather cometh out of the north” ( Job 37:22, the King James Version). 5. BIBLICAL USES:

The Psalmist recognizes that the “showers that water the earth” ( Psalm 72:6) are among the choicest blessings from the hand of Yahweh: “The early rain covereth it with blessings” ( Psalm 84:6). The severest punishment of Yahweh was to withhold the rain, as in the time of Ahab and Elijah, when the usual rain did not fall for three years (1 Kings 17); “the anger of Yahweh be kindled against you, and he shut up the heavens, so that there shall be no rain, and the land shall not yield its fruit; and ye perish quickly” ( Deuteronomy 11:17). Too much rain is also a punishment, as witness the flood ( Genesis 7:4) and the plague of rain and hail ( Ezra 10:9). Sending of rain was a reward for worship and obedience: “Yahweh will open unto thee his good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand” ( Deuteronomy 28:12). Yahweh controls the elements and commands the rain: “He made a decree for the rain” ( Job 28:26); “For he saith to the snow, Fall thou on the earth; likewise to the shower of rain” ( Job 37:6).

LITERATURE Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly; meteorological observations from the Dead Sea, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Tiberias; various observers; Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins; H. Hilderscheid, Die Niederschlagsverhdltnisse Paldstinas in alter and neuer Zeit; C. R. Conder, Tent-Work in Palestine; Edward Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine; Ellsworth Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation; bulletin of the Syrian Protestant College Observatory, Meteorological Observations in Beirut and Syria. Alfred H. Joy RAINBOW ([ tc,q, , qesheth ], translated “a bow”; [i+riv, iris ], “rainbow”):

As most of the rainfall in Palestine is in the form of short heavy showers it is often accompanied by the rainbow. Most beautiful double bows are often seen, and occasionally the moon is bright enough to produce the bow. It is rather remarkable that there are so few references to the rainbow in the Bible. The Hebrew qesheth is the ordinary word for a bow, there being no special word for rainbow.

The interpretation of the significance of the bow in the sky is given at the close of the story of the flood, where it is called “the token of the covenant” of Yahweh with Noah that there should be no more flood: “I do set my bow in the cloud, .... and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh” ( Genesis 9:13,15). This addition to the story of the flood is not found in other mythical accounts. The foundation for the interpretation of the bow in this way seems to be that while His bow is hung in the sky God must be at peace with His people. The glory of God is likened to “the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain” ( Ezekiel 1:28). The rainbow forms a striking part of the vision in Revelation 4:3: “And there was a rainbow round about the throne.” Alfred H. Joy RAISE <raz > : “To raise” in the Old Testament is most frequently the translation of the Hiphil form of [ µWq , qum ], “to cause to arise,” e.g. raising up seed ( Genesis 38:8), a prophet ( Deuteronomy 18:18), judges ( Judges 2:16,18), etc.; also of [ rW[ , `ur ], “to awake,” “stir up” ( Ezra 1:5 the King James Version; Isaiah 41:2, etc.), with other words. In the New Testament the chief words are [ejgei>rw, egeiro ], “to awaken,” “arouse” ( Matthew 3:9; Luke 1:69; 3:8, etc.), frequently of raising the dead; and [ajni>sthmi, anistemi ] ( Matthew 22:24; John 6:39, etc.; Acts 2:24 (30 the King James Version), etc.), with compounds of the former.

Among the Revised Version (British and American) changes may be noted, “to stir the fire” for “from raising” ( Hosea 7:4); “raiseth high his gate” for “exalteth his gate” ( Proverbs 17:19); the American Standard Revised Version, “can it be raised from the roots thereof” for “pluck it up by the roots thereof” ( Ezekiel 17:9 the King James Version and the English Revised Version); “raised up” for “rise again” ( Matthew 20:19; compare Matthew 26:32; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1). W. L. Walker RAISIN-CAKES <ra’-z’-n-kaks > : the Revised Version (British and American) gives this rendering for the King James Version “foundations” in Isaiah 16:7 (Hebrew ‘ashishah from ‘ashash , “to found,” “make firm,” “press”). The trade in these would cease through the desolation of the vineyards. For the King James Version “flagons of wine” in Hosea 3:1, the Revised Version (British and American) gives “cakes of raisins,” such as were offered to the gods of the land, the givers of the grape (compare Song 2:5).

See next article.

RAISINS <ra’-z’-nz > : (1) [ µyqiWMxi , cimmuqim ]; [stafi>dev, staphides ], translated “dried grapes,” Numbers 6:3; mentioned in all other references as a portable food for a march or journey. Abigail supplied David with “a hundred clusters of raisins,” among other things, in the wilderness of Paran ( 1 Samuel 25:18); David gave two clusters of raisins to a starving Egyptian slave of the Amalekites at Besor ( 1 Samuel 30:12); raisins formed part of the provision brought to David at Hebron for his army ( 1 Chronicles 12:40); Ziba supplied David, when flying from Absalom, with a hundred clusters of raisins ( 2 Samuel 16:1). (2) [ hv;yvia\ , ‘ashishah ], something “pressed together,” hence, a “cake.” In Hosea 3:1, mention is made of [ µybin;[\ yveyvia\ , ‘ashishe ‘anabhim ] ([pe>mmata meta< stafi>dov, pemmata meta staphidos ]), “cakes of raisins”: “Yahweh loveth the children of Israel, though they turn unto other gods, and love (margin “or them that love”) cakes of raisins.” These are supposed to have been cakes of dried, compressed grapes offered to false gods. Gratz considers that the Hebrew words are a corruption of ‘asherim and chammanim (“sun images”). Compare Isaiah 17:8; 27:9. In other passages “cakes” stands alone without “raisins,” but the translation “cakes of raisins” is given in 2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3; Song 2:5 (the King James Version “flagons”); Isaiah 16:7 margin “foundations.”

Raisins are today, as of old, prepared in considerable quantities in Palestine, especially at es-Salt, East of the Jordan. The bunches of grapes are dipped in a strong solution of potash before being dried. E. W. G. Masterman RAKEM <ra’-kem > ([ µq,r; , raqem ], the pausal form of [ µq,r; , reqem ]): The eponym of a clan of Machir ( 1 Chronicles 7:16). See REKEM.

RAKKATH <rak’-ath > ([ tQ”r” , raqqath ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jWmaqadake>q, Omathadaketh ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRekka>q, Rhekkath ]): The Greek is obviously the result of confusing the two names Rakkath and Hammath, taking “r” in the former for “d”. Rakkath was one of the fortified cities in Naphtali ( Joshua 19:35). It is named between Hammath and Chinnereth. Hammath is identified with the hot baths to the South of Tiberias. There are traces of ancient fortifications here. The rabbis think that Tiberias was built on the site of Rakkath. Certain it is that Herod’s town was built upon an ancient site, the graves of the old inhabitants being disturbed in digging the new foundations (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 208). W. Ewing RAKKON <rak’-on > ([ ˆwOQr”h; , ha-raqqon ]; [ JIera>kwn, Hierakon ]). See ME-JARKON.

RAM (1) <ram > ([ µr; , ram ], “high,” “exalted”): (1) An ancestor of David ( Ruth 4:19 ([ jArra>n, Arran ]); Matthew 1:3,4 ([ jAra>m, Aram ]); in 1 Chronicles 2:9 he is called the “brother,” but in 2:25, the “son of Jerahmeel” (compare 2:27). Ram as the son of Hezron appears more likely than Ram the son of Jerahmeel, since, according to the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel, David cannot have been a Jerahmeelite. (2) Name of Elihu’s family ( Job 32:2). It is an open question as to whether Ram should be taken as a purely fictitious name, invented by the author of the Elihu speeches, or whether it is that of some obscure Arab tribe. In Genesis 22:21 Aram is a nephew of Buz (compare Elihu the Buzite), and the conjecture was at one time advanced that Ram was a contraction of Aram; but this theory is no longer held to be tenable. The suggestion that the initial “a” (the Hebrew letter, ‘aleph) has been changed by a scribal error into “h” (the Hebrew letter, he) is more acceptable. Rashi, the rabbinical commentator, takes the quaint position that Ram is identical with Abraham. Horace J. Wolf RAM (2) <ram > : (1) The ordinary word is [ lyia” , ‘ayil ], which is remarkably near to [ lY;a” , ‘ayyal ], “deer” (compare Latin caper, capra, “goat,” and capreolus, “wild goat” or “roe-buck”; also Greek [dorka>v, dorkas ], “roe-buck” or “gazelle”). (2) [ rk;D] , dekhar ], literally, “male” ( Ezra 6:9,17; 7:17). (3) [ rK” , kar ], “battering ram” ( Ezekiel 4:2; 21:22); elsewhere “lamb” ( Deuteronomy 32:14, etc.). (4) [ dWT[“ , `attudh ], properly “he-goat” (“ram,” Genesis 31:10,12 the King James Version). See SHEEP.

RAM, BATTERING See SIEGE.

RAMA <ra’-ma > ([ JRama~, Rhama ]): the King James Version; Greek form of RAMAH (which see) ( Matthew 2:18).

RAMAH <ra’-ma > ([ hm;r;h; , ha-ramah ], without the definite article only in Nehemiah 11:33; Jeremiah 31:15): The name denotes height, from root [ µWr , rum ], “to be high,” and the towns to which it applied seem all to have stood on elevated sites. (1) Codex Vaticanus [ jArah>l, Arael ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRama>, Rhama ]: A fenced city in the lot assigned to Naphtali ( Joshua 19:36). Only in this passage is the place referred to. It is probably identical with the modern er-Rameh, a large Christian village on the highway from Cafed to the coast, about 8 miles West-Southwest of that city. To the North rises the mountain range which forms the southern boundary of Upper Galilee. In the valley to the South there is much rich land cultivated by the villagers. The olives grown here are very fine, and fruitful vineyards cover many of the surrounding slopes.

No remains of antiquity are to be seen above ground; but the site is one likely to have been occupied in ancient times. (2) [ JRama~, Rhama ]: A city that is mentioned only once, on the boundary of Asher ( Joshua 19:29). The line of the boundary cannot be followed with certainty; but perhaps we may identify Ramah with the modern Ramiyeh, a village situated on a hill which rises in the midst of a hollow, some 13 miles Southeast of Tyre, and 12 miles East of the Ladder of Tyre. To the Southwest is a marshy lake which dries up in summer. Traces of antiquity are found in the cisterns, a large reservoir and many sarcophagi. To the West is the high hill Belat, with ancient ruins, and remains of a temple of which several columns are still in situ. (3) Codex Vaticanus [ JRama>, Rhama ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ jIama>, Iama ], and other forms: A city in the territory of Benjamin named between Gibeon and Beeroth ( Joshua 18:25). The Levite thought of it as a possible resting-place for himself and his concubine on their northward journey ( Judges 19:13). The palm tree of Deborah was between this and Bethel ( Judges 4:5). Baasha, king of Samaria, sought to fortify Ramah against Asa, king of Judah. The latter frustrated the attempt, and carried off the materials which Bassha had collected, and with them fortified against him Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah ( 1 Kings 15:17; 2 Chronicles 16:5). Here the captain of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard released Jeremiah after he had been carried in bonds from Jerusalem ( Jeremiah 40:1). It figures in Isaiah’s picture of the Assyrians’ approach ( Isaiah 10:29). It is named by Hosea in connection with Gibeah (5:8), and is mentioned as being reoccupied after the exile ( Ezra 2:26; Nehemiah 7:30). It was near the traditional tomb of Rachel ( Jeremiah 31:15; compare 1 Samuel 10:2; Matthew 2:18, the King James Version “Rama”).

From the passages cited we gather that Ramah lay some distance to the North of Gibeah, and not far from Gibeon and Beeroth. The first is identified with Tell el-Ful, about 3 miles North of Jerusalem. Two miles farther North is er-Ram. Gibeon (el-Jib) is about 3 miles West of er-Ram, and Beeroth (el-Bireh) is about 4 miles to the North Eusebius, Onomasticon places Ramah 6 Roman miles North of Jerusalem; while Josephus (Ant., VIII, xii, 3) says it lay 40 furlongs from the city. All this points definitely to identification with er-Ram. The modern village crowns a high limestone hill to the South of the road, a position of great strength.

West of the village is an ancient reservoir. In the hill are cisterns, and a good well to the South. (4) [ jAramaqai>m, Aramathaim ]: The home of Elkanah and Hannah, and the birthplace of Samuel ( 1 Samuel 1:19; 2:11, etc.). In <090101> Samuel 1:1 it is called “Ramathaim-zophim” ([ µypiwOx µyit”m;r;h; , haramathayim- tsophim ]). The phrase as it stands is grammatically incorrect, and suggests tampering with the text. It might possibly be translated “Ramathaim of the Zuphites.” It was in Mt. Ephraim, within accessible distance of Shiloh, whither Samuel’s parents went up from year to year to worship and to sacrifice (1:3). From Ramah as a center Samuel went on circuit annually, to judge Israel, to Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah (7:16 f). It is very probable that this is the city in which, guided by his servant, Saul first made the acquaintance of Samuel (9:6,10), where there was a high place (9:12). Hither at all events came the elders of Israel with their demand that a king should be set over them (8:4 f). After his final break with Saul, Samuel retired in sorrow to Ramah (15:34 f). Here, in Naioth, David found asylum with Samuel from the mad king (19:18, etc.), and hence, he fled on his ill-starred visit to Nob (20:1). In his native city the dust of the dead Samuel was laid (25:1; 28:3). In 1 Macc 11:34 it is named as one of the three toparchies along with Aphaerema and Lydda, which were added to Judea from the country of Samaria in 145 BC. Eusebius, Onomasticon places it near Diospolis (Euseb.) in the district of Timnah (Jerome).

There are two serious rivals for the honor of representing the ancient Ramah. (a) Beit Rima, a village occupying a height 13 miles East-Northeast of Lydda (Diospolis), 12 miles West of Shiloh, and about the same distance Northwest of Bethel. This identification has the support of G.

A. Smith (Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 254), and Buhl (Geographic des Alten Palestina, 170). (b) Ramallah, a large and prosperous village occupying a lofty position with ancient remains. It commands a wide prospect, especially to the West. It lies about 8 miles North of Jerusalem,3 West of Bethel, and 12 Southwest of Shiloh. The name meaning “the height” or “high place of God” may be reminiscent of the high place in the city where Saul found Samuel. In other respects it agrees very well with the Biblical data.

Claims have also been advanced on behalf of Ramleh, a village 2 miles Southwest of Lydda, in the plain of Sharon. This, however, is out of the question, as the place did not exist before Arab times. Others support identification with Neby Samwil, which more probably represents the ancient MIZPAH (which see). (5) Ramah of the South, the King James Version “Ramath of the South”: Ramath is the construct form of Ramah ( Joshua 19:8) ([ bg,n, tm”ar; , ra’math neghebh ]; [ Ba>meq kata< li>ba, Bameth kata liba ]).

A city in that part of the territory of Judah which was allotted to Simeon. It stands here in apposition to Baalath-beer, and is probably a second name for the same place. It seems to correspond also with “Ramoth (plural) of the South” ( 1 Samuel 30:27), a place to which David sent a share of the spoil taken from the Amalekites. In this passage Septuagint retains the singular form, Rhama notou.

Identification has been suggested with Qubbet el-Baul, about 37 miles South of Hebron; and with Kurnub a little farther South. There is no substantial ground for either identification. (6) Codex Vaticanus [ JRemmw>q, Rhemmoth ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRamw>q, Rhamoth ]: Ramah in 2 Kings 8:29; 2 Chronicles 22:6, is a contraction of Ramoth-gilead. W. Ewing RAMATH OF THE SOUTH <ra’-math > , ( Joshua 19:8 the King James Version). See RAMAU, (5).

RAMATH-LEHI <ra’-math-le’-hi > ([ yjil, tm”r; , ramath lechi ], “the hill” or “height of Lehi”; [ jAnai>resiv siago>nov, Anairesis siagonos ]): So the place is said to have been called where Samson threw away the jaw-bone of an ass, with which he had slain 1,000 Philistines ( Judges 15:17). The Septuagint seems to have supposed that the name referred to the “heaving” or throwing up of the jaw-bone. The Hebrew, however, corresponds to the form used in other placenames, such as Ramath-mizpeh, and must be read as “Ramah of Lehi.” The name Lehi may have been given because of some real or imagined likeness in the place to the shape of a jaw-bone ( Judges 15:9,14,19). It may have been in Wady es-Sarar, not far from Zorah and Timnath; but the available data do not permit of certain identification. See JAW-BONE; LEHI.

W. Ewing RAMATH-MIZPEH <ra’-math-miz’-pe > ([ tm”r; hP,x]Mih” , ramath ha-mitspeh ]; Codex Vaticanus [ jArabwAraboth kata ten Massepha ], Codex Alexandrinus [ Ramw, Ramoth ... Maspha ]: A place mentioned in Joshua 13:26 in a statement of the boundary of Gad, between Heshbon and Betonim. It may possibly be identical with MIZPAH, (1) .

RAMATHAIM; RAMATHEM <ra-ma-tha’-im > , <ram’-a-them > (1 Macc 11:34; the King James Version). See RAMAH, (4).

RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM <ra-ma-tha’-im-zo’-fim > . See RAMAH, (4).

RAMATHITE <ra’-math-it > ([ ytim;r;h; , ha-ramathi ]; Codex Vaticanus [oJ ejk Jrah>l, ho ek Rhael ]; Codex Alexandrinus [oJ JRamaqai~ov, ho Rhamathaios ]): So Shimei is called who was set by David over the vineyards ( 1 Chronicles 27:27). There is nothing to show to which Ramah he belonged.

RAMESES <ram’-e-sez > , <ra-me’-sez > . See RAAMSES.

RAMIAH <ra-mi’-a > ([ hy;m]r” , ramyah ], “Yah has loosened” or “Yah is high”):

One of the Israelites, of the sons of Parosh, mentioned in the register of those who had offended in the matter of foreign marriages ( Ezra 10:25). The form of the name in 1 Esdras (9:26), “Hiermas,” presupposes a Hebrew form yeremyah or possibly yirmeyah = “Jeremiah.”

RAMOTH (1) <ra’-moth > : (1) [ twOmar; , ra’moth ]; [hJ JRamw>q, he Rhamoth ]: A city in the territory of Issachar assigned to the Gershonite Levitea ( 1 Chronicles 6:73), mentioned between Daberath and Anem. It seems to correspond to “Remeth” in Joshua 19:21, and to “Jarmuth” in 21:29, and is possibly identical with er-Rameh about 11 miles Southwest of Jenin. (2) Ramoth of the South. See RAMAH, (5). (3) Ramoth in Gilead. See RAMOTH-GILEAD.

RAMOTH (2) <ra’-moth > ([ twOmr; , ramoth ], Qere for yeremoth ( Ezra 10:29 the King James Version); the Revised Version margin Kethibh makes the name similar to those in Ezra 10:26,27): One of the offenders in the matter of foreign marriages. The English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version, adopting Kethibh, read JEREMOTH (which see).

RAMOTH (3) ( Job 28:18 King James Version margin). See STONES, PRECIOUS.

RAMOTH-GILEAD <ra’-moth-gil’-e-ad> ([ tmor; d[;l]Gi , ramoth gil’adh]; Codex Vaticanus [ JRemmad, Rhemmath Galaad]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRammw>q, Rhammoth], and other forms): A great and strong city East of the Jordan in the territory of Gad, which played an important part in the wars of Israel. It is first mentioned in connection with the appointment of the Cities of Refuge ( Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8). It was assigned to the Merarite Levites ( Joshua 21:38; 1 Chronicles 6:80). In these four passages it is called “Ramoth in Gilead” ( [ d[;l]GiB” , ramoth ba-gil’adh]).

This form is given wrongly by the King James Version in 1 Kings 22:3.

In all other places the form “Ramoth-gilead” is used. 1. HISTORY:

Here Ben-geber was placed in charge of one of Solomon’s administrative districts ( 1 Kings 4:13), which included Havvoth-jair and “the region of Argob, which is in Bashan.” The city was taken from Omri by the Syrians under Ben-hadad I (Ant., VIII, xv, 3 ff), and even after the defeat of Benhadad at Aphek they remained masters of this fortress. In order to recover it for Israel Ahab invited Jehoshaphat of Judah to accompany him in a campaign. Despite the discouragement of Micalab, the royal pair set out on the disastrous enterprise. In their attack on the city Ahab fought in disguise, but was mortally wounded by an arrow from a bow drawn “at a venture” ( 1 Kings 22:1-40; 2 Chronicles 18). The attempt was renewed by Ahab’s son Joram; but his father’s ill fortune followed him, and, heavily wounded, he retired for healing to Jezreel ( 2 Kings 8:28 ff; Chronicles 22:5 f). During the king’s absence from the camp at Ramothgilead Jehu was there anointed king of Israel by Elisha ( 2 Kings 9:1 ff; 2 Chronicles 22:7). He proved a swift instrument of vengeance against the doomed house of Ahab. According to Josephus (Ant., IX, vi, 1) the city was taken before Joram’s departure. This is confirmed by 2 Kings 9:14 ff. The place is not mentioned again, unless, indeed, it be identical with “Mizpeh” in 1 Macc 5:35. 2. IDENTIFICATION:

It is just possible that Ramoth-gilead corresponds to MIZPAH , (1), and to RAMATH-MIZPEH . The spot where Laban and Jacob parted is called both Galeed and Mizpah. Ramath may become Ramoth, as we see in the case of Ramah of the South.

Merrill identifies the city with Jerash, the splendid ruins of which lie in Wady ed-Deir, North of the Jabbok. He quotes the Bah Talmud (Makkoth 9b) as placing the Cities of Refuge in pairs, so that those on the East of the Jordan are opposite those on the West Shechem, being the middle one of the three West of the Jordan, should have Ramorb-gilead nearly opposite to it on the East, and this would place its site at Gerasa, the modern Jerash (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, under the word). But the words of the Talmud must not be interpreted too strictly. It seems very probable that Golan lay far South of a line drawn due East from Qedes (Kedeshnaphtali).

No remains have been discovered at Jerash older than Greek- Roman times, although the presence of a fine perennial spring makes occupation in antiquity probable. The place could be approached by chariots along Wady `Ajlun, and the country adjoining was not unsuitable for chariot evolutions.

Conder and others have suggested Reimun, an ancient site to the West of Jerash. The absence of any source of good water-supply is practically fatal to this identification. Buhl (Geographic des Alten Palestina, 261 ff) favors el-Jil`ad, a ruined site on a hill South of the Jabbok; see GILEAD , (1).

Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word) contradict each other, the former placing Ramoth-gilead 15 miles West, and the latter miles East of Philadelphia. It is clear, however, that this is a mere slip on Jerome’s part, as both say it is near the Jabbok. Many have identified it with es-Salt, which is indeed 15 miles West of `Amman (Philadelphia), but it is 10 miles South of the Jabbok, and so can hardly be described as near that river. It is also no place for chariot warfare. The case against identification with Ramoth-gilead is conclusively stated by G.A. Cooke in Driver’s Deuteronomy, xx.

In suggesting these sites sufficient attention has not been given to what is said in 1 Kings 4. The authority of the king’s officer in Ramoth-gilead extended over the land of Argob in Bashan, as well as over the towns of Jair in Gilead. A situation therefore to the North of Mahanaim must be sought. Guthe would find it at er-Remtheh, on the pilgrim road, about miles South of Mezerib (compare Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 586 ff). Cheyne’s suggestion of Salkhad, away on the crest of the mountain of Bashan, is out of the question. Caleb Hauser (Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1906, 304 f) argues in favor of Beit Ras, over 11 miles Southeast of Gadara, a position commanding all Northern Gilead and as favorably situated as Jerash for chariot warfare and communication with the West of Jordan. “Here we have the heights of Northern Gilead.

Ramoth, Capitolias, and Beit Ras are in their respective languages idiomatic equivalents. It is improbable that a large city like Capitolins should have superseded anything but a very important city of earlier times.” We must be content to leave the question open meantime. W. Ewing RAMPART <ram’-part > ( Lamentations 2:8; Nah 3:8). See FORTIFICATION.

RAM’S HORN See MUSIC.

RAMS’ SKINS The skin of the sheep, roughly tanned with all the wool on, is the common winter jacket of the shepherd or peasant, the ram’s being considered especially desirable (compare Hebrews 11:37). Hence, the appropriateness of these skins in the covering of the tabernacle ( Exodus 25:5, etc.). See TABERNACLE; DYE, DYEING.

RANGE <ranj > : “Range” and “rank” have the same derivation, and in the sense of a “row” (of men, etc.) they were formerly interchangeable. “Range” with this meaning is found in 2 Kings 11:8,15 the King James Version parallel 2 Chronicles 23:14 (the Revised Version (British and American) “rank”; [ hr;dec] , sedherah ], “row”). Hence, “to range” is “to set in a line” (Judith 2:16; 2 Macc 12:20, diatasso) or “to move in a line” or, simply, “to roam,” whence “a ranging bear” ( Proverbs 28:15; [ qq”v; , shaqaq ], “run to and fro”). A cooking “range” is a stove on which pots, etc., can be set in a row, but the [ µyir”yKi , kirayim ] of Leviticus 11:35 is a much more primitive affair, composed, probably, of two plates (kirayim is a dual). In Job 39:8 “range of the mountains” is good modern use, but [ rty , ythr ], should be pointed yathur (not yethur as in Massoretic Text) and connected with tur , “search.” So translate. “He searcheth out the mountains as his pasture.” Burton Scott Easton RANK <rank > : (1) [ jr”ao , ‘orach ], used in Joel 2:7 of the advance of the locust army which marched in perfect order and in straight lines, none crossing the other’s track. (2) [ hk;r;[\m” , ma`arakhah ], “battle array” ( 1 Chronicles 12:38 the King James Version; compare 1 Samuel 4:16; 17:22,48). See ARMY.

RANKS <ranks > ([prasia>, prasia ], “a square plot of ground,” “a garden-bed”): “They sat down in ranks” ( Mark 6:40); the several reclining ranks formed, as it were, separate plots or “garden-beds.”

RANSOM <ran’-sum > (the noun occurs in the English Bible 12 times ( Exodus 21:30 the King James Version [ ˆwOyd]Pi , pidhyon ]; Exodus 30:12; Job 33:24; 36:18; Proverbs 6:35; 13:8; 21:18; Isaiah 43:3, [ rp,Ko , kopher ]; Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45, [lu>tron, lutron ]; Timothy 2:6, [ajnti>lutron, antilutron ]); the verbal form occurs 4 times ( Isaiah 35:10; Hosea 13:14, [ hd;P; , padhah ]; Isaiah 51:10 the King James Version; Jeremiah 31:11, [ la”G; , ga’al ]; these two Hebrew verbs are generally rendered in other passages by the English “redeem”)): 1. USAGE BY CHRIST:

The supremely important instance is the utterance of the Lord Jesus Christ as reported by Matthew and Mark ( Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), and in looking at it we shall be able, by way of illustration, to glance at the Old Testament passages. The context refers to the dispute among the disciples concerning position in the Kingdom, with their misconception of the true nature of Christ’s Kingdom. Christ makes use of the occasion to set forth the great law of service as determining the place of honor in that Kingdom, and illustrates and enforces it by showing that its greatest exemplification is to be found in His own mission: “For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister” ( Mark 10:45). His ministry, however, was to pass into the great act of sacrifice, of which all other acts of self-sacrifice on the part of His people would be but a faint reflection — “and to give his life (soul) a ransom for many” (same place).

He thus gives a very clear intimation of the purpose and meaning of His death; the clearest of all the intimations reported by the synoptists. The word He uses bears a well-established meaning, and is accurately rendered by our word “ransom,” a price paid to secure the freedom of a slave or to set free from liabilities and charges, and generally the deliverance from calamity by paying the forfeit. The familiar verb luo , “to loose,” “to set free,” is the root, then lutron , that which secures the freedom, the payment or forfeit; thence come the cognate verb lutroo , “to set free upon payment of a ransom,” “to redeem”; lutrosis , “the actual setting free,” “the redemption,” and lutrotes , “the redeemer.” The favorite New Testament word for “redemption” is the compound form, apolutrosis . 2. OLD TESTAMENT USAGE — THE LAW:

The word lutron was common in Greek classical literature, constantly bearing the sense of “ransom price,” and was frequently connected with ritual usage, with sacrifice and expiation. But for the full explanation of our Lord’s great thought we have to look to the Old Testament usage. The two leading Hebrew verbs translated in our version by “redeem,” are generally rendered in the Septuagint by lutroo , and derivatives of these words conveying the idea of the actual price paid are translated by this very word lutron . (1) General Cases.

In Exodus 21:30 we have the law concerning the case of the person killed by an ox; the ox was to be killed and the owner of it was also liable to death but the proviso was made, “If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him” (the King James Version). The Hebrew for “sum of money” is kopher , literally, “atonement” (the Revised Version (British and American) “ransom”); the word for “ransom” (the Revised Version (British and American) “redemption”) is pidhyon (from padhah ); the Septuagint renders both by lutron (rather by the plural form lutra ). In Leviticus 25, among the directions in relation to the Jubilee, we have the provision (25:23) that the land was not to be sold “in perpetuity,” but where any portion has been sold, opportunity is to be given for re-purchase: “Ye shall grant a redemption for the land” (25:24). The Hebrew is ge’ullah , a derivative of ga’al , the Septuagint lutra . In 25:25,26, the case is mentioned of a man who through poverty has sold part of his land; if a near kinsman is able to redeem it he shall do so; if there is no one to act this brotherly part, and the man himself is able to redeem it, then a certain scale of price is arranged. In the Hebrew it is again ga’al that is used with the cognate go’el for “kinsman.” The last clause rendered in the King James Version, “and himself be able to redeem it” (in the Revised Version (British and American) “and he be waxed rich and find sufficient to redeem it”), is literally, “and his hand shall acquire and he find sufficient for its redemption”; the Septuagint has the verb lutroo in the first part, and renders the clause pretty literally, “and there be furnished to his hand and there be found with him the sufficient price (lutra ) of it.” In Leviticus 25:51,52, in reference to the redemption of the Jew sold into slavery, we have twice in the Hebrew the word ge’ullah , rendered in English accurately “the pricen of his redemption”; and by Septuagint with equal accuracy, in both cases, lutra , “the ransom-price.” In Leviticus 27:31 the King James Version, the phrase “if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes” is intended to represent the emphatic Hebrew idiom, “if a man redeeming will redeem,” which is rendered by Septuagint ean de lutrotai lutro anthropos . (2) Redemption Money — the Firstborn.

But perhaps the most important passage is the law concerning the halfshekel to be paid by every Israelite from 20 years old and upward when a census was taken. It was to be the same for rich and poor, and it was called “atonement money,” “to make atonement for their souls.” In the opening words of the law, as given in Exodus 30:12 (the King James Version), we read “Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord” — the Hebrew kopher ; the Septuagint rendering is lutra tes psuches autou , “a ransom price for his soul.” All the people were thus considered as doomed and needing atonement, and it is significant that this atonement money paid at the first census furnished the silver for the sockets of the tabernacle boards, intimating that the typical tabernacle was built upon atonement. The same thought, that the people’s lives were forfeited, comes out in the provision for the consecration of the Levites, recorded in full in Numbers 3:40-51. The firstborn represented the people. God claimed all the firstborn as forfeited to Himself, teaching that Israel deserved the same punishment as the Egyptians, and was only spared by the grace of Yahweh, and in virtue of the sprinkled blood. Now He takes to Himself for His services the Levites as the equivalent of the firstborn, and when it was found that the number of the firstborn exceeded the number of the Levites, equivalence was maintained by ransoming at a certain price the surplus of the firstborn males. In the Septuagint account, lutra occurs 4 times, twice for the phrase “those to be redeemed,” and twice for “redemption money.”

Thus the idea of ransom for the forfeited life became familiar to the people as educated by the typical system, and redemption expressed the sum total of their hopes for the future, however faulty might be their conception of the nature of that redemption. (3) Connection with Sacrifice.

It is also clear in the typical teaching that sacrifice and ransom were closely related. Even in classical Greek, as we have noted, the two conceptions were connected, and it is not surprising to find it so in the Old Testament. Kopher , we have seen, is literally, “atonement” and comes from kaphar , literally, “to cover,” and thence by covering to make atonement, or to cover by making atonement; and so it is in the Piel form, the most common and technical Hebrew word for making atonement, or expiation, or propitiation, and is frequently rendered in the Greek by hilaskomai , often too by the compound exilaskomai . In Exodus 21:30, kopher , we noted, is used interchangeably with pidhyon , both being represented in the Septuagint by lutra , and so in Exodus 30:12; Numbers 35:31,32; the Hebrew kopher is lutra in the Greek In the latter place, where it is twice stated that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a murderer, the Hebrew is kopher , the Septuagint has lutra ; the Revised Version (British and American) has “ransom;” the King James Version has “satisfaction.” (4) Typical Reference to the Messiah.

Sacrifice was thus linked with ransom. Sacrifice was the divinely-appointed covering for sin. The ransom for the deliverance of the sinner was to be by sacrifice. Both the typical testimony of the Law and the prophetic testimony gave prominence to the thought of redemption. The Coming One was to be a Redeemer. Redemption was to be the great work of the Messiah. The people seem to have looked for the redemption of the soul to God alone through the observance of their appointed ritual, while redemption, in the more general sense of deliverance from all enemies and troubles, they linked with the advent of the Messiah. It required a spiritual vision to see that the two things would coincide, that the Messiah would effect redemption in all its phases and fullness by means of ransom, of sacrifice, of expiation.

Jesus appeared as the Messiah in whom all the old economy was to be fulfilled. He knew perfectly the meaning of the typical and prophetic testimony; and with that fully in view, knowing that His death was to fulfill the Old Testament types and accomplish its brightest prophetic anticipations, He deliberately uses this term lutron to describe it ( Matthew 20:28); in speaking of His death as a ransom, He also regarded it as a sacrifice, an expiatory offering. The strong preposition used intensifies the idea of ransom and expiation, even to the point of substitution. It is anti, “instead of,” and the idea of exchange, equivalence, substitution cannot be removed from it. In Numbers 3:45, “Take the Levites instead of all the first-born,” the Septuagint uses anti, which, like the English “instead of,” exactly represents the Hebrew tachath ; and all three convey most unmistakably the idea of substitution. And as the Levites were to be substituted for the firstborn, so for the surplus of the firstborn the “ransom money” was to be substituted, that idea, however, being clearly enough indicated by the use of the genitive. Indeed the simpler way of describing a ransom would be with the genitive, the ransom of many; or as our version renders, “a ransom for many”; but just because the ransom here is not simply a money payment, but is the actual sacrifice of the life, the substitution of His soul for many, He is appropriately said “to give his soul a ransom instead of many.” The Kingdom of God which Christ proclaimed was so diverse in character from that which Salome and her sons anticipated that, so far from appearing in dazzling splendor, with distinguished places of power for eager aspirants, it was to be a spiritual home for redeemed sinners. Men held captive by sin needed to be ransomed that they might be free to become subjects of the Kingdom, and so the ransom work, the sufferings and death of Christ, must lie at the very foundation of that Kingdom. The need of ransom supposes life forfeited; the ransom paid secures life and liberty; the life which Christ gives comes through His ransoming death. 3. THE PSALMS AND JOB:

Besides the passages in the Pentateuch which we have noted, special mention should be made of the two great passages which bear so closely upon the need of spiritual redemption, and come into line with this great utterance of Christ. Psalm 49:7,8, “None of them can by any means redeem (padhah ; lutroo ) his brother, nor give to God a ransom (kopher ; exilasma ) for him (for the redemption of their life is costly, and it faileth forever).” (The Hebrew gives pidhyon for “redemption”; the Greek has “the price of the redemption of his soul.”) No human power or skill, no forfeit in money or service or life can avail to ransom any soul from the doom entailed by sin. But in Psalm 49:15 the triumphant hope is expressed, “But God will redeem (padhah ; lutroo ) my soul from the power of Sheol.” In Job 33:24, “Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom”: God is the speaker, and whatever may be the particular exegesis of the passage in its original application, it surely contains an anticipation of the gospel redemption. This divine eureka is explained in the light of Christ’s utterance; it finds its realization through the cross: “I have found a ransom,” for “the Son of Man” has given “his soul a ransom for many.” 4. APOSTOLIC TEACHING:

This great utterance of the Saviour may well be considered as the germ of all the apostolic teaching concerning redemption, but it is not for us to show its unfolding beyond noting that in apostolic thought the redemption was always connected with the death, the sacrifice of Christ.

Thus, Paul ( Ephesians 1:7), “In whom we have our redemption through his blood.” Thus Peter (1 Pet 1:18,19), “Ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things .... but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ.” So in Hebrews 9:12 it is shown that Christ “through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption”; and in the Apocalypse ( Revelation 5:9) the song is, “Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe,” etc. In all but the last of these passages there is an echo of the very word used by Christ, apolutrosis and lutrosis , both being connected with lutron. In 1 Timothy 2:5,6 Paul has a still closer verbal coincidence when he says, “Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all” (antilutron ). The word used in the Apocalypse is agorazo , to buy in the open market, and is frequently used of the redeeming work of Christ ( Revelation 14:3,4; 2 Peter 2:1; Corinthians 6:20; 7:23). In the two places where Paul uses it he adds the means of purchase: “Ye were bought with a price,” which from his point of view would be equivalent to ransom. In the passage in Galatians 3:13; 4:5, Paul uses the compound exagorazo, which is equivalent to “redeem, buy off, deliver by paying the price.” 5. TO WHOM WAS THE RANSOM PAID?:

The question “Who receives the ransom?” is not directly raised in Scripture, but it is one that not unnaturally occurs to the mind, and theologians have answered it in varying ways. (1) Not to Satan.

The idea entertained by some of the Fathers (Irenaeus, Origen) that the ransom was given to Satan, who is conceived of as having through the sin of man a righteous claim upon him, which Christ recognizes and meets, is grotesque, and not in any way countenanced by Scripture. (2) To Divine Justice.

But in repudiating it, there is no need to go so far as to deny that there is anything answering to a real ransoming transaction. All that we have said goes to show that, in no mere figure of speech, but in tremendous reality, Christ gave “his life a ransom,” and if our mind demands an answer to the question to whom the ransom was paid, it does not seem at all unreasonable to think of the justice of God, or God in His character of Moral Governor, as requiring and receiving it. In all that Scripture asserts about propitiation, sacrifice, reconciliation in relation to the work of Christ, it is implied that there is wrath to be averted, someone to be appeased or satisfied, and while it may be enough simply to think of the effects of Christ’s redeeming work in setting us free from the penal claims of the Law — the just doom of sin — it does not seem going beyond the spirit of Scripture to draw the logical inference that the ransom price was paid to the Guardian of that holy law, the Administrator of eternal justice. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” ( Galatians 3:13). This essential, fundamental phase of redemption is what theologians, with good Scripture warrant, have called redemption by blood, or by price, as distinguished from the practical outcome of the work of Christ in the life which is redemption by power. (a) Redemption by Price:

As to Satan’s claims, Christ by paying the ransom price, having secured the right to redeem, exercises His power on behalf of the believing sinner. He does not recognize the right of Satan. He is the “strong man” holding his captives lawfully, and Christ the “stronger than he” overcomes him and spoils him, and sets his captives free ( Luke 11:21,22). In one sense men may be said to have sold themselves to Satan, but they had no right to sell, nor he to buy, and Christ ignores that transaction and brings “to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” ( Hebrews 2:14), and so is able to “deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” ( Hebrews 2:15). (b) Redemption by Power:

Many of the Old Testament passages about the redemption wrought on behalf of God’s people illustrate this redemption by power, and the redemption by power is always founded on the redemption by price; the release follows the ransom. In the case of Israel, there was first the redemption by blood — the sprinkled blood of the Paschal Lamb which sheltered from the destroying angel (Exodus 12) — and then followed the redemption by power, when by strength of hand Yahweh brought His people out from Egypt ( Exodus 13:14), and in His mercy led forth the people which He had redeemed ( Exodus 15:13).

So under the Gospel when “he hath visited and wrought redemption for his people” ( Luke 1:68), He can “grant unto us that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies should serve him without fear” ( Luke 1:74).

It is because we have in Him our redemption through His blood that we can be delivered out of the power of darkness ( Colossians 1:13,14). See further, REDEEMER, REDEMPTION.

LITERATURE. See works on New Testament Theology (Weiss, Schmid, Stevens, etc.); articles in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.

Archibald M’Caig RAPE <rap > . See CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.

RAPHA, RAPHAH <ra’-fa > ([ ap;r; , rapha’ ]): (1) In the Revised Version margin these names are substituted for “the giant” in 1 Chronicles 20:4,6,8 and in 2 Samuel 21:16,18,20,22.

The latter passage states that certain champions of the Philistines who were slain by David’s warriors had been born to the raphah in Gath.

The text is corrupt; Raphah is probably an eponym. Originally the name of one of the Philistines who was of the body “Rephaites” stood in the text. The plural of this word, or at least a plural of this stem, is REPHAIM (which see). (2) Raphah (the King James Version “Rapha”), a descendant of Saul ( 1 Chronicles 8:37). See REPHAIAH.

Horace J. Wolf RAPHAEL <ra’-a-el > , <ra’-fa-el > ([ laep;r] , repha’el ], from rapha’ ‘el , “God has healed”; [ JRafah>l, Rhaphael ]): The name of the angel who, as Azarias, guides Tobias to ECBATANA and RAGES (which see). The purpose of his mission is, in accordance with his name, to cure Tobit of blindness, and to deliver Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, from the power of the evil spirit Asmodaeus (Tobit 3:8; 12:14). Later, in addition, when he reveals himself (Tobit 12:15), he declares that he is “one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One.” These seven angels are derived, according to Dr. Kohut, from the seven Am-shaspands (Amesha-spentas) of Zoroastrianism (compare Revelation 4:5). At the head of the elaborate angelology of the Enoch books there are “four presences,” and Raphael is one of them (En 40:9; 54:6). In the first of these passages Raphael is the healer; in the second, he with Michael, Gabriel and Phanuel lead the wicked away to punishment.

These four presences seem related to the four “living creatures” of Ezekiel (1:5) and of the Apocalypse ( Revelation 4:6). While this is the general representation of Raphael’s position in Enoch, in 20:3 he is named among the angels who “watch,” whose number according to the Greek text is seven. Raphael shared in the function assigned to the archangels, in the Oracula Sibyllina, of leading souls to the judgment seat of God (II, 215, Alexandre’s text). He occupies a prominent place in Jewish medieval writings; he with Michael and Gabriel cured Abraham (Yoma’ 37a); according to the book Zohar, Raphael conveyed to Adam a book containing 72 kinds of wisdom in 670 writings. The painters of the Renaissance frequently depicted Raphael. J. E. H. Thomson RAPHAIM <raf’-a-im > , <ra-fa’-im > (Codex Vaticanus omits; Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus have [ JRafa(e)i>n, Rhapha(e)in ]): An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1).

RAPHON <ra’-fon > ( JRafeiw>n, Rhapheion ]): The place where in his campaign East of Jordan Judas inflicted disastrous defeat on the host of Timotheus, the fugitives fleeing for refuge to the temple at Carnaim (1 Macc 5:37 ff; Ant, XII, viii, 4). The same place is doubtless referred to by Pliny as “Raphana” (NH, v.16). It may possibly be represented by the modern Rafeh, on the East of the pilgrimage road, about 17 miles North of Der`ah, and 11 miles Northeast of Tell el-`Ash`ary. It is a mile and a half North of Wady Kanawat, which would thus be the “brook” mentioned in the narrative. It is perhaps far enough away from Carnaim, if this is rightly placed at Tell el- `Ash`ary. W. Ewing RAPHU <ra’-fu > ([ aWpr; , raphu’ ], “one healed”): The father of Palti, the spy selected from the tribe of Benjamin ( Numbers 13:9).

RASSES <ras’-ez > ([ JRaassei>v, Rhaasseis ], Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, [ JRassei>v, Rhasseis ]; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Tharsis; Old Latin Thiras et Rasis): The children of Rasses are mentioned with Put, Lud and the children of Ishmael as having been subdued by Holofernes (Judith 2:23).

Their identity is a matter of conjecture only. Some think Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Tharsis (= Tarsus) is meant, others Rosh ( Ezekiel 38:2,3; 39:1), others Rhosos, a mountain range and city South from Anunus, on the Gulf of Issus. Most probably a district, not a town, is named, situated in the eastern part of Asia Minor. S. F. Hunter RATHUMUS <ra-thu’-mus > ([ JRa>qumov, Rhathumos ]): One of those who joined in writing a letter to protest to Artaxerxes against the Jews (1 Esdras 2:16 ff).

In 1 Esdras 2:17 he is styled “story-writer,” the Revised Version margin “recorder” ([oJ ta< prospi>ptonta, ho ta prospiptonta ] sc. ([gra>fwn, graphon ]) = “Rehum the chancellor” of Ezra 4:8, Rathumus being a Greek form of Rehum. In 1 Esdras 2:16 his title appears as an independent proper name, BEELTETHMUS (which see) (here the King James Version margin gives “Bahumus,” a misprint), and in 1 Esdras 2:25 R. and Beeltethmus are given as distinct persons.

RAVEN <ra’-vn > ([ bre[o , `orebh ]; [ko>rax, korax ]; Latin Corvus corax): A large family of the smaller birds of prey belonging to the genus Corvus corax. A bird of such universal distribution that it is known from Iceland to Japan, all over Asia, Europe and Africa, but almost extinct and not of general distribution in our own country. In no land is it more numerous than in Palestine In general appearance it resembles the crow, but is much larger, being almost two feet long, of a glossy black, with whiskers around the beak, and rather stiff-pointed neck feathers. A bird exhibiting as much intelligence as any, and of a saucy, impudent disposition, it has been an object of interest from the beginning. It has been able to speak sentences of a few words when carefully taught, and by its uncanny acts has made itself a bird surrounded by superstition, myth, fable, and is connected with the religious rites of many nations. It is partially a carrion feeder, if offal or bodies are fresh; it also eats the young of other birds and very small animals and seeds, berries and fruit, having as varied a diet as any bird. It is noisy, with a loud, rough, emphatic cry, and its young are clamorous feeding time.

Aristotle wrote that ravens drove their young from their location and forced them to care for themselves from the time they left the nest. This is doubtful. Bird habits and characteristics change only with slow ages of evolution. Our ravens of today are, to all intents, the same birds as those of Palestine in the time of Moses, and ours follow the young afield for several days and feed them until the cawing, flapping youngsters appear larger than the parents. In Pliny’s day, ravens had been taught to speak, and as an instance of their cunning he records that in time of drought a raven found a bucket containing a little water beside a grave and raised it to drinking level by dropping in stones.

Palestine has at least 8 different species of ravens. This bird was the first sent out by Noah in an effort to discover if the flood were abating ( Genesis 8:6-8). Because it partially fed on carrion it was included among the abominations (see Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14).

On 1 Kings 17:4-6, see ELIJAH and the present writer’s Birds of the Bible, 401-3. Among the marvels of creation and providence in Job 38:41, we have this mention of the raven, “Who provideth for the raven his prey, When his young ones cry unto God, And wander for lack of food?” The answer to this question is in <19E709> Psalm 147:9: “He giveth to the beast his food, And to the young ravens which cry.” Both these quotations point out the fact that the young are peculiarly noisy. In Proverbs 30:17 it is indicated that the ravens, as well as eagles, vultures and hawks, found the eye of prey the vulnerable point, and so attacked it first. The Hebrew `orebh means “black,” and for this reason was applied to the raven, so the reference to the locks of the bridegroom in the Song of Solomon becomes clear (Song 5:11). The raven is one of the birds indicated to prey upon the ruins of Edom ( Isaiah 34:11). The last reference is found in Luke 12:24: “Consider the ravens, that they sow not, neither reap; which have no store-chamber nor barn; and God feedeth them.” This could have been said of any wild bird with equal truth. Gene Stratton-Porter RAVEN; RAVIN <rav’-n > , <rav’-in > : “Raven” (verb) is from “rapine,” “violent plundering, used for [ trf; , Taraph ], in Genesis 49:27; Psalm 22:13; Ezekiel 22:25,27, while “ravin” (noun) is the object ravened, in Nah 2:12 the torn carcasses ([ hp;ref] , Terephah ]). So “ravenous bird” ( Isaiah 46:11; Ezekiel 39:4) is a bird of prey (not a “hungry bird”), [ fyi[“ , `ayiT ], literally, “a screecher.” “Ravenous beast” in Isaiah 35:9 is for [ 6yriP; , parits ], “violent one.” In the New Testament [a[rpax, harpax ], “rapacious,” is translated “ravening” in Matthew 7:15, while for the cognate [aJrpagh>, harpage ] ( Luke 11:39), the King James Version gives “ravening,” the Revised Version (British and American) “extortion.”

RAZIS <ra’-zis > ([ JRazei>v, Rhazeis ]): “An elder of Jerusalem,” “lover of his countrymen,” and for his good will toward them called “father of the Jews,” accused before the Syrian general Nicanor as an opponent of Hellenism. In order to escape falling into the hands of Nicanor’s soldiers he committed suicide with the greatest determination in a rather revolting manner (2 Macc 14:37 ff), in his death calling upon “the Lord of life” in the hope of a resurrection. His suicide — contrary to Jewish sentiment — was regarded with approbation by the author of 2 Macc (14:42,43).

RAZOR <ra’-zer > ([ r[T, ta`ar ], “knife” ( Numbers 6:5; Psalm 52:2; Isaiah 7:20; Ezekiel 5:1), [ hr;wOm , morah ], “razor” ( Judges 13:5; 16:17; 1 Samuel 1:11)). See BARBER; HAIR.

READING <red’-ing > ([ ar;q]mi , miqra’ ]; [ajna>gnwsiv, anagnosis ]): As a noun occurs once in the Old Testament ( Nehemiah 3:8) and 3 times in the New Testament ( Acts 13:15; 2 Corinthians 3:14; 1 Timothy 4:13), each time with reference to the public reading of the Divine Law.

The verb “to read” ([ ar;q; , qara’ ]; [ajnaginw>skw, anaginosko ]) occurs frequently both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament: (1) often in the sense of reading aloud to others, especially of the public reading of God’s Law or of prophecy, as by Moses ( Exodus 24:7), Ezra ( Nehemiah 8:3,18), Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth ( Luke 4:16), of the regular reading of the Law and the Prophets in the synagogues ( Acts 13:27; 15:21), and of the reading of apostolic epistles in the Christian church ( Colossians 4:16; Thessalonians 5:27); (2) also in the sense of reading to one’s self, whether the divine word in Law or prophecy ( Deuteronomy 17:19; Acts 8:28-30, etc.), or such things as private letters ( 2 Kings 5:7; 19:14; Acts 23:34, etc.). D. Miall Edwards READY <red’-i > ([ ryhim; , mahir ]): Occurs twice in the sense of apt, skillful ( Ezra 7:6; Psalm 45:1). the Revised Version (British and American) gives “ready” for “fit” ( Proverbs 24:27), for “asketh” ( Micah 7:3), for “prepared” ( Mark 14:15), for “not be negligent” (2 Pet 1:12).

REAIAH <re-a’-ya > , <re-i’-a > ([ hy;a;r] , re’ayah ], “Yah has seen”; Septuagint:

Codex Vaticanus, [ JRada>, Rhada ], A, [ JReia>, Rheia ]): (1) The eponym of a Calebite family ( 1 Chronicles 4:2). The word “Reaiah” should probably be substituted for “Haroeh” in Chronicles 2:52, but both forms may be corruptions. (2) A Reubenite ( 1 Chronicles 5:5, the King James Version “Reaia”). See JOEL. (3) The family name of a company of Nethinim ( Ezra 2:47; Nehemiah 7:50 = 1 Esdras 5:31).

REAPING <rep’-ing > ([ rxq; , qatsar ]; [qeri>zw, therizo ]): Reaping in ancient times, as at present, consisted in either pulling up the grain by the roots or cutting it with a sickle (see SICKLE ), and then binding the stalks into bundles to be carried to the threshing-floor. If the Egyptian sculptures are true to life, reaping was sometimes divided into two operations, the heads of grain and the stalks being reaped separately. In Palestine and Syria both pulling and cutting are still practiced, the former when the ground is stony and the spears scarce. Even where the sickle is used, much of the grain comes up by the roots, owing to the toughness of the dried stalks or the dullness of the sickle. The reaper sometimes wears pieces of cane on the fingers of the hand which gathers the grain in order to protect them from injury by the sharp grasses or the sickle. There were definite laws established by the Hebrews in regard to reaping ( Leviticus 19:9; 23:10; 25:5,11; Deuteronomy 16:9). Samuel mentions the task of reaping the harvest as one of the requirements which would be made by the king for whom the people were clamoring ( 1 Samuel 8:12).

FIGURATIVE:

The certainty of the consequences of good and evil doing were often typified by the sowing and the reaping of harvests ( Job 4:8; Proverbs 22:8; Hosea 8:7; 10:12,13; 2 Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 6:7,8). “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy” is found in the liberated captives’ song ( <19C605> Psalm 126:5). “He that regardeth the clouds shall not reap,” i.e. a lack of faith in God’s care will be punished ( Ecclesiastes 11:4); compare also the lesson of trust drawn from the birds ( Matthew 6:26; Luke 12:24). Sowing and not reaping the harvest is mentioned as a punishment for disobedience ( Job 31:8; Jeremiah 12:13; Micah 6:15). Reaping where he sowed not, showed the injustice of the landlord ( Matthew 25:26), as did also the withholding of the reapers’ wages ( James 5:4). In God’s Kingdom there is a division of labor: “He that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together” ( John 4:36-38). In John’s vision he saw an angel reap the earth ( Revelation 14:15,16). See AGRICULTURE; GLEANING.

James A. Patch REARWARD <rer’-word > ([ ts”a; , ‘acaph ], “to gather,” Numbers 10:25; Joshua 6:9 (the King James Version margin “gathering host”); Isaiah 52:12). See ARMY; DAN, TRIBE OF; WAR, 3.

REASON; REASONABLE; REASONING <re’-z’n > , <re’-z’n-a-b’l > , <re’-z’n-ing > ([ jk”y; , yakhach ], etc.; [lo>gov, logos ], [dialogi>zomai, -ismo>v, dialogizomai, -ismos ], etc.): “Reason” with related terms, has a diversity of meanings, representing a large number of Hebrew and Greek words and phrases. In the sense of “cause” or “occasion” it stands in 1 Kings 9:15 for dabhar, “a word” (the Revised Version margin “account”), but in most cases renders prepositional forms as “from,” “with,” “because of,” “for the sake,” etc. As the ground or argument for anything, it is the translation of ta`am ( Proverbs 26:16, the Revised Version margin “answers discreetly”), of yakhach , as in Isaiah 1:18, “Come now, and let us reason together” (compare Job 13:3; 15:3); in 1 Samuel 12:7, the word is shaphaT , the Revised Version (British and American) “that I may plead,” etc. The principal Greek words for “reason,” “reasoning,” are those given above. The Christian believer is to be ready to give a reason (logos ) for the hope that is in him (1 Pet 3:15 the King James Version). “Reason” as a human faculty or in the abstract sense appears in Apocrypha in The Wisdom of Solomon 17:12 (logismos ); Ecclesiasticus 37:16, “Let reason (logos ) go before every enterprise,” the Revised Version (British and American) “be the beginning of every work.” In Acts 18:14, “reason would” is literally, kata logon , “according to reason”; in Romans 12:1, for “reasonable (logikos ) service,” the Revised Version (British and American) has “spiritual,” and in the margin “Greek `belonging to the reason.’ “ In the Revised Version (British and American) “reason,” etc., occurs much oftener than in the King James Version (compare Leviticus 17:11; Deuteronomy 28:47; Judges 5:22; Job 20:2; 23:7, etc.; Luke 3:15; 12:17; Acts 17:17, etc.). W. L. Walker REBA <re-bek’-a > ([ [b”r, , rebha` ], “fourth part”; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [ jRo>be, Rhobe ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRe>bek, Rhebek ]): One of the five chieftains of Midian who were slain by the Israelites, under Moses ( Numbers 31:8; Joshua 13:21). Like his comrades, he is termed a “king” in Numbers, but a “chief” or “prince” in Joshua.

REBEKAH <re-bek’-a > ([ hq;b]ri , ribhqah ]; Septuagint and New Testament [ JRebe>kka, Rhebekka ], whence the usual English spelling Rebecca):

Daughter of Bethuel and an unknown mother, grand-daughter of Nahor and Milcah, sister of Laban, wife of Isaac, mother of Esau and Jacob.

Her name is usually explained from the Arabic, rabqat , “a tie-rope for animals,” or, rather, “a noose” in such a rope; its application would then by figure suggest the beauty (?) of her that bears it, by means of which men are snared or bound; The root is found in Hebrew only in the noun meaning “hitching-place” or “stall,” in the familiar phrase “fatted calf” or “calf of the stall,” and in view of the meaning of such names as Rachel and Eglah the name Rebekah might well mean (concrete for abstract, like [ hm;q]ri , riqmah ], [ hD;m]j, , chemdah ], etc.) a “tied-up calf” (or “lamb”?), one therefore peculiarly choice and fat.

Rebekah is first mentioned in the genealogy of the descendants of Nahor, brother of Abraham ( Genesis 22:20-24). In fact, the family is there carried down just so far as is necessary in order to introduce this woman, for whose subsequent appearance and role the genealogy is obviously intended as a preparation. All this branch of the family of Terah had remained in Aram when Abraham and Lot had migrated to Canaan, and it is at Haran, “the city of Nahor,” that we first meet Rebekah, when in Genesis 24 she is made known to Abraham’s servant at the well before the gate.

That idyllic narrative of the finding of a bride for Isaac is too familiar to need rehearsal and too simple to require comment. Besides, the substance both of that story and of the whole of Rebekah’s career is treated in connection with the sketches of the other actors in the same scenes. Yet we note from the beginning the maiden’s decision of character, which appears in every line of the narrative, and prepares the reader to find in subsequent chapters the positive, ambitious and energetic woman that she there shows herself.

Though the object of her husband’s love ( Genesis 24:67), Rebekah bore him no children for 20 years ( Genesis 25:20,26). Like Sarah, she too was barren, and it was only after that score of years and after the special intercession of Isaac that God at length granted her twin sons. “The purpose of God according to election,” as Paul expresses the matter in Romans 9:11, was the cause of that strange oracle to the wondering, inquiring parents, “The elder shall serve the younger” ( Genesis 25:23).

Whether because of this oracle or for some other reason, it was that younger son, Jacob, who became the object of his mother’s special love ( Genesis 25:28). She it was who led him into the deception practiced upon Isaac ( Genesis 27:5-17), and she it was who devised the plan for extricating Jacob from the dangerous situation into which that deception had brought him ( Genesis 27:42-46). When the absence of Jacob from home became essential to his personal safety, Rebekah proposed her own relations in Aram as the goal of his journey, and gave as motive the desirability of Jacob’s marrying from among her kindred. Probably she did not realize that in sending her favorite son away on this journey she was sending him away from her forever. Yet such seems to have been the case.

Though younger than Isaac, who was still living at an advanced age when Jacob returned to Canaan a quarter of a century later, Rebekah seems to have died during that term. We learn definitely only this, that she was buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron ( Genesis 49:31).

Outside of Genesis, Rebekah is alluded to in Scripture only in the passage from Romans (9:10-12) already cited. Her significance there is simply that of the wife of Isaac and the mother of two sons of such different character and destiny as Esau and Jacob. And her significance in Gen, apart from this, lies in her contribution to the family of Abraham of a pure strain from the same eastern stock, thus transmitting to the founders of Israel both an unmixed lineage and that tradition of separateness from Canaanite and other non-Hebrew elements which has proved the greatest factor in the ethnological marvel of the ages, the persistence of the Hebrew people. J. Oscar Boyd REBUKE <re-buk’ > : As a verb “rebuke” is in the Old Testament the translation of [ r[“G; , ga`ar ] and [ jk”y; , yakhach ]; another word, ribh , in Nehemiah 5:7, is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated “contended with.” “Rebuke” (noun) is most frequently the translation of ge`arah ; also in the King James Version of cherpah ( Isaiah 25:8; Jeremiah 15:15, the Revised Version (British and American) “reproach”), and of a few other words signifying reproach, etc. “Rebuker” (mucar , literally, “correction,” “chastisement”) in Hosea 5:2 has the Revised Version margin “Hebrew `rebuke.’” In the New Testament “to rebuke” is most often the translation of [ejpitima>w, epitimao ] ( Matthew 8:26; 16:22; 17:18, etc.); also in the King James Version of [ejle>gcw, elegcho ], always in the Revised Version (British and American) rendered “reprove” (1 Tim 5:20; Titus 1:13; 2:15; Hebrews 12:5; Revelation 3:19). Another word is epipletto (once, 1 Timothy 5:1); “without rebuke” in Philippians 2:15 is in the Revised Version (British and American) “without blemish.” On the other hand, the Revised Version (British and American) has “rebuke” for several words in the King James Version, as for “reprove” ( 2 Kings 19:4; Isaiah 37:4), “reproof” ( Job 26:11; Proverbs 17:10), “charged” ( Mark 10:48). In Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3, the English Revised Version has “reprove” for “rebuke,” and in the margin “decide concerning,” which is text in the American Standard Revised Version. In Ecclesiasticus 11:7 we have the wise counsel: “Understand first, and then rebuke” (epitimao ). W. L. Walker RECAH <re’-ka > ([ hk;re , rekhah ]; Codex Vaticanus [ JRhca>b, Rhechab ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRhfa>, Rhepha ]; the King James Version Rechah): In Chronicles 4:12 certain persons are described as “the men of Recah,” but there is absolutely no information either about the place or its position.

RECEIPT OF CUSTOM <re-set > . See CUSTOM.

RECEIVER <re-sev’-er > : Found in the King James Version ( Isaiah 33:18); but the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes “he that weighed the tribute.” The Hebrew is shoqel , which means “one who weighs,” “a weigher.”

RECHAB; RECHABITES <re’-kab > , <rek’-a-bits > ([ bk;re , rekhabh ], [ µybik;re , rekhabhim ]): Rechab is the name of two men of some prominence in the Old Testament records: (1) A Benjamite of the town of Beeroth, son of Rimmon ( 2 Samuel 4:2); he and his brother Baanah were “captains” of the military host of Ish-bosheth. On the death of Abner ( 2 Samuel 3:30) the two brothers treacherously entered Ish-bosheth’s house, when at noon he was resting and helpless, beheaded him, and escaped with the head to David at Hebron ( 2 Samuel 4:6-8). They expected to receive reward and honor from David for the foul deed, which left him without a rival for the throne of all Israel. But the just and noble-minded king ordered their immediate execution ( 2 Samuel 4:9-12), as in the case of the Amalekite, who asserted that he had killed Saul (2 Samuel 1).

For some reason the Beerothites left their own town and fled to Gittaim, another town in Benjamin, where they were still living when the Books of Samuel were written ( 2 Samuel 4:3). (2) The more prominent of the men bearing this name was a KENITE (which see), a descendant of Hammath ( 1 Chronicles 2:55). A part of the Kenite tribe joined the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings ( Numbers 10:29-32; Judges 1:16; 4:17), becoming identified with the tribe of Judah, although Heber and Jael his wife were settled in Northern Palestine ( Judges 4:17). Rechab was the ancestor or founder of a family, or order, in Israel known as the Rechabites, who at various times were conspicuous in the religious life of the nation. The most notable member of this family was Jehonadab ( 2 Kings 10:15 ff,23), or Jonadab, as he is called in Jeremiah 35.

Jehonadab was a zealous Yahweh-worshipper and took part with Jehu in the extirpation of Baal-worship and the house of Ahab. He set for his descendants a vow of asceticism: that they should drink no wine, nor plant fields or vineyards, nor build nor live in houses throughout their generations ( Jeremiah 35:6,7). That must have been a singular feature in Palestinian life: the simple, nomadic life of this family from generation to generation in the midst of settled agricultural and industrial conditions! They followed this simple life in order to guard against the enervating tendencies of sensualism, and as a covenant of fidelity to Yahweh, to whom they wholly devoted themselves when they joined themselves to Israel. Jeremiah used the Rechabites, who had been driven into Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar’s investment of the land, as an object-lesson to covenant-breaking Judah. The Rechabites, hungry and thirsty, refused wine when it was set before them, because of the command of their ancestor Jonadab ( Jeremiah 35:8-10); but Judah refused to heed Yahweh’s commands or to keep His covenant ( Jeremiah 35:14,15).

If the Rechab of Nehemiah 3:14 is the same as this Kenite, then his descendant Malchijah, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, may have abandoned the vow of his ancestors, for he was “ruler of the district of Beth-haccherem” (i.e. “house of the vineyard”). Edward Mack RECHAH <re’-ka > ([ hk;re , rekhah ]). See RECAH.

RECLINING <re-klin’-ing > ( John 13:23). See MEALS, III; TRICLINIUM.

RECONCILE; RECONCILIATION <rek’-on-sil > , <rek-on-sil-i-a’-shun > (katalla>ssw, katallasso ], [ Katallagh>, katallage ], also the compound form [ajpokatalla>ssw, apokatallasso ]; once the cognate [dialla>ssomai, diallassomai ] is used in Matthew 5:24): 1. THE TERMS: (1) New Testament Usage.

In the last case, Matthew 5:24, the word is not used in a doctrinal sense, though its use is very helpful in considering the force of the other terms. All the other instances are in Paul’s Epistles ( Romans 5:10; Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, the verb; Romans 5:11; 11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19, the noun; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:22, the compound). The word “reconcile” has a double meaning and usage, and the context must in each case determine how it is to be taken. The great doctrine is the reconciliation of God and men, but the question to be decided is whether it is God who is reconciled to men, or men who are reconciled to God, and different schools of theology emphasize one side or the other. The true view embraces both aspects. The word “to reconcile” means literally to exchange, to bring into a changed relationship. Some maintain that it is only a change in the sinner that is intended, a laying aside of his enmity, and coming into peaceful relations with God. But that manifestly does not exhaust the meaning, nor is it in the great Pauline passages the primary and dominant meaning. (2) Old Testament Usage.

The Old Testament usage does not materially help in the elucidation of the New Testament terms, for though the word occurs in a number of passages in the King James Version, it is in the Revised Version (British and American) generally changed to “atonement,” which more accurately represents the Hebrew kaphar , which is generally rendered by “atonement,” and by hilaskomai or exilaskomai in the Greek (In one passage of the New Testament ( Hebrews 2:17), the phrase “to make reconciliation” represents the Greek hilaskomai , and is better rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) by “to make propitiation.”) The making atonement or propitiation is the basis of the reconciliation, the means of its accomplishment, and the fact that the translators of the King James Version sometimes rendered kaphar by “reconcile” shows that they understood reconciliation to have the Godward aspect. Whatever may be said of the nature of the atonement or propitiation in the old dispensation, it was something contemplated as appeasing or satisfying, or at least in some way affecting God so as to make Him willing, or render it possible for Him, to enter into, or abide in, gracious relations with men. In one passage in the Old Testament where “reconciliation” occurs ( Chronicles 29:24) it represents a different Hebrew word, but here the Revised Version (British and American) has changed it into “sin-offering,” which is in harmony with the general meaning and usage of the Hebrew. (3) Special Passage in 1 Samuel 29:4.

There is yet another Hebrew word rendered “reconcile” in 1 Samuel 29:4, and inasmuch as this passage in the Septuagint has as the equivalent of the Hebrew the Greek word diallasso , it is of some importance in guiding to the New Testament meaning. On one occasion when the Philistines gathered together to battle against Israel, David and his band of men accompanied Achish king of Gath to the muster-place. “The princes of the Philistines” did not at all appreciate the presence of “these Hebrews,” and although Achish testified in favor of David’s fidelity, they were very indignant, and demanded that David and his men be sent back, “lest in the battle he become an adversary to us: for wherewith should this fellow reconcile himself unto his lord? should it not be with the heads of these men?” The Hebrew is ratsah , which means “to be pleased with” or “to accept favorably,” and the Hithpael form here used is “to make himself pleasing or acceptable,” “to reconcile himself.” But assuredly the Philistines’ idea of David reconciling himself to Saul was not that he should lay aside his enmity against Saul, and so become friends with him. The enmity was on Saul’s side, and the thought of the princes was that David by turning against them in the battle would gratify Saul, and lead him to lay aside his enmity against David. (4) Usage in the Apocrypha.

It may be noted that in 2 Macc 5:20, katallage is used evidently of the Godward side: “And the place which was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was, at the reconciliation of the great Sovereign, restored again with all glory.” The verb occurs in 2 Macc 1:5 when again the Godward side seems intended, though not perhaps so certainly: “May God .... hearken to your supplications, and be reconciled with you,” and in 7:33: “If for rebuke and chastening our living Lord has been angered a little while, yet shall he again be reconciled with his own servants,” and 8:29: “They besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants.” In these two, especially the last, it is unquestionably the laying aside of the divine displeasure that is meant. 2. NON-DOCTRINAL PASSAGE — MATTHEW 5:24:

Before passing on to look at the great utterances in the Epistles, we may now look at the non-doctrinal passage referred to at the beginning. There is, indeed, another non-doctrinal instance in 1 Corinthians 7:11, where the wife who has departed from her husband is enjoined either to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.” But as it is indeterminate whether the wife or the husband is the offending party, and so which is the one to be influenced, the passage does not help us much. But Matthew 5:24 is a very illuminating passage. Here as in the passage from 1 Samuel, the word used is diallasso , but it is practically identified in meaning with katallasso. The injunction is given by Christ to the one who is at variance with his brother, not to complete his offering until first he has been reconciled to his brother. But the whole statement shows that it is not a question of the one who is offering the gift laying aside his enmity against his brother, but the reverse. Christ says, “If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest (not that thou hast a grudge against thy brother but) that thy brother hath aught against thee” — the brother was the offended one, he is the one to be brought round — “leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Plainly it means that he should do something to remove his brother’s displeasure and so bring about a reconciliation. 3. DOCTRINAL PASSAGES: (1) Romans 5.

Turning now to Romans 5, how stands the matter? Paul has been speaking of the blessed results of justification; one of these results is the shedding abroad of the love of God in the heart. Then he dwells upon the manifestation of that love in the death of Christ, a love that was displayed to the loveless, and he argues that if in our sinful and unloving state we were embraced by the love of God, a fortiori that love will not be less now that it has already begun to take effect. If He loved us when we were under His condemnation sufficiently to give His Son to die for our salvation, much more shall His love bestow upon us the blessings secured by that death. “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him” ( Romans 5:9). (a) The Fact of Divine Wrath:

It is well to note, then, that there is “wrath” on the part of God against sin and sinners. One of the key-thoughts of the apostle in this epistle is that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” ( Romans 1:18), and the coming day of judgment is “the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” ( Romans 2:5). And because of this stern fact, the gospel is a revelation not only of love, but specifically “a righteousness of God” ( Romans 1:17). And he shows that the essence of the gospel is found in the propitiatory death of the Lord Jesus Christ ( Romans 3:24,25,26), through whom alone can men who have been “brought under the judgment of God” ( Romans 3:19) find justification, salvation, deliverance from the wrath of God ( Romans 4:25; 5:1-6). Of course it is not necessary to add that the wrath of God is not to be thought of as having any unworthy or capricious element in it — it is the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin. (b) Reconciliation, Godward, as Well as Manward:

The apostle proceeds ( Romans 5:10): “For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” Now if, as many maintain, it is only the reconciliation on the manward side that is meant, that the manifested love led to the sinner laying aside his enmity, it would entirely reverse the apostle’s argument. He is not arguing that if we have begun to love God we may reckon upon His doing so and so for us, but because He has done so much, we may expect Him to do more. The verse is parallel to the preceding, and the being reconciled is on the same plane as being justified; the being justified was God’s action, and so is the reconciling.

Justification delivers from “the wrath of God”; reconciliation takes effect upon enemies. (c) The Meaning of the Word “Enemies”:

The word “enemies” is important. By those who take the manward aspect of reconciliation as the only one, it is held that the word must be taken actively — those who hate God. But the passive meaning, “hatred of God,” seems far the preferable, and is indeed demanded by the context.

Paul uses the verb echthroi, “enemies,” in Romans 11:28, in antithesis to “beloved” of God, and that is the consistent sense here. The enemies are those who are the objects of the wrath of the previous verse. And when we were thus hated of God, the objects of His just displeasure on account of our sin, “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” God laid aside His enmity, and in the propitiatory death of Christ showed Himself willing to receive us into His favor. (d) The Manward Side:

By this propitiation, therefore, the barrier was removed, and, God having assumed a gracious attitude toward the sinner, it is possible for the sinner now, influenced by His love, to come into a friendly relationship with God.

And so in the second phrase, the two meanings, the Godward and the manward, may coalesce: “being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

The reconciliation becomes mutual, for there is no kind of doubt that sinners are enemies to God in the active sense, and require to lay aside their hostility, and so be reconciled to Him. But the first step is with God, and the reconciliation which took place in the death of His Son could only be the Godward reconciliation, since at that time men were still uninfluenced by His love. But, perhaps, just because that first reconciliation is brought about through the divine love which provides the propitiation, the apostle avoids saying “God is reconciled,” but uses the more indirect form of speech. The manward aspect is emphasized in the next verse, although the Godward is not lost sight of: “We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation” ( Romans 5:11). It is therefore something that comes from God and does not proceed from man. God is the first mover; He makes the reconciliation as already indicated, and then the fruit of it is imputed to the believing sinner, and the very fact that our receiving the reconciliation, or being brought into a state of reconciliation; follows the being reconciled of Romans 5:10, shows that the other is divine reconciliation as the basis of the human. (2) 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. (a) The Godward Aspect Primary:

In the same way the great passage in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 cannot be understood apart from the conception that there is a reconciliation on the divine side. There is unquestionably reference to the human side of the matter as well, but, as in Romans, the Godward aspect is primary and dominating: “All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation.” It might be possible to argue from the King James Version that this describes the process going on under gospel influences, men being brought into gracious relations with God, but the aorist of the Greek rightly rendered by the Revised Version (British and American), “who reconciled us to himself,” points back to the historic time when the transaction took place. It cannot be simply the surrender of the sinner to God that is meant, though that comes as a consequence; it is a work that proceeds from God, is accomplished by God, and because of the accomplishment of that work it is possible for a ministry of reconciliation to be entrusted to men. To make this mean the human aspect of the reconciliation, it would be necessary unduly to confine it to the reconciliation of Paul and his fellow-workers, though even then it would be a straining of language, for there is the other historic act described, “and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation.”

The plain meaning is that through Jesus Christ, God established the basis of agreement, removed the barrier to the sinner’s approach to Himself, accomplished the work of propitiation, and, having done so, He entrusts His servants with the ministry of reconciliation, a ministry which, basing itself upon the great propitiatory, reconciling work of Christ, is directed toward men, seeking to remove their enmity, to influence them in their turn to be reconciled with God. This is more clearly set forth in the verse which follows, which in explaining the ministry of reconciliation says: “To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses.” Here there can be no question that the historic Incarnation is meant, and the reconciling of the world can be nothing other than the objective work of atonement culminating in the cross. And in that transaction there can be no thought of the sinner laying aside his hostility to God; it is God in Christ so dealing with sin that the doom lying upon the guilty is canceled, the wrath is averted, propitiation is made. (b) The Manward Side also Prominent:

God, in a word, enters into gracious relations with a world of sinners, becomes reconciled to man. This being done, gracious influences can be brought to bear upon man, the chief of which is the consideration of this stupendous fact of grace, that God has in Christ dealt with the question of sin. This is the substance of the “word of reconciliation” which is preached by the apostle. So he continues, “We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God.” Here is the human side. The great matter now is to get the sinner to lay aside his enmity, to respond to the gracious overtures of the gospel, to come into harmony with God. But that is only possible because the reconciliation in the Godward aspect has already been accomplished. If the first reconciliation, “the reconciliation of the world unto himself,” had been the laying aside of human enmity, there could now be no point in the exhortation, “Be ye reconciled to God.” (3) Ephesians 2:16.

The two passages where the compound word occurs are in complete harmony with this interpretation. Ephesians 2:16: “And might reconcile them both (Jew and Gentile) in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby,” is the outcome of Christ “making peace” (2:15), and the reconciling work is effected through the cross, reconciliation both Godward and manward, and, having made peace, it is possible for Christ to come and preach peace to them that are far off — far off even though the reconciling work of the cross has been accomplished. (4) Colossians 1:20-22.

So in Colossians 1:20, “And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.” Here the thought of the apostle trembles away into infinity, and there seems a parallel to the thought of Hebrews 9:23, that according to the typical teaching even “the things in the heavens” in some way stood in need of cleansing. May it be that the work of Christ in some sense affected the angelic intelligence, making it possible for harmony to be restored between redeemed sinners and the perfect creation of God? In any case, the reconciling all things unto Himself is not the laying aside of the creaturely hostility, but the determining of the divine attitude. Then comes the specific reference to the human side, “And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death”; there, as in Romans, the two phases coalescing, God appearing gracious through the work of Christ, sinners coming into gracious relation with Him. “Having made peace through the blood of his cross,” the ground of peace has been established. Christ has done something by His death which makes it possible to offer peace to men. God has laid aside His holy opposition to the sinner, and shows Himself willing to bring men into peace with Himself. He has found satisfaction in that great work of His Son, has been reconciled, and now calls upon men to be reconciled to Him — to receive the reconciliation. See ATONEMENT; PROPITIATION; WRATH.

LITERATURE. See the works on New Testament Theology of Weiss, Schmid, Stevens, etc.; Denney, Death of Christ; articles on “Reconciliation” in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, etc.

Archibald M’Caig RECORD <rek’-ord > , <rek’-ord > : (1) The English word, where it occurs in the Old Testament and the New Testament in the sense of testimony, is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) “witness” ( Deuteronomy 30:19; 31:28; John 1:19,32; 8:13,14; Romans 10:2, etc.). See WITNESS . But in Job 16:19 for the King James Version “my record,” the Revised Version (British and American) has “he that voucheth for me.” (2) In Ezra 4:15; 6:2 (dokhran , dikhron ), and Est 6:1 (zikkaron ), the word denotes Persian state chronicles; compare 1 Macc 14:23; Macc 2:1.

RECORDER <re-kor’-der > ([ ryKiz]m” , mazkir ]; the Revised Version margin “chronicler”): A high functionary in the court of the Jewish kings, part of whose duty seems to have been to chronicle the events of the reign, but who also occupied a position corresponding with that of the modern vizier ( 2 Samuel 8:16; 20:24; 1 Chronicles 18:15, etc.). His high rank is shown by the facts that, with other officers, he represented Hezekiah in speaking with Rabshakeh ( 2 Kings 18:18), and, in the reign of Josiah, superintended the repairs of the temple ( 2 Chronicles 34:8).

RECOVER <re-kuv’-er > : “Recover” has (1) the transitive meaning of “to retake” or “regain” (anything); and (2) the intransitive sense of “to regain health” or “become well.” In Judith 14:7 it means “restore to consciousness.” In the former sense it is in the Old Testament the translation of [ lx”n; , natsal ], “to snatch away” ( Judges 11:26; 1 Samuel 30:8,22; in Hosea 2:9, the Revised Version (British and American) “pluck away”); also of [ bWv , shubh ] (Qal and Hiphil 1 Samuel 30:19 the King James Version; 2 Samuel 8:3, etc.), and of various other words in single instances.

In 2 Kings 5:3,6,7,11, “to restore to health” is [ ts”a; , ‘acaph ]. In its intransitive sense “recover” is chiefly the translation of [ hy;j; , chayah ], “to live,” “revive” ( 2 Kings 1:2, etc.; Isaiah 38:9,21). “Recover” appears only twice in the King James Version of the New Testament; Mark 16:18 (for kalos hexousin) and 2 Timothy 2:26 (from ananepho , the Revised Version margin “Greek: `return to soberness’ “); but the Revised Version (British and American) has “recover” for “do well” in John 11:12 (sothesetai ; margin “Greek: `be saved’”). “Recovering” (of sight) (anablepsis ) occurs in Luke 4:18. W. L. Walker RED See COLORS, (10).

RED DRAGON See REVELATION OF JOHN.

RED HEIFER See HEIFER, RED.

RED HORSE See HORSE, RED; REVELATION OF JOHN.

RED SEA ([ tWsAµy” , yam-cuph ] ( Exodus 10:19 and often), but in many passages it is simply [ µY;h” , hayam ], “the sea”’ Septuagint with 2 or exceptions renders it by [hJ ejruqra< qa>lassa, he eruthra thalassa ], “the Red Sea”; Latin geographers Mare Rubrum): 1. NAME:

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

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

The evidence of the more recent depression of the land surface in all Lower Egypt is unmistakable. Raised beaches containing shells and corals still living in the Red Sea are found at various levels up to more than 200 ft. above tide. One of the most interesting of these is to be seen near the summit of the “Crow’s Nest,” a half-mile South of the great pyramids, where, near the summit of the eminence, and approximately 200 ft. above tide, on a level with the base of the pyramids, there is a clearly defined recent sea beach composed of water-worn pebbles from 1 inches to 1 or ft. in diameter, the interstices of which are filled with small shells loosely cemented together. These are identified as belonging to a variable form, Alectryonia cucullata Born, which lives at the present time in the Red Sea.

On the opposite side of the river, on the Mokattam Hills South of Cairo, at an elevation of 220 ft. above tide, similar deposits are found containing numerous shells of recent date, while the rock face is penetrated by numerous borings of lithodomus mollusks (Pholades rugosa Broc.). Other evidences of the recent general depression of the land in this region come from various places on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. According to Lartet at Ramleh, near Jaffa, a recent beach occurs more than 200 ft. above sea-level containing many shells of Pectunculus violascens Lamk, which is at the present time the most abundant mollusk on the shore of the adjoining Mediterranean. A similar beach has been described by Dr. Post at Lattakia, about 30 miles North of Beirut; while others, according to Hull, occur upon the island of Cyprus. Further evidence of this depression is also seen in the fact that the isthmus between Suez and the Bitter Lakes is covered with recent deposits of Nile mud, holding modern Red Sea shells, showing that, at no very distant date, there was an overflow of the Nile through an eastern branch into this slightly depressed level. The line of this branch of the Nile overflow was in early times used for a canal, which has recently been opened to furnish fresh water to Suez, and the depression is followed by the railroad. According to Dawson, large surfaces of the desert North of Suez, which are now above sea-level, contain buried in the sand “recent marine shells in such a state of preservation that not many centuries may have elapsed since they were in the bottom of the sea” (Egypt and Syria, 67). 3. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES:

The Red Sea is connected with the children of Israel chiefly through the crossing of it recorded in Exodus (see 4, below); but there are a few references to it in later times. Solomon is said ( 1 Kings 9:26) to have built a navy at “Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom.” This is at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah, the eastern branch of the Red Sea. Here his ships were manned by Hiram king of Tyre with “shipmen that had knowledge of the sea” ( 1 Kings 9:27).

And ( 1 Kings 9:28) “they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold.” But Eloth was evidently lost to Israel when Edom successfully revolted in the time of Joram ( 2 Kings 8:20). For a short time, however, it was restored to Judah by Amaziah ( 2 Kings 14:22); but finally, during the reign of Ahaz, the Syrians, or more probably, according to another reading, the Edomites, recovered the place and permanently drove the Jews away. But in 1 Kings 22:48 Jehoshaphat is said to have “made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber”; while in 2 Chronicles 20:36 Jehoshaphat is said to have joined with Ahaziah “to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in Ezion-geber.”

Unless there is some textual confusion here, “ships of Tarshish:” is simply the name of the style of the ship, like “East Indiaman,” and Tarshish in Chronicles may refer to some place in the East Indies. This is the more likely, since Solomon’s “navy” that went to Tarshish once every 3 years came “bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks,” which could hardly have come from any other place than India. See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 1, (2). 4. PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA BY THE ISRAELITES:

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

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

In Exodus 14:2, Pi-hahiroth is said to be “between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon.” Now though Migdol originally meant “watch-tower,” it is hardly supposable that this can be its meaning here, otherwise the children of Israel would have been moving directly toward a fortified place.

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

Somewhere in this vicinity would be a most natural place for the children of Israel to halt, and there is no difficulty, such as Naville supposes, to their passing between Jebel Geneffeh and the Bitter Lakes; for the mountain does not come abruptly to the lake, but leaves ample space for the passage of a caravan, while the mountain on one side and the lake on the other would protect them from a flank movement by Pharaoh and limit his army to harassing the rear of the Israelite host. Protected thus, the Israelites found a wide plain over which they could spread their camp, and if we suppose them to be as far South as Cheloof, every condition would be found to suit the narrative which follows. Moses was told by the Lord that if he would order the children of Israel to go forward, the sea would be divided and the children of Israel could cross over on dry ground. And when, in compliance with the divine command, Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, “Yahweh caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen” ( Exodus 14:21-30). But when the children of Israel were safely on the other side the waters returned and overwhelmed the entire host of Pharaoh.

In the Song of Moses which follows, describing the event, it is said that the waters were piled up by the “blast of thy (God’s) nostrils” ( Exodus 15:8), and again, verse 10, “Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them.” Thus 3 times the wind is mentioned as the means employed by God in opening the water. The competency of the wind temporarily to remove the water from the passage connecting the Gulf of Suez with the Bitter Lakes, provided it was only a few feet deep, is amply proved by facts of recent observation. Major General Tullock of the British army (Proc.

Victoria Inst., XXVIII, 267-80) reports having witnessed the driving off of the water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 ft., thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom. According to the report of the Suez Canal Company, the difference between the highest and the lowest water at Suez is 10 ft. 7 inches, all of which must be due to the effect of the wind, since the tides do not affect the Red Sea. The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for 1896 (165, 168) it appears that strong wind from the Southwest sometimes lowers the water at Toledo, Ohio, on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 ft., at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount; while a change in the wind during the passage of a single storm reverses the effect, thus sometimes producing a change of level at either end of the lake of 14 ft. in the course of a single day. It would require far less than a tornado to lower the water at Cheloof sufficiently to lay bare the shallow channel which we have supposed at that time to separate Egypt from the Sinaitic Peninsula. See EXODUS, THE.

Objections: Several objections to this theory, however, have been urged which should not pass without notice. (1) Steep Banks of the Channel:

Some have said that the children of Israel would have found an insuperable obstacle to their advance in the steep banks on either side of the supposed channel. But there were no steep banks to be encountered. A gentle sag leads down on one side to the center of the depression and a correspondingly gentle rise leads up on the other. (2) Walls Formed by the Water:

Much has also been made of the statement ( Exodus 14:22) that “the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left”; but when we consider the rhetorical use of this word “wall” it presents no difficulty. In Proverbs 18:11 we are told that “The rich man’s wealth is his strong city, And as a high wall in his own imagination.” In Isaiah 26:1 we are told that God will appoint salvation “for walls and bulwarks.”

Again Nahum (3:8) says of Egypt that her “rampart was the sea (margin “the Nile”), and her wall was of the sea.” The water upon either side of the opening served the purpose of a wall for protection. There was no chance for Pharaoh to intercept them by a flank movement. Nor is there need of paying further attention to the poetical expressions in the Song of Moses, where among other things it is said “that the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea,” and that the “earth (instead of the water) swallowed them.” (3) The East Winds:

Again it is objected that an east wind does not come from the right direction to produce the desired result. On the other hand it is an east wind only which could have freed the channel from water. A north wind would have blown the water from the Bitter Lakes southward, and owing to the quantity of water impounded would have increased the depth of the water in the narrow passage from the southern end of Suez. An east wind, however, would have pressed the water out from the channel both ways, and from the contour of the shore lines would be the only wind that could have done so. (4) The Miraculous Set Aside:

Again, it is objected that this explanation destroys the miraculous character of the event. But it should be noted that little is said in the narrative about the miraculous. On the other hand, it is a straightforward statement of events, leaving their miraculous character to be inferred from their nature.

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

It remains to add an important word concerning the evidential value of this perfect adjustment of the narrative to the physical conditions involved. So perfect is this conformity of the narrative to the obscure physical conditions involved, which only recent investigations have made clear, that the account becomes self-evidencing. It is not within the power of man to invent a story so perfectly in accordance with the vast and complicated conditions involved. The argument is as strong as that for human design when a key is found to fit a Yale lock. This is not a general account which would fit into a variety of circumstances. There is only one place in all the world, and one set of conditions in all history, which would meet the requirements; and here they are all met. This is scientific demonstration.

No higher proof can be found in the inductive sciences. The story is true. It has not been remodeled by the imagination, either of the original writers or of the transcribers. It is not the product of mythological fancy or of legendary accretion.

LITERATURE.

Dawson, Egypt and Syria; Hull, Mt. Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine; Naville, “The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus,” Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; Kyle, “Bricks without Straw at Pithom: A Reexamination of Naville’s Works,” Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7; Wright, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, 83-117. George Frederick Wright REDEEMER; REDEMPTION <re-dem’-er > , <re-demp’-shun > ([ qr”P; , paraq ], “to tear loose,” “to rescue,” [ hD;P; , padhah ], [ la”G; , ga’al ]; [ajgora>zw, agorazo ], referring to purchase, [lutrou~mai, lutroumai ], from [lu>tron, lutron ], “a ransom”):

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

In the New Testament the idea of redemption has more a suggestion of ransom. Men are held under the curse of the law ( Galatians 3:13), or of sin itself ( Romans 7:23 f). The Redeemer purchases their deliverance by offering Himself as payment for their redemption ( Ephesians 1:7; Peter 1:18). 1. GRADUAL MORALIZING OF IDEA OF REDEMPTION: observed a gradual moralizing of the meaning of redemption. The same process of moralizing has continued throughout all the Christian ages.

Starting with the idea of redemption price, conceived almost in material terms, religious thought has advanced to conceptions entirely moral and spiritual. Through the Scriptures, too, the idea of redemption becomes more specffic with the progress of Christian revelation. In the beginning God is the Redeemer from distresses of all kinds. He redeems from calamity and from sorrows. This general idea, of course, persists throughout the revelation and enters largely into our thinking of today, but the growing moral discernment of the Biblical writers comes to attach more and more importance to sin as the chief disturber of man’s welfare.

We would not minimize the force of the Scriptural idea that God is the Deliverer from all misfortune to which man falls heir, but the Scriptural emphasis moves more and more to deliverance from sin. Paul states this deliverance as a deliverance from the law which brings sin out into expression, but we must not conceive his idea in any artificial fashion. He would have men delivered not only from the law, but also from the consequences of evil doing and from the spirit of evil itself ( Romans 8:2). 2. REDEMPTION AS LIFE IN THE INDIVIDUAL:

In trying to discern the meaning of redemption from sin, toward which the entire progress of Biblical and Christian thought points, we may well keep in mind the Master’s words that He came that men might have life and might have it more abundantly ( John 10:10). The word “life” seems to be the final New Testament word as a statement of the purpose of Christ.

God sent His Son to bring men to life. The word “life,”’ however, is indefinite. Life means more at one period of the world’s history than at another. It has the advantage, nevertheless, of always being entirely intelligible in its essential significance. Our aim must be to keep this essential significance in mind and at the same time to provide for an increasing fullness and enlargement of human capacity and endeavor. The aim of redemption can only be to bring men to the fullest use and enjoyment of their powers. This is really the conception implicit even in the earliest statements of redemption. The man redeemed by money payment comes out of the prison to the light of day, or he comes out of slavery into freedom, or he is restored to his home and friends. The man under the law is redeemed from the burden and curse of the law. Paul speaks of his experience under the law as the experience of one chained to a dead body ( Romans 7:24). Of course, relief from such bondage would mean life.

In the more spiritual passages of the New Testament, the evil in men’s hearts is like a blight which paralyzes their higher activities ( John 8:33-51).

In all redemption, as conceived of in Christian terms, there is a double element. There is first the deliverance as from a curse. Something binds a man or weights him down: redemption relieves him from this load. On the other hand, there is the positive movement of the soul thus relieved toward larger and fuller life. We have said that the Biblical emphasis is always upon deliverance from sin as the essential in redemption, but this deliverance is so essential that the life cannot progress in any of its normal activities until it is redeemed from evil. Accordingly in the Scriptural thought all manner of blessings follow deliverance. The man who seeks first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness finds all other things added unto him ( Matthew 6:33). Material, intellectual and social blessings follow as matters of course from the redemption of the inner spirit from evil. The aim of redemption, to beget in men’s hearts the will to do right, once fulfilled, leads men to seek successfully along all possible avenues for life. This, of course, does not mean that the redeemed life gives itself up to the cultivation of itself toward higher excellencies. It means that the redeemed life is delivered from every form of selfishness. In the unselfish seeking of life for others the redeemed life finds its own greatest achievement and happiness ( Matthew 16:25). 3. REDEMPTION AS SOCIAL:

Just as the idea of redemption concerned itself chiefly with the inner spirit; so also it concerns itself with the individual as the object of redemption.

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

An important enlargement of the idea of redemption in our own time has come as men have conceived of the redemption of individuals in their social relationships. Very often men have thought of redemption as a snatching of individuals from the perils of a world in itself absolutely wicked. Even the material environment of men has at times been regarded as containing something inherently evil. The thought of redemption which seems most in line with Scriptural interpretation would seem to be that which brings the material and social forces within reach of individual wills. Paul speaks of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain waiting for the revelation of the sons of God ( Romans 8:22). This graphic figure sets before us the essentially Christian conception of the redemption of the forces in the midst of which men are placed. Those redeemed for the largest life, by the very force of their life, will seize all powers of this world to make them the servants of divine purposes. The seer saw a great multitude which no man could number, of every kindred and nation and tongue, shouting the joys of salvation ( Revelation 7:9), yet the implication nowhere appears that these were redeemed in any other fashion than by surrendering themselves to the forces of righteousness. 4. REDEMPTION AS PROCESS:

We have said that the aim of redemption is to bring men to the largest and fullest life. We have also said that “life” is a general term. To keep close to the Scriptural conceptions we would best say that the aim of redemption is to make men like Christ ( Romans 8:9). Otherwise, it might be possible to use the word “life” so as to imply that the riotous exercise of the faculties is what we mean by redemption. The idea of redemption, as a matter of fact, has been thus interpreted in various times in the history of Christian thinking. Life has been looked upon as sheer quantitative exuberance — the lower pleasures of sense being reckoned as about on the same plane with the higher. We can see the moral and spiritual anarchy which would thus be brought about. In Christ’s words to His disciples He once used the expression, “Ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you” ( John 15:3). In this particular context the idea does not seem to be that of an external washing. Christ seems rather to mean that His disciples are cleansed as a vineyard is cleansed by pruning away some of the branches that others may bear fruit. In other words, the redemption of life is to be interpreted so that stress is laid upon the qualitative rather than the quantitative. Christ indeed found place in His instructions and in His own life for the normal and healthy activities of human existence. He was not an ascetic; He went to feasts and to weddings, but His emphasis was always upon life conceived of in the highest terms. We can say then that the aim of redemption is to beget in men life like that in Christ. 5. MORAL IMPLICATIONS IN THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF REDEEMER:

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

Having thus attempted to determine, at least in outline, the content of the Christian idea of redemption, it remains for us to point out some implications as to the work of the Redeemer. Throughout the entire teaching on redemption in the Scriptures, redemption is set before us primarily as God’s own affair ( John 3:16). God redeems His people; He redeems them out of love for them. But the love of God is not to be conceived of as mere indulgence, partiality, or good-humored affection.

The love of God rests down upon moral foundations. Throughout the Scriptures, therefore, we find implied often, if not always clearly stated, the idea that God is under obligations to redeem His people. The progress of later thinking has expanded this implication with sureness of moral discernment. We have come to see the obligations of power. The more powerful the man the heavier his obligations in the discharge of this power.

This is a genuinely Christian conception, and this Christian conception we apply to the character of God, feeling confident that we are in line with Scriptural teaching. Hence, we may put the obligations of God somewhat as follows: God is the most obligated being in the universe. If a man is under heavy obligations to use aright the power of controlling the forces already at work in the world, how much heavier must be the obligations on the Creator who started these forces! The obligation becomes appalling to our human thought when we think that creation includes the calling of human beings into existence and endowing them with the unsolicited boon of freedom. Men are not in the world of their own choice. Vast masses of them seem to be here as the outworking of impulses almost blind. The surroundings of men make it very easy for them to sin. The tendencies which at least seem to be innate are too often tragically inclined toward evil. Men seem, of themselves, utterly inadequate for their own redemption. If there is to be redemption it must come from God, and the Christian thought of a moral God would seem to include the obligation on the part of God to redeem those whom He has sent into the world. Christ has made clear forever the absolutely binding nature of moral considerations. If the obligation to redeem men meant everything to Christ, it must also mean everything to the God of Christ. So we feel in line with true Christian thinking in the doctrine that redemption comes first as a discharge of the obligations on the part of God Himself.

If we look for the common thought in all the Christian statements of God’s part in redemption we find it in this: that in all these statements God is conceived of as doing all that He can do for the redemption of man. If in earlier times men conceived of the human race as under the dominion of Satan, and of Satan as robbed of his due by the deliverance of man and therefore entitled to some compensation, they also conceived of God Himself as paying the ransom to Satan. If they thought of God as a feudal lord whose dignity had been offended by sin, they thought of God as Himself paying the cost due to offended dignity. If their idea was that a substitute for sinners must be furnished, the idea included the thought of God as Himself providing a substitute. If they conceived of the universe as a vast system of moral laws — broken by sin — whose dignity must be upheld, they thought of God Himself as providing the means for maintaining the dignity of the laws. If they conceived of men as saved by a vast moral influence set at work, they thought of this influence as proceeding, not from man, but from God. The common thought in theories of redemption then, so far as concerns God’s part, is that God Himself takes the initiative and does all He can in the discharge of the obligation upon Himself. Each phrasing of the doctrine of redemption is the attempt of an age of Christian thinking to say in its own way that God has done all that He can do for men. 6. UNIQUENESS OF THE SON OF GOD AS REDEEMER:

It is from this standpoint that we must approach the part played by Christ in redemption. This is not the place for an attempt at formal statement, but some elements of Christian teaching are, at least in outline, at once clear.

The question is, first, to provide some relation between God and Christ which will make the redemptive work of Christ really effective. Some have thought to find such a statement in the conception that Christ is a prophet.

They would empty the expression, “Son of God,” of any unique meaning; they would make Christ the Son of God in the same sense that any great prophet could be conceived of as a son of God. Of course, we would not minimize the teaching of the Scripture as to the full humanity of Christ, and yet we may be permitted to voice our belief that the representation of Christ as the Redeemer merely in the same sense in which a prophet is a redeemer does not do justice to the Scripture teaching; and we feel, too, that such a solution of the problem of Christ would be inadequate for the practical task of redemption. If Christ is just a prophet giving us His teaching we rejoice in the teaching, but we are confronted with the problem as to how to make the teaching effective. If it be urged that Christ is a prophet who in Himself realized the moral ideal, we feel constrained to reply that this really puts Christ at a vast distance from us. Such a doctrine of Christ’s person would make Him the supreme religious genius, but the human genius stands apart from the ordinary mass of men. He may gather up into Himself and realize the ideals of men; He may voice the aspirations of men and realize those aspirations; but He may not be able to make men like unto Himself. Shakespeare is a consummate literary genius. He has said once and for all many things which the common man thinks or half thinks. When the common man comes upon a phrase of Shakespeare he feels that Shakespeare has said for all time the things which he would himself have said if he had been able. But the appreciation of Shakespeare does not make the ordinary man like Shakespeare; the appreciation of Christ has not proved successful in itself in making men like unto Christ.

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

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

The aim of the redemption in Christ then is to lift men out of death toward life. The mind is to be quickened by the revelation of the true ideals of human life. The conscience is to be reenforced by the revelation of the moral God who carries on all things in the interests of righteousness. The heart is to be stirred and won by the revelation of the love which sends an only begotten Son to the cross for our redemption. And we must take the work of Christ, not as a solitary incident or a mere historic event, but as a manifestation of the spirit which has been at work from the beginning and works forever. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world ( Revelation 13:8); the spirit of God revealed in the cross of Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. We have in the cross a revelation of holy love which, in a sense, overpowers and at the same time encourages.

The cross is the revelation of the length to which God is willing to go in redemption rather than set aside one jot or tittle of His moral law. He will not redeem men except on terms which leave them men. He will not overwhelm them in any such manner as to do away with their power of free choice. He will show men His own feeling of holiness and love. In the name of a holy love which they can forever aspire after, but which they can never fully reach, men call to Him for forgiveness and that forgiveness men find forever available.

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

The Scriptures honor the prophets in whatever land or time they appear.

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

The aim of redemption is to beget this spirit, and this spirit is life.

LITERATURE.

H. C. Sheldon, Systematic Theology; Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology; Brown, Christian Theology in Outline; Mackintosh, Doctrine of Person of Christ; Bowne, Studies in Christianity; Tymms, The Christian Atonement. Francis J. McConnell REDNESS OF EYES <red’-nes > . See DRUNKENNESS, II.

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

REED <red > : (1) [ Wja; , achu ], translated “reed-grass” ( Genesis 41:2,18; Job 8:11 margin). See FLAG . (2) [ hb,ae , ‘ebheh ], translated “swift,” margin “reed” ( Job 9:26).

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

It is clear that qaneh and its Greek equivalent kalamos mean many things.

Some refer to different uses to which a reed is put, e.g. a cross-beam of a balance, a walking-stick, a measuring rod, and a pen (see above), but apart from this qaneh is a word used for at least two essentially different things: (1) an ordinary reed, and (2) some sweet-smelling substance. (1) The most common reed in Palestine is the Arundo donax (Natural Order Gramineae), known in Arabic as qacabfarasi, “Persian reed.” It grows in immense quantities in the Jordan valley along the river and its tributaries and at the oases near the Dead Sea, notably around `Ain Feshkhah at the northwest corner. It is a lofty reed, often 20 ft. high, of a beautiful fresh green in summer when all else is dead and dry, and of a fine appearance from a distance in the spring months when it is in full bloom and the beautiful silky panicles crown the top of every reed. The “covert of the reed” ( Job 40:21) shelters a large amount of animal and bird life. This reed will answer to almost all the requirements of the above references. (2) Qaneh is in Jeremiah 6:20 qualified [ bwOFh” hn,q; , qaneh ha- Tobh ], “sweet” or “pleasant cane,” and in Exodus 30:23, [ µvo,b hneq] , qeneh bhosem ], “sweet calamus,” or, better, a “cane of fragrance.” Song 4:14; Isaiah 43:24; Ezekiel 27:19 all apparently refer to the same thing, though in these passages the qaneh is unqualified. It was an ingredient of the holy oil ( Exodus 30:23); it was imported from a distance ( Jeremiah 6:20; Ezekiel 27:19), and it was rare and costly ( Isaiah 43:24). It may have been the “scented calamus” (Axorus calamus) of Pliny (NH, xii.48), or some other aromatic scented reed or flag, or, as some think, some kind of aromatic bark. The sweetness refers to the scent, not the taste. See also BULRUSH; PAPYRUS.

E. W. G. Masterman REED-GRASS ( Genesis 41:2,18; Job 8:11 margin). See FLAG, (2); REED, (1).

REED, MEASURING <mezh’-ur-ing > ([ hD; ihih ” hneq] , qeneh ha-middah ]): In Ezekiel’s vision of the temple a “man” (an angel) appears with a “measuring reed” to measure the dimensions of the temple ( Ezekiel 40:3 ff; 42:16 ff). The reed is described as 6 cubits long, “of a cubit and a handbreadth each,” i.e. the cubit used was a handbreadth longer than the common cubit (see CUBIT; WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; TEMPLE ). In the Apocalypse this idea of a measuring reed reappears for measuring the temple ( Revelation 11:1) and the holy city ( Revelation 21:15,16, “a golden reed”). The thought conveyed is exactitude in the dimensions of these edifices, symbolic of the symmetry and perfection of God’s church. James Orr REELAIAH <re-el-a’-ya > , <re-el-i’-a > ([ hy;l][er] , re`elyah ]): One of the 12 chiefs who returned with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:2 parallel Nehemiah 7:7). In the passage in Nehemiah the name is Raamiah” ([ hy;m][“r” , ra`amyah ]), and in 1 Esdras 5:8 “Resaias.” Which is the original, it is almost impossible to decide; “Reelaiah” seems preferable.

REELIAS <re-el’-i-as > (Codex Alexandrinus [ JRee>liav, Rheelias ] (Fritzschel); Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete, [ Borolei>av, Boroleias ]; the King James Version Reelius): One of the “leaders” with Zerubbabel in the return from exile (1 Esdras 5:8, margin “Reelaiah”). It occupies the place of “Bigvai” in Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7, but in form it must be the equivalent of “Reelaiah” of Ezra and “Raamiah” of Nehemiah. It is perhaps a duplicate of “Resaias.”

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

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

The ancient process of refining gold has already been described under METALLURGY (which see). Most of the Bible references are to the refining of silver ( Proverbs 25:4; Zechariah 13:9; Isaiah 48:10).

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

FIGURATIVE:

In the various Bible references the refining of precious metals is used figuratively to illustrate the kind of trial God’s children are called upon to go through. If they are of the right metal the dross will finally be blown away, leaving pure, clear, shining silver. If of base metal they will be like the dross described in Jeremiah 6:29,30. The refiner may blow fiercely, but in vain, for nothing but lead dross appears. James A. Patch REFORM <re-form’ > ([ rs”y; , yacar ]): The word in the Revised Version (British and American) is found only in Leviticus 26:23, in the phrase “ye will not be reformed.” The meaning is, “to be instructed,” or, more fully, “to let one’s self be chastened,” i.e. by God’s discipline to learn the lessons of this chastening.

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

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

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

REFRESH; REFRESHING <re-fresh’ > , <re-fresh’-ing > : “Refresh” occurs a few times in the Old Testament as the translation of [ vp”n; , naphash ], “to take breath,” figurative “to be refreshed” ( Exodus 23:12; 31:17; 2 Samuel 16:14); of [ jw”r; , rawach ], “to have room ( 1 Samuel 16:23; Job 32:20, margin “find relief,” the King James Version margin “may breathe”); of [ d[“s; , ca`adh ], “to support” ( 1 Kings 13:7); and in the New Testament as the translation of [ajnapau>w, anapauo ], “to give rest” (1 Cor 16:18; 2 Corinthians 7:13; Philem 1:7,20; in compound middle, Romans 15:32 the King James Version); also of [ajnayu>cw, anapsucho ], “to invigorate,” “revive” (2 Tim 1:16), and other words. “Refreshing” is in Isaiah 28:12 marge`ah , “rest” or “quiet”; and in Acts 3:19, [ajna>yuxiv, anapsuxis ], “seasons of refreshing,” through the coming of Jesus, the Christ; compare 2 Esdras 11:46 and the King James Version, Sirach 43:22 [iJlaro>w, hilaroo ]). W. L. Walker REFUGE <ref’-uj > : A place of resort and safety. The principal words in the Old Testament are [ hs,j]m” , machceh ] ( Psalm 14:6; 46:1; 62:7,8; Isaiah 4:6, etc.), and [ swOnm; , manoc ] ( 2 Samuel 22:3; Psalm 59:16, etc.), both applied chiefly to God as a “refuge” for His people. For the King James Version “refuge” in Deuteronomy 33:27, the Revised Version (British and American) has “dwelling-place,” and in Psalm 9:9, “high tower.” Conversely, the Revised Version (British and American) has “refuge” for the King James Version “shelter” in Psalm 61:3, and “hope” in Jeremiah 17:17.

REFUGE, CITIES OF [ fl;q]Mih” yre[; , `are ha-miqlaT ]; [po>leiv tw~n fugadeuthri>wn, poleis ton phugadeuterion ] (compare 1 Macc 10:28), and other forms): 1. LOCATION:

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

From time immemorial in the East, if a man were slain the duty of avenging him has lain as a sacred obligation upon his nearest relative. In districts where more primitive conditions prevail, even to this day, the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing is not too strictly observed, and men are often done to death in revenge for what was the purest accident. To prevent such a thing where possible, and to provide for a right administration of justice, these cities were instituted. Open highways were to be maintained along, which the manslayer might have an unobstructed course to the city gate. 3. REGULATIONS:

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

A similar right of refuge seems to have been recognized in Israel as attaching to the altar in the temple at Jerusalem ( 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28; compare Exodus 21:12 f). This may be compared with the right of asylum connected with the temples of the heathen. W. Ewing REFUSE <re-fuz’ > : Formerly used with the additional meaning “reject,” and hence, the change from the King James Version to the Revised Version (British and American) in 1 Samuel 16:7; Ezekiel 5:6; 1 Timothy 4:4; 1 Peter 2:7, etc.

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

The Greek text of Jude 1:22,23 is very uncertain, being given very differently in the various manuscripts. the Revised Version (British and American) text follows the two oldest manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Instead of [ejlea~te, eleate ], “have mercy,” the reading [ejlegcete, elegchete ], “refute,” “convict,” has the powerful support of Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, the best cursives, Vulgate, Memphitic, Armenian and Ethiopian versions, and is placed in the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles (Westcott-Hort in list of “Suspected Readings” says: “Some primitive error probable: perhaps the first eleate an interpolation”). Compare Jude 1:15, where the same Greek word occurs in the same sense (the King James Version “convince,” the Revised Version (British and American) “convict”); compare also 1 Timothy 5:20; Titus 1:9, where the same idea of refuting the sinful occurs. D. Miall Edwards REGEM <re’-gem > ([ µg,r, , reghem ], “friend” (?)): A Calebite, the son of Jahdai ( 1 Chronicles 2:47), mentioned as the eponym of a Calebite family or clan.

REGEM-MELECH <re’-gem-me’-lek > , <re’-gem-mel’-ek > ([ µg,r, Ël,m, , reghem melekh ]):

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

REGENERATION <re-jen-er-a’-shun > , re-:

I. THE TERM EXPLAINED.

The theological term “regeneration” is the Latin translation of the Greek expression [palingenesi>a, palingenesia ], occurring twice in the New Testament ( Matthew 19:28; Titus 3:5). The word is usually written [paliggenesi>a, paliggenesia ], in classical Greek. Its meaning is different in the two passages, though an easy transition of thought is evident. 1. First Biblical Sense (Eschatological): In Matthew 19:28 the word refers to the restoration of the world, in which sense it is synonymical to the expressions [ajpokata>stasiv pa>ntwn, apokatastasis panton ], “restoration of all things” ( Acts 3:21; the verb is found in Matthew 17:11, [ajpokatasth>sei pa>nta, apokatastsei panta ], “shall restore all things”), and [ajna>yexiv, anapsuxis ], “refreshing” ( Acts 3:19), which signifies a gradual transition of meaning to the second sense of the word under consideration.

It is supposed that regeneration in this sense denotes the final stage of development of all creation, by which God’s purposes regarding the same are fully realized, when “all things (are put) in subjection under his feet” (1 Cor 15:27). This is a “regeneration in the proper meaning of the word, for it signifies a renovation of all visible things when the old is passed away, and heaven and earth are become new” (compare Revelation 21:1). To the Jew the regeneration thus prophesied was inseparably connected with the reign of the Messiah.

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

Cicero uses the word in his letters to Atticus (vi.6) metaphorically of his return from exile, as a new lease of life granted to him. See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, IX. 2. Second Biblical Sense (Spiritual): This sense is undoubtedly included in the full Biblical conception of the former meaning, for it is unthinkable that a regeneration in the eschatological sense can exist without a spiritual regeneration of humanity or the individual. It is, however, quite evident that this latter conception has arisen rather late, from an analysis of the former meaning. It is found in Titus 3:5 which, without absolute certainty as to its meaning, is generally interpreted in agreement with the numerous nouns and verbs which have given the dogmatical setting to the doctrine of regeneration in Christian theology. Clement of Alexandria is the first to differentiate this meaning from the former by the addition of the adjective pneumatike , “spiritual” (compare anapsuxis , Acts 3:20; see REFRESHING ). In this latter sense the word is typically Christian, though the Old Testament contains many adumbrations of the spiritual process expressed thereby.

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

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

The renewing and cleansing here spoken of is in reality nothing else than what Deuteronomy 30:6 had promised, a circumcision of the heart in contradistinction to the flesh, the token of the former (Abrahamic) covenant (of circumcision, Jeremiah 4:4). As God takes the initiative in making the covenant, the conviction takes root that human sin and depravity can be effectually eliminated only by the act of God Himself renewing and transforming the heart of man ( Hosea 14:4). This we see from the testimony of some of Israel’s best sons and daughters, who also knew that this grace was found in the way of repentance and humiliation before God. The classical expression of this conviction is found in the prayer of David: “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right (margin “stedfast”) spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit” ( Psalm 51:10-12).

Jeremiah puts the following words into the mouth of Ephraim: “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned” ( Jeremiah 31:18). Clearer than any passages of the Old Testament, John the Baptist, forerunner of Christ and last flaming torch of the time of the earlier covenant, spoke of the baptism, not of water, but of the Holy Spirit and of fire ( Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33), leading thus to the realization of Old Testament foreshadowings which became possible by faith in Christ. 2. In the Teaching of Jesus: In the teaching of Jesus the need of regeneration has a prominent place, though nowhere are the reasons given. The Old Testament had succeeded — and even the Gentile conscience agreed with it — in convincing the people of this need. The clearest assertion of it and the explanation of the doctrine of regeneration is found in the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus (John 3). It is based upon (1) the observation that man, even the most punctilious in the observance of the Law, is dead and therefore unable to “live up” to the demands of God. Only He who gave life at the beginning can give the (spiritual) life necessary to do God’s will. (2) Man has fallen from his virginal and divinely-appointed sphere, the realm of the spirit, the Kingdom of God, living now the perishing earthly life. Only by having a new spiritual nature imparted to him, by being “born anew” ( John 3:3, the Revised Version margin “from above,” Greek anothen ), by being “born of the Spirit” ( John 3:6,8), can he live the spiritual life which God requires of man.

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

But regeneration, according to Jesus, is more than life, it is also purity. As God is pure and sinless, none but the pure in heart can see God ( Matthew 5:8). This was always recognized as impossible to mere human endeavor. Bildad the Shuhite declared, and his friends, each in his turn, expressed very similar thoughts ( Job 4:17; 14:4): “How then can man be just with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Behold, even the moon hath no brightness, and the stars are not pure in his sight: how much less man, that is a worm! and the son of man, that is a worm!” ( Job 25:4-6).

To change this lost condition, to impart this new life, Jesus claims as His God-appointed task: “The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost” ( Luke 19:10); “I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly” ( John 10:10). This life is eternal, imperishable: “I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand” ( John 10:28). This life is imparted by Jesus Himself: “It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life” ( John 6:63).

This life can be received on the condition of faith in Christ or by coming to Him ( John 14:6). By faith power is received which enables the sinner to overcome sin, to “sin no more” ( John 8:11).

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

Finally, this regeneration, this new life, is explained as the knowledge of God and His Christ: “And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ” ( John 17:3). This seems to be an allusion to the passage in Hosea (4:6): “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me.” 3. In Apostolic Teaching: It may be said in general that the teaching of the apostles on the subject of regeneration is a development of the teaching of Jesus on the lines of the adumbrations of the Old Testament. Considering the differences in the personal character of these writers, it is remarkable that such concord of views should exist among them. Paul, indeed, lays more stress on the specific facts of justification and sanctification by faith than on the more comprehensive head of regeneration. Still the need of it is plainly stated by Paul. It is necessary to salvation for all men. “The body is dead because of sin” ( Romans 8:3-11; Ephesians 2:1). The flesh is at enmity with God ( Ephesians 2:15); all mankind is “darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God” ( Ephesians 4:18). Similar passages might be multiplied. Paul then distinctly teaches that thus is a new life in store for those who have been spiritually dead. To the Ephesians he writes: “And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins” (2:1), and later on: “God, being rich in mercy, .... made us alive together with Christ” (2:4,5). A spiritual resurrection has taken place. This regeneration causes a complete revolution in man. He has thereby passed from under the law of sin and death and has come under “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” ( Romans 8:2). The change is so radical that it is possible now to speak of a “new creature” (2 Cor 5:17; Galatians 6:15, margin “new creation”), of a “new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth” ( Ephesians 4:24), and of “the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him” ( Colossians 3:10). All “old things are passed away; behold, they are become new” (2 Cor 5:17).

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

Regeneration is to Paul, no less than to Jesus, connected with the conception of purity and knowledge. We have already noted the second New Testament passage in which the word “regeneration” occurs ( Titus 3:5): “According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing (margin “laver”) of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour.” In Corinthians 12:13 such cleansing is called the baptism of the Spirit in agreement with the oft-repeated promise ( Joel 2:28 (in the Hebrew text 3:1); Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16).

There is, of course, in these passages no reference to mere water baptism, any more than in Ezekiel 36:25. Water is but the tertium comparationis.

As water cleanseth the outer body, so the spirit purifies the inner man (compare 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21).

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

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

Peter uses, in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, the words “refreshing” ( Acts 3:19) and “restoration of all things” ( Acts 3:21) of the final completion of God’s plans concerning the whole creation, and accordingly looks here at God’s people as a whole. In a similar sense he says in his Second Epistle, after mentioning “the day of God”: “We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet 3:13).

Still he alludes very plainly to the regeneration of individuals (1 Pet 1:3,13). The idea of a second birth of the believers is clearly suggested in the expression, “newborn babes” (1 Pet 2:2), and in the explicit statement of 1 Peter 1:23: “having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth.”

It is in this sense that the apostle calls God “Father” (1 Pet 1:17) and the believers “children of obedience” (1 Pet 1:14), i.e. obedient children, or children who ought to obey. We have seen above that the agent by which regeneration is wrought, the incorruptible seed of the word of God, finds a parallel in Paul’s and James’s theology. All these expressions go back probably to a word of the Master in John 15:3. We are made partakers of the word by having received the spirit. This spirit (compare the Pauline “lifegiving spirit,” 1 Corinthians 15:45), the “mind” of Christ (1 Pet 4:1), is the power of the resurrected Christ active in the life of the believer.

Peter refers to the same thought in 1 Peter 3:15,21. By regeneration we become “an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” in whom divine virtues, “the excellencies of him who called you” (1 Pet 2:9), are manifested. Here the apostle uses wellknown Old Testament expressions foreshadowing New Testament graces ( Isaiah 61:6; 66:21; Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 7:6), but he individualizes the process of regeneration in full agreement with the increased light which the teaching of Jesus has brought. The theology of Peter also points out the contact of regeneration with purity and holiness (1 Pet 1:15,16) and true knowledge (1 Pet 1:14) or obedience (1 Pet 1:14; 3:16). It is not surprising that the idea of purity should invite the Old Testament parallel of “cleansing by water.” The flood washed away the iniquity of the world “in the days of Noah,” when “eight souls were saved through water: which also after a true likeness (the Revised Version margin “in the antitype”) doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation (the Revised Version margin “inquiry,” “appeal”) of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection (-life) of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 3:20,21).

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

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

The subject of regeneration lies outside of the scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews, so that we look in vain for a clear dogmatical statement of it.

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

III. LATER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE.

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

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

IV. PRESENT SIGNIFICANCE.

Although a clear distinction is not always maintained between regeneration and other experiences of the spiritual life, we may summarize our belief in the following theses: (1) Regeneration implies not merely an addition of certain gifts or graces, a strengthening of certain innate good qualities, but a radical change, which revolutionizes our whole being, contradicts and overcomes our old fallen nature, and places our spiritual center of gravity wholly outside of our own powers in the realm of God’s causation. (2) It is the will of God that all men be made partakers of this new life (1 Tim 2:4) and, as it is clearly stated that some fall short of it ( John 5:40), it is plain that the fault thereof lies with man. God requires all men to repent and turn unto Him ( Acts 17:30) before He will or can effect regeneration. Conversion, consisting in repentance and faith in Christ, is therefore the human response to the offer of salvation which God makes. This response gives occasion to and is synchronous with the divine act of renewal (regeneration). The Spirit of God enters into union with the believing, accepting spirit of man. This is fellowship with Christ ( Romans 8:10; 1 Corinthians 6:17; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 3:3). (3) The process of regeneration is outside of our observation and beyond the scope of psychological analysis. It takes place in the sphere of subconsciousness. Recent psychological investigations have thrown a flood of light on the psychic states which precede, accompany and follow the work of the Holy Spirit. “He handles psychical powers; He works upon psychical energies and states; and this work of regeneration lies somewhere within the psychical field.” The study of religious psychology is of highest value and greatest importance. The facts of Christian experience cannot be changed, nor do they lose in value by the most searching psychological scrutiny.

Psychological analysis does not eliminate the direct workings of the Holy Spirit. Nor can it disclose its process; the “underlying laboratory where are wrought radical remedial processes and structural changes in the psychical being as portrayed in explicit scriptural utterances: `Create in me a clean heart’ ( Psalm 51:10); `Ye must be born again’ ( John 3:7 the King James Version); `If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new’ (2 Cor 5:17 the King James Version), is in the region of subconsciousness. To look in the region of consciousness for this Person or for His work is fruitless and an effort fraught with endless confusion. Christian psychology thus traces to its deep-lying retreat the divine elaboration of the regenerated life. Here God works in the depths of the soul as silently and securely as if on the remotest world of the stellar universe” (H. E. Warner, Psychology of the Christian Life, 117). (4) Regeneration manifests itself in the conscious soul by its effects on the will, the intelligence and the affections. At the same time regeneration supplies a new life-power of divine origin, which enables the component parts of human nature to fulfill the law of God, to strive for the coming of God’s kingdom, and to accept the teachings of God’s spirit. Thus regenerate man is made conscious of the facts of justification and adoption. The former is a judicial act of God, which frees man from the law of sin and absolves him from the state of enmity against God; the latter an enduement with the Spirit, which is an earnest of his inheritance ( Ephesians 1:14). The Spirit of God, dwelling in man, witnesses to the state of sonship ( Romans 8:2,15,16; Galatians 4:6). (5) Regeneration, being a new birth, is the starting-point of spiritual growth. The regenerated man needs nurture and training. He receives it not merely from outside experiences, but from an immanent power in himself, which is recognized as the power of the life of the indwelling Christ ( Colossians 1:26,27). Apart from the mediate dealings of God with man through word and sacraments, there is therefore an immediate communication of life from God to the regenerate. (6) The truth which is mentioned as the agent by whom regeneration is made possible ( John 8:32; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23), is nothing else than the Divine Spirit, not only the spoken or written word of God, which may convince people of right or wrong, but which cannot enable the will of man to forsake the wrong and to do the right, but He who calls Himself the Truth ( John 14:6) and who has become the motive power of regenerated life ( Galatians 2:20). (7) Recent philosophy expressive of the reaction from the mechanical view of bare materialism, and also from the depreciation of personality as seen in socialism, has again brought into prominence the reality and need of personal life. Johannes Muller and Rudolf Eucken among others emphasize that a new life of the spirit, independent of outward conditions, is not only possible, but necessary for the attainment of the highest development. This new life is not a fruit of the free play of the tendencies and powers of natural life, but is in sharp conflict with them.

Man as he is by nature stands in direct contrast to the demands of the spiritual life. Spiritual life, as Professor Eucken says, can be implanted in man by some superior power only and must constantly be sustained by superior life. It breaks through the order of causes and effects; it severs the continuity of the outer world; it makes impossible a rational joining together of realities; it prohibits a monastic view of the immediate condition of the world. This new life derives its power not from mere Nature; it is a manifestation of divine life within us (Hauptprobleme der Religionsphilosophie, Leipzig, 1912, 17 ff; Der Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt, Leipzig, 1907; Grundlinien einer neuen Lebensanschauung, Leipzig, 1907; Johannes Muller, Bausteine fur personliche Kultur, 3 volumes, Munchen, 1908). Thus the latest development of idealistic philosophy corroborates in a remarkable way the Christian truth of regeneration. See also CONVERSION.

LITERATURE New Testament Theologies by Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Schlatter, Feine, Stevens, Sheldon, Weinel. Textbooks on Systematic Theology: articles “Bekehrung” by R. Seeberg; “Wiedergeburt” by O. Kirn in Hauck- Herzog RE3; “Regeneration” by J. V. Bartlett in HDB; “Conversion” by J.

Strachan in ERE; George Jackson, The Fact of Conversion, London, 1908; Newton H. Marshall, Conversion; or, the New Birth, London, 1909; J.

Herzog, Der Begriff der Bekehrung, Giessen, 1903; P. Feine, Bekehrung im New Testament und in der Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1908; P. Gennrich, Die Lehre yon der Wiedergeburt, Leipzig, 1907. Psychological: W. James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 189-258; G. Stanley Hall, Adolescence, II, 281-362; G. A. Coe, The Spiritual Life, New York, 1900; E. D.

Starbuck, Psychology of Religion, New York, 1911; G. B. Cutten, Psychological Phenomena of Christianity, London, 1909; H. E. Warner, The Psychology of the Christian Life, New York, 1910; H. W. Clark, The Philosophy of Christian Experience, London, 1906; Harold Begbie, Broken Earthenware, or Twice-Born Men, London, 1909; M. Scott Fletcher, The Psychology of the New Testament, London, 1912. John L. Nuelsen REGENERATION, BAPTISMAL See BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

REGION <re’-jun > : A “district,” as in modern English. The word “region” is used by English Versions of the Bible interchangeably with “country,” “coasts,” etc., for various Hebrew and Greek terms, but “region round about” is usually in the King James Version and invariably in the Revised Version (British and American) the translation of [peri>cwrov, perichoros ], “surrounding country.” For a possible technical use of “region” in Acts 16:6 and the Revised Version (British and American) 18:23. See GALATIA.

REGISTER <rej’-is-ter > . See GENEALOGY; QUIRINIUS.

REHABIAH <re-ha-bi’-a > ([ hy;b]j”r] , rechabhyah ], [ Why;b]j”r] , rechabhyahu ], “Yah is wide”): Son of Eliezer, and grandson of Moses. Eponym of a Levitical family ( 1 Chronicles 23:17; 24, 21; 26:25).

REHEARSE <re-hurs’ > ([ µWc , sum ], [ rb”D; , dabhar ], [ dg”n; , naghadh ], [ hn;T; , tanah ]; [ajnagge>llw, anaggello ]): Usually means simply “to relate,” “to tell,” “to declare” ( Exodus 17:14; Judges 5:11; 1 Samuel 8:21; 17:31; Acts 14:27); with “rehearse from the beginning” in Acts 11:4 for [a[rcomai, archomai ], “begin” (so the Revised Version (British and American)). the Revised Version (British and American) has preserved uniformity by translating anaggello by “rehearse” also in Acts 15:4, and has introduced “rehearse” as the translation of [ejxhge>omai, exegeomai ], throughout ( Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12,14; 21:19), except in John 1:18 (“declare”). Sirach 19:7, the King James Version has “rehearse” for [deutero>w, deuteroo ], “repeat” (so the Revised Version (British and American)).

REHOB <re’-hob > ([ bjor] , rechobh ]; [ JRow>b, Rhoob ], [ JRaa>b, Rhaab ]): (1) Etymologically the word means “broad” and might be applied either to a road or a plain. Rehob is given ( Numbers 13:21) as the northern limit of Israel as reached by the spies. This agrees with the position assigned to Beth-rehob in the narrative of the settlement of the Danites ( Judges 18:28). It is mentioned again along with the kingdom of Zobah in connection with the wars of Saul ( 1 Samuel 14:47 Septuagint Lag.), and as having been associated with, Zobah and Maacah against David in the Ammonite war and as having been defeated by him ( 2 Samuel 10:6). Robinson sought to identify it with Hunin, but it hardly suits the references. Buhl (GAP, 240) following Thomson (LB, II, 547) seeks it at Paneas (modern Banias).

This would suit all the requirements of the capital, Beth-rehob, which might then be the second Rehob, assigned as part of the territory of Sidon to the tribe Asher ( Joshua 19:28,30; Judges 18:28). We must, however, assign to the kingdom of Rehob a territory extending from the settlements of the Danites to the “entering in of Hamath” or to Libo (modern Leboue), i.e. the Great Plain of Coele-Syria bounded by Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon and within the limits indicated. (2) Two separate towns belonging to Asher ( Joshua 19:28; 19:30).

One of them was given to the Gershonite Levites ( Joshua 21:31), and one is mentioned as remaining in the hands of the Canaanites ( Judges 1:31). (3) Father of Hadadezer, king of Aram Zobah, who was overwhelmed by David at the Euphrates ( 2 Samuel 8:3,12). (4) One of the Levites who sealed Nehemiah’s covenant on the 24th Tishri, 444 BC ( Nehemiah 10:11). W. M. Christie REHOBOAM <re-ho-bo’-am > ([ µ[;Ob]j”r] , rechabh`am ], “the people is enlarged,” or perhaps “Amos is wide” [ JRoboa>m, Rhoboam ]; “Roboam,” Matthew 1:7 the King James Version):

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

Rehoboam was 41 years old ( 2 Chronicles 12:13) when he began to reign Septuagint 1 Kings 12:24a says 16 years). He ascended the throne at Jerusalem immediately upon his father’s death with apparently no opposition. North Israel, however, was dissatisfied, and the people demanded that the king meet them in popular assembly at Shechem, the leading city of Northern Israel. True, Israel was no longer, if ever, an elective monarchy. Nevertheless, the people claimed a constitutional privilege, based perhaps on the transaction of Samuel in the election of Saul ( 1 Samuel 10:25), to be a party to the conditions under which they would serve a new king and he become their ruler: David, in making Solomon his successor, had ignored this wise provision, and the people, having lost such a privilege by default, naturally deemed their negligence the cause of Solomon’s burdensome taxes and forced labor. Consequently, they would be more jealous of their rights for the future, and Rehoboam accordingly would have to accede to their demand. Having come together at Shechem, the people agreed to accept Rehoboam as their king on condition that he would lighten the grievous service and burdensome taxes of his father. Rehoboam asked for three days’ time in which to consider the request. Against the advice of men of riper judgment, who assured him that he might win the people by becoming their servant, he chose the counsel of the younger men, who were of his own age, to rule by sternness rather than by kindness, and returned the people a rough answer, saying: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” ( 1 Kings 12:14).

Rehoboam, however, misjudged the temper of the people, as well as his own ability. The people, led by Jeroboam, a leader more able than himself, were ready for rebellion, and so force lost the day where kindness might have won. The threat of the king was met by the Marseillaise of the people: “What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David” ( Kings 12:16). Thus the ten tribes dethroned Rehoboam, and elected Jeroboam, their champion and spokesman, their king (see JEROBOAM).

Rehoboam, believing in his ability to carry out his threat ( 1 Kings 12:14), sent Adoram, his taskmaster, who no doubt had quelled other disturbances, to subdue the populace, which, insulted by indignities and enraged by Rehoboam’s renewed insolence, stoned his messenger to death.

Realizing, for the first time, the seriousness of the revolt, Rehoboam fled ignominiously back to Jerusalem, king only of Judah and of the adjacent territory of the tribe of Benjamin. The mistake of Rehoboam, was the common mistake of despots. He presumed too much on privilege not earned by service, and on power for which he was not willing to render adequate compensation. 2. UNDERLYING CAUSES OF DISRUPTION:

It is a mistake, however, to see in the disruption the shattering of a kingdom that had long been a harmonious whole. From the earliest times the confederation of tribes was imperfectly cemented. They seldom united against their common foe. No mention is made of Judah in the list of tribes who fought with Deborah against Sisera. A chain of cities held by the Canaanites, stretching across the country from East to West, kept the North and the South apart. Different physical characteristics produced different types of life in the two sections. Old jealousies repeatedly fanned into new flame intensified the divisions due to natural and artificial causes.

David labored hard to break down the old antagonisms, but even in his reign Israel rebelled twice. Northern Israel had produced many of the strongest leaders of the nation, and it was not easy for them to submit to a ruler from the Judean dynasty. Solomon, following David’s policy of unification, drew the tribes closely together through the centralization of worship at Jerusalem and through the general splendor of his reign, but he, more than any other, finally widened the gulf between the North and the South, through his unjust discriminations, his heavy taxes, his forced labor and the general extravagances of his reign. The religion of Yahweh was the only bond capable of holding the nation together. The apostasy of Solomon severed this bond. The prophets, with their profound knowledge of religious and political values, saw less danger to the true worship of Yahweh in a divided kingdom than in a united nation ruled over by Rehoboam, who had neither political sagacity nor an adequate conception of the greatness of the religion of Yahweh. Accordingly, Ahijah openly encouraged the revolution, while Shemaiah gave it passive support. 3. SHEMAIAH FORBIDS CIVIL WAR:

Immediately upon his return to Jerusalem, Rehoboam collected a large army of 180,000 men (reduced to 120,000 in the Septuagint’s Codex Vaticanus), for the purpose of making war against Israel. The expedition, however, was forbidden by Shemaiah the prophet on the ground that they should not fight against their brethren, and that the division of the kingdom was from God. Notwithstanding the prohibition, we are informed that “there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually” ( 1 Kings 14:30; 2 Chronicles 12:15). 4. REHOBOAM’S PROSPERITY:

Rehoboam next occupied himself in strengthening the territory which still remained to him by fortifying a number of cities ( 2 Chronicles 11:5-12).

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

One of the direct results of the disruption of the kingdom was the invasion of Palestine by Shishak, king of Egypt, in the 5th year of Rehoboam.

Shishak is Sheshonk. I, the first king of the XXIId or Bubastite Dynasty.

He is the same ruler who granted hospitality to Jeroboam when he was obliged to flee from Solomon ( 1 Kings 11:40). The Septuagint ( Kings 12:24e) informs us that Jeroboam married Ano, the sister of Shishak’s wife, thus becoming brother-in-law to the king of Egypt. It is therefore easy to suppose that Jeroboam, finding himself in straits in holding his own against his rival, Rehoboam, called in the aid of his former protector. The results of this invasion, however, are inscribed on the temple at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where a list of some 180 (Curtis, “Chronicles,” ICC) towns captured by Shishak is given. These belong to Northern Israel as well as Judah, showing that Shishak exacted tribute there as well as in Judah, which seems scarcely reconcilable with the view that he invaded Palestine as Jeroboam’s ally. However, the king of Israel, imploring the aid of Shishak against his rival, thereby made himself vassal to Egypt. This would suffice to make his towns figure at Karnak among the cities subjected in the course of the campaign. The Chronicler saw in Shishak an instrument in the hand of God for the punishment of R. and the people for the national apostasy. According to 2 Chronicles 12:3, Shishak had a force of 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen to which Josephus adds 400,000 foot-soldiers, composed of Lubim, Sukkum and Ethiopians. No resistance appears to have been offered to the advance of the invading army. Not even Jerusalem seems to have stood a siege. The palace and the temple were robbed of all their treasures, including the shields of gold which Solomon had made. For these Rehoboam later substituted shields of brass ( 2 Chronicles 12:9,10). 6. HIS DEATH:

Rehoboam died at the age of fifty-eight, after having reigned in Jerusalem for 17 years. His son Abijah became his successor. He was buried in Jerusalem. Josephus says that in disposition he was a proud and foolish man, and that he “despised the worship of God, till the people themselves imitated his wicked actions” (Ant., VIII, x, 2). S. K. Mosiman REHOBOTH <re-ho’-both > , <re-ho’-both > ([ twObjor] , rehobhoth ], “broad places”; [ Eujrucwri>a, Euruchoria ]): One of the wells dug by Isaac ( Genesis 26:22). It is probably the Rubuta of the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Petrie, numbers 256, 260; see also The Expository Times, XI, 239 (Konig), (Sayce)), and it is almost certainly identical with the ruin Ruchaibeh , hours Southwest of Beersheba. Robinson (BR, I, 196-97) describes the ruins of the ancient city as thickly covering a “level tract of 10 to 12 acres in extent”; “many of the dwellings had each its cistern, cut in the solid rock”; “once this must have been a city of not less than 12,000 or 15,000 inhabitants. Now it is a perfect field of ruins, a scene of unutterable desolation, across which the passing stranger can with difficulty find his way.” Huntington (Palestine and Its Transformation, 124) describes considerable remains of a suburban population extending both to the North and to the South of this once important place. E. W. G. Masterman REHOBOTH BY THE RIVER ([ rh;N;h” twObjor] , rehobhoth ha-nahar ]; Codex Vaticanus [ JRowbwRhooboth ] ([ JRwbwRhoboth ] in Chronicles) [hJ para< potamo>n, he para potamon ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRwbw>q, Rhoboth ]): This city is mentioned only as the residence of Shaul, one of the rulers of Edom ( Genesis 36:37; 1 Chronicles 1:48). There is nothing to guide us with certainty as to the situation of the city. Eusebius (Onomasticon) places it in Idumaea (Gebalene), but no trace of a name resembling this has been found in the district. “The river” usually means the Euphrates. If the city could have been so far from Edom, it might be identified with Rahaba on the West of the river,8 miles South of its confluence with the Khabur.

Winckler thinks it might possibly be on the boundary between Palestine and Egypt, “the river” being Wady el-`Arish, “the brook of Egypt” (Numbers 5; Joshua 15:4, etc.). W. Ewing REHOBOTH-IR <r.-ur > , <r.-ir > ([ ry[i tnojor] , rehobhoth `ir ], “Rehoboth City”; Septuagint [hJ JRowbwhe Rhohbos ] ([ JRowbwRhooboth ]) [po>liv, polis ], “the city Rhoobos , [Rhooboth ]”): 1. PROBABLY REBIT NINUA:

The second of the cities built by Asshur (the Revised Version (British and American) by Nimrod) in Assyria ( Genesis 10:11,12). Unlike the other three, the exact equivalent of this name is not found in Assyrian literature Fried. Delitzsch points out (Wo lag das Paradies? 260 f) that rechobhoth is the equivalent of the Assyrian rebite , “streets,” and suggests that the site referred to may be the Rebit Ninua, “streets of Nineveh,” mentioned by Sargon of Assyria in connection with the peopling of Maganubba (Khorsabad or Dur-Sarru-kin; see NINEVEH ); and it was through this tract that Esar-haddon, his grandson, caused the heads of the kings of Kundi and Sidon to be carried in procession when he returned from his expedition to the Mediterranean. 2. OR, POSSIBLY, THE OLD CAPITAL, ASSUR:

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

T. G. Pinches REHUM <re’-hum > ([ µWjr] , rechum ], or [ µjur] , rechum ]): (1) One of the twelve heads of the Jewish community returning from captivity with Zerubbabel ( Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7 (by a copyist’s error “Nehum”); 12:3; 1 Esdras 5:8, “Roimus”). (2) A Persian officer of high rank (literally, “master of judgment, taste, reason”) who with others wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes ( Ezra 4:8,9,17,23). (3) Son of Bani, a Levite, one of the wall-builders under Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 3:17). (4) One of the signers of the covenant in Nehemiah 10:25. (5) In Nehemiah 12:3 (omitted in the Septuagint) one Rehum is mentioned with those who went up with Zerubbabel. It is probable that we should read here “Harim” ([ µrij; , charim ] for [ µWjr] , rechum ] of Nehemiah 12:15). W. N. Stearns REI <re’-i > ([ y[ire , re`i ], “friendly”; [ JRhsei>, Rhesei ]): Rei, Shimei and the Gibborim who belonged to David are listed among those who did not join Adonijah in his attempt on the throne ( 1 Kings 1:8). The name is very uncertain. Winckler (Geschichte, II, 247) identifies him with Ira, the Jairite, who was a “priest to David” ( 2 Samuel 20:26 the Revised Version margin); he tries to prove that this Ira (or Jair) was a priest of Bethlehem.

Stade (GVI, I, 293, note 1) holds that Shimei and Rei were two officers of David’s bodyguard. Josephus (Ant., VII, xiv, 4) has [oJ Daoui>dou fi>lov, ho Daouidou philos ], thus making Shimei a “friend,” the courtier of Samuel 15:37; 16:16, and omitting Rei entirely. This would call for an original reading [ Ël,M,h” [“re , re`h ha-melekh ], or [ Ël,M,h” h[ere , re`eh ha-melekh ], and is too wide a variant from the Massoretic Text. Assuming that Rei belongs in the text, it is safe to conjecture that he was an officer of the royal guard. Horace J. Wolf REIGN <ran > : The Hebrew word [ tWkl]m” , malekhuth ], may be rendered “kinghood,” “royal dignity,” “kingdom,” “government” (“reign”). The verb is [ Ël”m; , malakh ], “to be king” (“to reign as king”), “to become king,” “to accede to the throne,” “to assume royal power publicly” and, generally speaking, “to become powerful.” In the New Testament [hJgemoni>a, hegemonia ], [basilei>a, basileia ], [basileu>ein, basileuein ]. The word is used, either as a noun or as a verb, of Yahweh (God), the Messiah (Christ) and men (kings, etc.); then of such terms as sin, death, grace; of the woman in Revelation and, conditionally, of the Christians; once, ironically, of the Corinthians. “Reign” as a noun referring to the time of reigning occurs in 1 Kings 6:1 (Solomon); 2 Kings 24:12 (Nebuchadnezzar); 1 Chronicles 4:31 (David; compare 1 Chronicles 29:30); 2 Chronicles 36:20 (“until the reign of the kingdom of Persia”); Nehemiah 12:22 (Darius); Est 2:16 (Ahasuerus); Luke 3:1 (Tiberius Caesar). More often occurs the verb “to reign,” malakh , basileuein . It is applied to: (1) Yahweh at the close of the song of Moses ( Exodus 15:18); “Yahweh reigneth” ( 1 Chronicles 16:31; compare Psalm 93:1; 96:10; 99:1; Revelation 19:6); “God reigneth over the nations” ( Psalm 47:8); “Yahweh of hosts will reign in mount Zion” ( Isaiah 24:23; compare Micah 4:7); “Thy God reigneth” ( Isaiah 52:7); “Thou hast taken thy great power and didst reign” ( Revelation 11:17, meaning probably “thou didst assume thy might”); (2) the Messiah (Christ) as a just and righteous king ( Jeremiah 23:5); an eternal king ( Luke 1:33; compare Revelation 11:15); punishing and subduing His enemies ( Luke 19:14,27; Corinthians 15:25). (3) Men (kings, etc.), in regard to the source of their power (“By me (i.e. the wisdom of God), kings reign” ( Proverbs 8:15)); respecting legitimate succession ( 2 Chronicles 23:3); meaning “to have power or dominion” ( Genesis 37:8 and Job 34:30); in regard to an essential characteristic ( Isaiah 32:1); in connection with the covenant of Yahweh with David ( Jeremiah 33:21); then the word is used in 1 Samuel 12:12, where Samuel reminds the children of Israel of their demanding a king of him (compare verse 14); of Saul ( 1 Samuel 13:1; compare 11:12); of Saul’s son Ish-bosheth ( Samuel 2:10); of David ( 2 Samuel 5:4 f; compare 3:21); of Adonijah ( 1 Kings 1:11,24; compare 2:15); of Solomon ( 1 Kings 1:13); quite frequently of the kings of Judah and Israel (in the Books of Kings and Chronicles); of the kings of Edom ( Genesis 36:31); of Jabin, king of Canaan, in Razor ( Judges 4:2); of Abimelech, Jerubbaal’s son, in Jotham’s fable ( Judges 9:8-15); of Hanun, king of the Ammonites ( 2 Samuel 10:1); of Rezon and his men in Damascus ( 1 Kings 11:24); of Hazael and Ben-hadad, kings of Syria ( 2 Kings 8:15 and 13:24); of Esar-haddon, king of Assyria ( Kings 19:37); of Ahasuerus, king of Persia (Est 1:1); of Archelaus ( Matthew 2:22). (4) In the New Testament the term basileuein , “to reign,” is used to illustrate and emphasize the power of sin, death and grace ( Romans 5:14,17,21 and 6:12). Sin, the vitiating mental factor, is to be looked upon as being constantly and resolutely bent on maintaining or regaining its hold upon man, its power being exercised and reinforced by the lusts of the body. Death, the logical outcome of sin, at once testifies to the power of sin and its inherent corruption, while grace is the restoring spiritual factor following up and combating everywhere and always the pernicious influence of sin. It strives to dethrone sin, and to establish itself in man as the only dominating force. (5) In describing the future glorious state of the believers, the New Testament uses the expression of those who endure (in faith; compare 2 Timothy 2:12); of those `purchased unto God with the blood of the Lamb’ ( Revelation 5:10); of those partaking in the first resurrection ( Revelation 20:6); of the servants of God, “they shall reign for ever and ever” ( Revelation 22:5); on the other hand, it teaches us not to anticipate the privileges of heaven, while our Christian life is anything but satisfactory (1 Cor 4:8), and Revelation 17:18 shows us the terrible fate of the woman, the great city (the corrupt church), “which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” See further KING, KINGDOM.

William Baur REINS <ranz > ([ hy;l]Ki , kilyah ]; [nefro>v, nephros ], words promiscuously translated “heart,” “inward parts,” “kidneys” or “reins.” The latter word, which is derived from Latin “renes” through Old French “reins”, has given place in modern English to the word “kidneys” (see Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 398). the Revised Version (British and American) has, however, retained the older word, at least in the margin, in all passages in which it is found in the King James Version): According to Hebrew psychology the reins are the seat of the deepest emotions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know.

Thus the Revised Version (British and American) has substituted “heart” for “reins” in the text of Job 19:27; Psalm 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; 73:21; Proverbs 23:16; Jeremiah 11:20; 12:2; 17:10; 20:12; the translation “inward parts” is found but once ( <19D913> Psalm 139:13). In one passage the King James Version has translated the Hebrew halac (“loins”) with “reins” ( Isaiah 11:5), where the Revised Version (British and American) has rightly substituted “waist” (which see). The Greek word nephros (which is etymologically allied to the Middle English nere, Get. Niere; see Skeat, ibid, 231, under the word “Kidney”) is found in 1 Macc 2:24; Revelation 2:23. See KIDNEYS.

H. L. E. Luering REKEM <re’-kem > ([ µq,r, , rekem ], “friendship”): (1) One of the five kings of Midian slain by the Israelites under Moses ( Numbers 31:8; Joshua 13:21 (Codex Vaticanus [ JRo>bok, Rhobok ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRo>kom, Rhokom )). Like his companions, he is called a “king” in Numbers, but a “prince” or “chieftain” in the passage in Josh. The two references are hardly related; both are based on an earlier tradition. (2) Eponym of a Calebite family ( 1 Chronicles 2:43 ([ JRe>kom, Rhekom ]). Probably a town in Southern Judah. A town of this name is given as belonging to Benjamin ( Joshua 18:27). (3) A city of Benjamin, mentioned with Irpeel and Taralah ( Joshua 18:27); the site is unknown. See also RAKEM.

Horace J. Wolf RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY <re-la’-shun-ships > :

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

I. CONSANGUINITY. 1. In General: Genealogies were carefully kept by the ancient Hebrews (compare those of Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke), not only because they formed the basis of a man’s title to his property ( Numbers 27:8-11; exceptional case, 36:1-12), but also because on one’s pedigree depended the right of his family to intermarry with the priestly caste.

Descent was traced through the father; a man’s closest association was therefore with his father’s family, and he was ordinarily referred to as the son of his father, thus Isaac the son of Abraham ( Genesis 25:19), Joshua the son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh ( Numbers 14:6).

Still there are instances of men named for their mothers (Joab the son of Zeruiah), and a man’s relation with his mother’s family was fully recognized in the laws forbidding incest. No lineal relatives were permitted to intermarry ( Leviticus 18:7,10). The relations of ancestors and descendants were considered so close that the ordinary terms of relationship between children and parents are used constantly in relation to grandparents and remoter ancestors. The wishes of a great-grandfather are respected long after his death as the wishes of a father ( Jeremiah 35:16). 2. Parents and Children: The father ([ ba; , ‘abh ]; [path>r, pater ]) was the head of the family (mishpachah ) or household (bayith ), which was a religious ( 1 Samuel 20:6,29; Exodus 12:3; Job 1:5) as well as a social and political unit, consisting usually of a combination of families in the modern sense. As long as polygamy prevailed a family would include at least the several groups of children of the wives and concubines. The Bible represents the Hebrew father as commanding ( Genesis 50:16; Jeremiah 35:6 ff; Proverbs 6:20), instructing ( Proverbs 1:8; 4:1), and rebuking ( Genesis 37:10; Numbers 12:14); at the same time, as loving ( Genesis 25:28; 37:4; 44:20), pitying ( <19A313> Psalm 103:13), and blessing his household ( Genesis 27:41), rejoicing over its triumphs ( Proverbs 10:1; 15:20), or grieving over its misfortunes ( Genesis 37:35). The mother, too ([ µae , ‘em ]; [mh>thr, meter ]), naturally displays love and care ( Genesis 25:28; Proverbs 4:3; Isaiah 49:15; 66:13). To the Hebrew woman childlessness was considered the greatest of misfortunes ( 1 Samuel 1:10 ff, of Hannah; Genesis 30:23, of Rachel). Children were looked upon as a blessing from God ( <19C703> Psalm 127:3) and the defenders of the home ( <19C704> Psalm 127:4,5). In early life a child was more directly under the control of the mother than the father; the mother was its first teacher ( Proverbs 1:8). Thereafter the father was expected to direct the training of the son ([ ˆBe , ben ]; [uiJo>v, huios ], [te>knon, teknon ]) ( Genesis 18:19; Exodus 12:26; 13:8,14,15; Deuteronomy 6:7), while the daughter ([ tB” , bath ]; [quga>thr, thugater ]) probably remained with the mother until her marriage ( Micah 7:6). Both parents are looked upon in the Law as objects of honor ( Exodus 20:12 parallel Deuteronomy 5:16 (the Fifth Commandment); Exodus 21:15; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 27:16; Proverbs 20:20; Ezekiel 22:7; Micah 7:6), obedience ( Genesis 28:7; Leviticus 19:3; Deuteronomy 21:18 ff; Proverbs 1:8; 30:17) and love ( 1 Kings 19:20; Proverbs 28:24; 30:11). The control of parents was so great as to include the right to sell daughters in marriage, but not, without restrictions, into slavery ( Exodus 21:7-11; compare 22:16 ff; Nehemiah 5:5), and never into a life of shame ( Leviticus 19:29); they could chastise children ( Deuteronomy 8:5; 21:18; Proverbs 13:24; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:1-13), and in the early days even exerted the power of life and death over them (Genesis 22; Judges 11:39; Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; compare Matthew 15:4).

This power, at least for sacrificial purposes, was entirely removed by the Law, and changed, even for punishment, in the case of a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and disobedient son to a mere right of complaint to the proper authorities ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21), who were to put him to death. Infanticide by exposure, such as was common among other ancient peoples, seems never to have been practiced by the Hebrews. That the children were nevertheless the chattels of the parents seems to be attested from the fact that they could be seized for the debts of the father ( 2 Kings 4:1). The father could annul the vows of his daughter ( Numbers 30:3-5), and damages for wrongs done to her were paid to him, as in English law “for loss of services” ( Deuteronomy 22:29). A widowed or divorced daughter could return to her father ( Genesis 38:11; Leviticus 22:13; Ruth 1:15). At his death the mother would become the actual, if not the legal, head of the household ( 2 Kings 8:1-6, the Shunammite woman; Tobit 1:8, Tobit’s grandmother; compare the position of the mother of Jesus). This was especially true of the queen mother (gebhirah ), whose name is usually given in the accounts of the kings of Judah ( 1 Kings 1:11; 2:19, where a throne at the king’s right hand was set for the king’s mother; 11:26; 14:21,31; 15:2,10,13; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26; 10:13; 14:2; 15:2,33; 18:2; 21:1,19; 22:1; 23:31,36; 24:8,12,15,18; 2 Chronicles 22:2; Jeremiah 13:18; 22:26; see QUEEN MOTHER). While it is true that the position of the widowed mother depended to some extent on the will of her son ( 1 Kings 2:18 ff), it must be remembered that the sense of filial duty was highly developed among all classes in Palestine ( Joshua 2:13,18; 6:23; Samuel 22:3; 2 Samuel 19:37; 1 Kings 19:20). The rebellion of children marked the acme of social degeneration ( Micah 7:6; Proverbs 30:11); on the other hand the “great day” according to Malachi (4:5 (Hebrew 3:23)) is one of conciliation of parents and children. 3. Brothers and Sisters: The terms “brother” ([ ja; , ‘ach ]; [ajdelfo>v, adelphos ]) and “sister” ([ twOja; , ‘ahoth ]; [ajdelfh>, adelphe ]) apply to children of the same father and mother ( Genesis 4:2), and also to children of one father ( Genesis 20:12) or of one mother ( Genesis 43:7; Leviticus 18:9; 20:17). The brother as well as the father was the natural protector of the honor of his sister; thus, the sons of Jacob speak of Dinah as “our daughter” ( Genesis 34:17). Absalom feels more deeply aggrieved over the crime against Tamar than does David himself ( 2 Samuel 13:21). The brother’s other duties toward a sister were very much like those of a father (Song 8:8). The Law strictly forbids the intermarriage of brother and sister, whether of the same father and mother or not, whether born at home or born abroad, as a “disgraceful thing” (chesedh , a different word from checedh , “kindness” ( Leviticus 18:9,11; 20:17). In earlier times marriage between half-brother and sister was allowable ( Genesis 20:12; compare 2 Samuel 13:13). In fact, we are expressly told that the laws against incest were not obeyed by the Egyptians or the Canaanites ( Leviticus 18:3 ff; 20:23). Brotherly sentiment was highly developed ( Genesis 24:60; Joshua 2:13; Proverbs 17:17; compare Leviticus 25:35; Deuteronomy 15:11 f; 25:3); the dwelling of brothers together in unity is considered good and pleasant ( <19D301> Psalm 133:1). Brothers were ever ready to protect or avenge each other ( Samuel 3:27). Indeed, it is part of the unwritten, common law, recognized though not necessarily approved in the Bible, that the brother or next of kin, the go’el , is expected to avenge a death ( Numbers 35:19 ff; Deuteronomy 19:6; Joshua 20:3; 2 Samuel 14:11), and no punishment is meted out to prevent such self-help, unless it occurs in a refuge-city. A brother was also expected to ransom a captive or slave ( Leviticus 25:48; Psalm 49:7). Half-brothers were of course not so near as brothers of the full blood (compare Joseph and his brothers), and it is not surprising to find the sons of a wife despising and driving out the son of a harlot ( Judges 11:1, Jephthah). The words “brother” and “sister” are used frequently of more distant relationships (see below) and figuratively of a friend. 4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen: The Hebrew [ dwOD, dodh ] ( Leviticus 10:4, “uncles”; Numbers 36:11, “cousins”; 1 Samuel 14:50), coming from a primitive caressing word, possibly indicating “dandle” “fondle” “love” means both “uncle” and “beloved.” It is used of the father’s and also of the mother’s brother, and the corresponding feminine form ([ hd;wOD, dodhah ) is used of the father’s sister ( Exodus 6:20; compare Numbers 26:59) and even of the father’s brother’s wife ( Leviticus 18:14; 20:20). Intermarriage between nephew and aunt (i.e. father’s sister, mother’s sister, or father’s brother’s wife, or, in general, uncle’s wife) was prohibited ( Leviticus 18:12,13,14; 20:19,20), though nothing is said of intermarriage between uncle and niece nor between cousins (compare Numbers 36:11). On the relations between uncle and nephew compare the Bible accounts of Jacob and Laban, Abraham and Lot, David and Joab, etc. In a more general sense the word dodh is used of kinsmen, Amos 6:10 (where the dodh , “even he that burneth him” (mecarepho , perhaps “maternal uncle”; the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word “Cremation”), takes charge of a dead body); ben dodh is used of cousin (compare ben ‘ahi ‘immo , brother of his mother,” etc.) and bath dodh of a female cousin. For other relations of this and remoter degrees the word for brother is loosely used (e.g. of nephews, Genesis 13:8; 14:14, etc.; of tribesmen, Leviticus 21:10; and of more distant relatives, Deuteronomy 2:4,8; 23:7).

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

It is difficult to estimate the extent to which polygamy and concubinage were practiced in ancient Palestine, but it is clear that the former practice was discouraged even among kings ( Deuteronomy 17:17), and the latter, an outgrowth of slavery, was not held in high repute (compare Deuteronomy 21:10-14). The position of a less-favored wife ( Deuteronomy 21:15, “hated”) was naturally unpleasant, and her relations with other wives of her husband decidedly bitter — they were called each other’s [tsaroth], literally, “vexers” (the Revised Version (British and American) “rivals,” Leviticus 18:18; 1 Samuel 1:6, the King James Version “adversary”; compare Ecclesiasticus 37:11) — even when they were sisters (as in the case of Rachel and Leah, Genesis 30:1). Hence, the Law forbade the marrying of two sisters ( Leviticus 18:18). On the other hand so strong was the desire of a Hebrew mother for children that the childless wife welcomed the children of a maidservant born to her husband as her own ( Genesis 30:1-12, etc.). 2. Father-in-Law, etc.: In normal Hebrew society, for reasons already explained, the relations of a family with the husband’s parents ([ µj; , cham ], from [ twOmj; , chamoth ]) were closer than those with the wife’s parents ([ ˆtejo , chothen ], feminine [ tn,t,jo , chotheneth ]; [penqero>v, pentheros ], [penqera>, penthera ]. Where under special conditions a man remained with his wife’s tribe after marriage, as in the case of Jacob, serving out his mohar, or Moses fleeing from the wrath of the Egyptians, or the sons of Elimelech sojourning in the land of Moab because of the famine in Palestine, his identity with his own tribe was not destroyed, and at the first opportunity the natural impulse was to return to his own country. The bride, on the other hand, leaving her people, would become a member of her husband’s family, with all the rights and duties of a daughter ( Micah 7:6). Thus Judah can order Tamar burned for violation of the obligations of a widow ( Genesis 38:24). No doubt the position of the daughter-in-law varied in the Hebrew home between the extremes of those who vexed their parents-in-law untothe death ( Genesis 26:35; 27:46; 28:8) and the one who said to her mother-in-law, “Yahweh do so to me .... if aught but death part thee and me” ( Ruth 1:17). Parents-in-law and children-in-law were considered too closely related to intermarry ( Leviticus 18:15; 20:12,14). 3. Brother-in-Law, etc.: A woman’s brother acting in loco parentis might perform all the offices of a father-in-law and possibly be called chothen ( Genesis 24:50,55; 34:11 ff). Naturally, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would be considered too closely related to intermarry ( Leviticus 18:16,18; 20:21). Nevertheless the husband’s brother ([ µb;y; , yabham ]) was expected to marry the childless widow to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance ( Deuteronomy 25:5-10). This custom dated back to Canaanitic practice ( Genesis 38:8), and from the connection between marrying the childless widow and the redemption of land may be called a part of the land law of Palestine ( Ruth 4:1-12; compare Jeremiah 32:6 ff). In practice the Levirate was probably considered more in the nature of a moral duty than a privilege ( Deuteronomy 25:7; Ruth 4:6), and devolved not only on the brother, but on other members of a deceased husband’s family in the order of the nearness of their relationship to him ( Ruth 3:12). In the Hebrew family brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would form part of the same household. In this relation as in others we find both ideal friendship (David and Jonathan, 1 Samuel 18:3; 2 Samuel 1:26) and petty jealousies (in the matter of Moses’ wife, Numbers 12:1).

III. OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS. 1. Foster-father: The Hebrew [ ˆmeao , ‘omen ], feminine [ tn,m,ao , ‘omeneth ] (participle of ‘aman ), literally, “nourishing,” is translated “nursing father” ( Numbers 11:12; Isaiah 49:23), nursing mother” ( Isaiah 49:23), “nurse” ( Ruth 4:16; 2 Samuel 4:4), or simply as the equivalent of “bringing up” ( 2 Kings 10:1,5; Est 2:7). In the case of Esther and of Ahab’s children, and possibly in the other instances referred to, the relation of foster-parents is suggested. The foster-children under such conditions obeyed the words of the foster-father as the words of a father (Est 2:20).

Michal is spoken of as the mother of Merab’s two children ( 2 Samuel 21:8) because she reared them (Sanhedhrin 19b). Adoption in the Roman sense was, however, hardly to be expected in a polygamous society where the childless father could remarry. Nevertheless, Jacob adopts Manasseh and Ephraim ( Genesis 48:5), and thereby makes them the fathers of tribes. According to Josephus, while Abraham was childless he adopted Lot (Ant., I, vii, 1), and the daughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses (Ant., II, ix, 7; compare Exodus 2:10). In New Testament times the notion of adoption was so familiar that Paul uses the word figuratively of conversion ([uiJoqesi>a, huiothesia ], Romans 8:15; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5). 2. Master and Servants: The “family” as the word is used of ancient peoples included dependents.

The Hebrew mishpachah is connected with the word shiphchah , “maidservant,” as the Latin familia is connected with famulus, “servant.”

For a discussion of the various classes of servants and slaves, Hebrew and foreign, male and female, see SLAVERY. 3. Host and Guest: When Lot protested against betraying his visitors to the men of Sodom, forasmuch as they had come under the shadow of his roof, and he even preferred to give his daughters to the mob rather than fail in his duties as a host ( Genesis 19:8), he was acting on the ancient principle of guestfriendship (compare Greek xenia ), which bound host and guest by sacred ties. In the light of this principle the act of Jael, who receives Sisera as a guest, and then betrays him, becomes startling and capable of explanation only on the basis of the intense hatred existing at the time, and justifiable, if at all, only on theory that all is fair in war ( Judges 4:18-21; 5:24-27).

The nomads of ancient times and even the post-exilic Hebrews, like the Arabs of today, were bound by a temporary covenant whenever there was “salt between them,” that is, in the relation of host and guest ( Ezra 4:14; compare the expression “covenant of salt,” 2 Chronicles 13:5; Numbers 18:19). In the early Christian church breaking bread together served as a sort of a berith ‘ahim , or covenant of brothers. In large households such as those of a king, those that ate at the table were members of the household ( 2 Samuel 9:11, compared to sons; compare also 2 Samuel 9:7,10,13; 19:28; 1 Kings 2:7; 4:27; 18:19). See HOSPITALITY. 4. The Dependent Stranger: The ger or stranger (as indicated by the expression “thy stranger” ( Exodus 20:10; Leviticus 25:6; Deuteronomy 5:14; 29:11; 31:12; compare Deuteronomy 1:16), Hebrew gero , literally, “his stranger”) attached himself to an influential Hebrew for protection. Thus we read of a “sojourner of the priest’s” ( Leviticus 22:10, toschabh ; compare 25:6) who was in many respects a dependent, but still to be distinguished from a servant ( Leviticus 22:11). The Mosaic Law commands that such strangers be treated with consideration ( Exodus 12:49; 20:10; 22:21 ff; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33; Deuteronomy 1:16; 10:18; 14:21, etc.; <19E609> Psalm 146:9) and even with love ( Deuteronomy 16:14; Leviticus 19:34). See STRANGER.

Nathan Isaacs and Ella Davis Isaacs RELEASE <re-les’ > : (1) The forgiveness of a debt ([ hF;miv] , shemiTTah ] ( Deuteronomy 15:1,2,9; 31:10; see JUBILEE YEAR)), with verb shamaT , “to release,” Deuteronomy 31:2,3. (2) To exempt from taxation or military service ([ hj;n;h\ , hanachah ], “release,” “rest” (Est 2:18)). Some would render “granted a holiday.” (3) To set a prisoner or slave at liberty ([ajpolu>w, apoluo ], “to let go free” ( Matthew 27:15 parallel John 19:10), etc.).

RELIGION <re-lij’-un > : “Religion” and “religious” in Elizabethan English were used frequently to denote the outward expression of worship. This is the force of [qrhskei>a, threskeia ], translated “religion” in Acts 26:5; James 1:26,27 (with adjective threskos , “religious”), while the same noun in Colossians 2:18 is rendered “worshipping” (“cult” would give the exact meaning). And in the same external sense “religion” is used by the King James Version for [latrei>a, latreia ], “worship” (so the Revised Version (British and American)), in I Macc 1:43; 2:19,22. Otherwise “Jews’ religion” (or “religion of the Jews”) appears in 2 Macc 8:1; 14:38 (the Revised Version (British and American) bis ); Galatians 1:13,14 ([ jIoudai`smo>v, Ioudaismos ], “Judaism”); and “an alien religion” in 2 Macc 6:24 ([ajllofulismo>v, allophulismos ], “that belonging to another tribe”).

The neglect of the external force of “religion” has led to much reckless misquoting of James 1:26,27. Compare Acts 17:22. See SUPERSTITION.

Burton Scott Easton RELIGION, COMPARATIVE See COMPARATIVE RELIGION.

RELIGION, SCIENCE OF See COMPARATIVE RELIGION.

REMAINDER <re-man’-der > ([ rt”y; , yathar ], “to be left,” [ tyriaev] , she’erith ], “remnant”): In 2 Samuel 14:7 “residue” would have been clearer (compare Psalm 76:10), but the changes of the Revised Version (British and American) in Leviticus 6:16; 7:16,17 are pointless (contrast Exodus 29:34).

REMALIAH <rem-a-li’-a > ([ Why;l]m”r] , remalyahu ], “whom Yahweh has adorned”):

The father of Pekah ( 2 Kings 15:25 ff; Isaiah 7:4 ff; 8:6). The contemptuous allusion to Pekah as “the son of Remaliah” in Isaiah 7:4 (similarly “the son of Kish,” 1 Samuel 10:11) may be a slur on Remaliah’s humble origin.

REMEMBER; REMEMBRANCE <re-mem’-ber > , <re-mem’-brans > : “Remember” is mostly the translation, in the Old Testament, of [ rk”z; , zakhar ], and in the New Testament of [mna>omai, mnaomai ( Matthew 5:23; 26:75; John 2:17, etc.), and of [mnhmoneu>w, mnemoneuo ] ( Matthew 16:9; Mark 8:18; Luke 17:32, etc.), and “remembrance” the translation of derivatives of these (zekher , anamnesis , etc.). There are a few other words. “To remember” is used of God in remembering persons ( Genesis 8:1; 19:29, etc.), His covenant ( Genesis 9:15; Exodus 2:24; Ezekiel 16:60, etc.), in answering prayer ( Judges 16:28; Nehemiah 13:14,22; Psalm 20:3, etc.), and in other ways. Men are exhorted to “remember” God’s dealings with them, His commandments ( Deuteronomy 8:2,18; Judges 8:34; 1 Chronicles 16:12, etc.), the Sabbath ( Exodus 20:8), etc. A specially solemn command is that relating to the Lord’s Supper in Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24,25, “This do in remembrance of me.” “Remembrancer” (writer of chronicles) occurs in the King James Version margin of 2 Samuel 8:16; 20:24; 1 Kings 4:3; 1 Chronicles 18:15 (text “recorder,” the Revised Version margin “chronicler”). In Isaiah 62:6, the Revised Version (British and American) reads, “ye that are Yahweh’s remembrancers.” the Revised Version (British and American) has frequent changes on the King James Version text, as “have marked” ( 1 Samuel 15:2); “make mention of” ( Psalm 20:7; 77:11; Song 1:4); “remember” for “be ye mindful of” ( 1 Chronicles 16:15); “memorial” for “remembrance” ( Isaiah 57:8); in the American Standard Revised Version, “to his holy memorial name” ( Psalm 30:4; 97:12, the English Revised Version “to his holy name,” margin “Hebrew `memorial’ “); in 2 Timothy 1:5, “having been reminded of” for the King James Version “call to remembrance,” etc. W. L. Walker REMETH <re’-meth > , <rem’-eth > ([ tm,r, , remeth ]; Codex Vaticanus [ JRemma>v, Rhemmas ]; Codex Alexandrinus [ JRama>q, Rhamath ]): A place in the territory of Issachar named with En-gannim ( Joshua 19:21). It is probably identical with Ramoth of 1 Chronicles 6:73, and Jarmuth of Joshua 21:29. It is represented today by the village er-Rameh, situated on a hill which rises abruptly from the green plain about 11 miles Southwest of Jenin (Engannim). While the southern boundary of Issachar was, roughly, the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, the possessions of the tribes seem sometimes to have overlapped. See JARMUTH; RAMOTH.

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

H. E. Jacobs REMMON <rem’-on > ([ ˆwOMri , rimmon ], Joshua 19:7). See RIMMON.

REMMON-METHOAR <rem’-on-meth’-o-ar > , <rem’-on-me-tho’-ar > ([ ra;toM]h” ˆwOMri , rimmon ha-metho’-ar ] ( Joshua 19:13)). See RIMMON, (3).

REMNANT <rem’-nant > : Remnant is the translation of [ rt,y, , yether ], “what is left over” ( Deuteronomy 3:11; 28:54; Joshua 12:4, etc.); of [ ra;v] , she’- ar ], “the rest” ( Ezra 3:8 the King James Version; Isaiah 10:20,21,22; 11:16, etc.; Zeph 1:4); more frequently of [ tyriaev] , she’- erith ], “residue,” etc. ( 2 Kings 19:4,31; 2 Chronicles 34:9; Ezra 9:14; Isaiah 14:30, etc.). As the translation of the last-mentioned two words, “remnant” has a special significance in the prophecies of Isaiah, as denoting “a holy seed,” or spiritual kernel, of the nation which should survive impending judgment and become the germ of the people of God, being blessed of God and made a blessing (compare Micah 2:12; 4:7; 5:7,8; 7:18; also Zeph 2:7; 3:13; Haggai 1:12,14; Zechariah 8:6; Joel 2:32). Paul, in Romans 9:27, quotes from Isaiah 10:22 f, “the remnant (kataleimma , “what is left over”] shall be saved”; compare also Romans 11:5 (where the word is leimma ) with 2 Kings 19:4.

Several other Hebrew words are less frequently translated “remnant”: ‘ahar , “after”; yathar , “to be left over,” etc.; in the New Testament (the King James Version) we have also loipos , “left,” “remaining” ( Matthew 22:6; Revelation 11:13, etc.).

For “remnant” the Revised Version (British and American) has “overhanging part” ( Exodus 26:12), “rest” ( Leviticus 14:18, etc.); on the other hand gives “remnant” for “posterity” ( Genesis 45:7), for “rest” ( Joshua 10:20; 1 Chronicles 4:43; Isaiah 10:19), for “residue” ( Haggai 2:2; Zechariah 8:11), etc. W. L. Walker REMPHAN <rem’-fan > . See REPHAN.

RENDING OF GARMENTS <ren’-ding > . See BURIAL, IV; DRESS.

RENEW <re-nu’ > : The word is used in various senses: (1) of material things, e.g. <19A430> Psalm 104:30; here it means to give a new appearance, to refresh, to restore the face of the earth; (2) in 1 Samuel 11:14, to establish more firmly the kingdom by reinstalling King Saul; (3) in 2 Chronicles 15:8, to rebuild or repair the broken altar; (4) in Lamentations 5:21, “renew our days,” restore the favors of former days; (5) in Isaiah 41:1, `let them gather together, or marshal their strongest arguments for answer’; (6) in <19A305> Psalm 103:5; Isaiah 40:31, it refers to the restoring of spiritual strength; (7) in the New Testament it invariably refers to spiritual renewal, e.g. Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:23; Colossians 3:10; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 6:6; all derivatives of [kaino>v, kainos ], “new.” G. H. Gerberding REPAIR <re-par’ > ([ hs,j]m” , machceh ], “refuge”): In Joel 3:16, for the King James Version The Lord will be the hope of his people” the King James Version margin renders “place of repair,” or, “harbour” = haven of repair. the Revised Version (British and American) gives “refuge.” Other words are [ qz”j; , chazaq ], “to strengthen,” “harden,” “fix” ( 2 Kings 12:5 and often; Nehemiah 3); [ ap;r; , rapha’ ] “to heal” ( 1 Kings 18:30); [ dm”[; , `amadh ], “to cause to stand still” ( Ezra 9:9); [ hy;j; , chayah ], “to revive” ( 1 Chronicles 11:8); [ rg”s; , caghar ], “to close up” ( Kings 11:27).

In the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha for [uJporra>ptw, huporrapto ], “to patch up” (Sirach 50:1); [ejpiskeua>zw, episkeuazo ], “to get ready” (1 Macc 12:37). In 1 Macc 14:34 occurs “reparation” (modern English “repairs”) for [ejpano>rqwsiv, epanorthosis ], “straightening up.” M. O. Evans REPENTANCE <re-pen’-tans > :

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

I. OLD TESTAMENT TERMS. 1. To Repent — “to Pant,” “to Sigh”: The Hebrew word [ µj”n; , naham ], is an onomatopoetic term which implies difficulty in breathing, hence, “to pant,” “to sigh,” “to groan.”

Naturally it came to signify “to lament” or “to grieve,” and when the emotion was produced by the desire of good for others, it merged into compassion and sympathy, and when incited by a consideration of one’s own character and deeds it means “to rue,” “to repent.” To adapt language to our understanding, God is represented as repenting when delayed penalties are at last to be inflicted, or when threatened evils have been averted by genuine reformation ( Genesis 6:6; Jon 3:10). This word is translated “repent” about 40 times in the Old Testament, and in nearly all cases it refers to God. The principal idea is not personal relation to sin, either in its experience of grief or in turning from an evil course. Yet the results of sin are manifest in its use. God’s heart is grieved at man’s iniquity, and in love He bestows His grace, or in justice He terminates His mercy. It indicates the aroused emotions of God which prompt Him to a different course of dealing with the people. Similarly when used with reference to man, only in this case the consciousness of personal transgression is evident. This distinction in the application of the word is intended by such declarations as God “is not a man, that he should repent” ( 1 Samuel 15:29; Job 42:6; Jeremiah 8:6). 2. To Repent — “to Turn” or “Return”: The term [ bWv , shubh ], is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one’s attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man’s turning away from sin to righteousness ( Deuteronomy 4:30; Nehemiah 1:9; Psalm 7:12; Jeremiah 3:14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man ( Exodus 32:12; Joshua 7:26). It is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect ( Psalm 85:4).

When the term is translated by “return” it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man ( 1 Samuel 7:3; Psalm 90:13 (both terms, nacham and shubh ; Isaiah 21:12; 55:7). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are translated by “repent” and “return” ( Ezekiel 14:6; Hosea 12:6; Jon 3:8).

II. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS. 1. Repent — “to Care,” “Be Concerned”: The term [metame>lomai, metamelomai ], literally signifies to have a feeling or care, concern or regret; like nacham , it expresses the emotional aspect of repentance. The feeling indicated by the word may issue in genuine repentance, or it may degenerate into mere remorse ( Matthew 21:29,32; 27:3). Judas repented only in the sense of regret, remorse, and not in the sense of the abandonment of sin. The word is used with reference to Paul’s feeling concerning a certain course of conduct, and with reference to God in His attitude toward His purposes of grace (2 Cor 7:8 the King James Version; Hebrews 7:21). 2. Repent — “to Change the Mind”: The word [metanoe>w, metanoeo ], expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner’s return to God. The term signifies “to have another mind,” to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word “turn.” Thus, it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles ( Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38). The idea expressed by the word is intimately associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as faith ( Acts 20:21), and as conversion ( Acts 3:19); also with those experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as remission and forgiveness of sin ( Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31). It is sometimes conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed relation to sin and God ( Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4).

As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life ( Matthew 3:8). 3. Repent — “to Turn Over,” “to Turn Upon,” “to Turn Unto”: The word [ejpistre>fw, epistrepho ], is used to bring out more clearly the distinct change wrought in repentance. It is employed quite frequently in Acts to express the positive side of a change involved in New Testament repentance, or to indicate the return to God of which the turning from sin is the negative aspect. The two conceptions are inseparable and complementary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from sin to God ( Acts 9:35; 1 Thessalonians 1:9); to strengthen the idea of faith ( Acts 11:21); and to complete and emphasize the change required by New Testament repentance ( Acts 26:20).

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

III. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS. 1. The Intellectual Element: Repentance is that change of a sinner’s mind which leads him to turn from his evil ways and live. The change wrought in repentance is so deep and radical as to affect the whole spiritual nature and to involve the entire personality. The intellect must function, the emotions must be aroused, and the will must act. Psychology shows repentance to be profound, personal and all-pervasive. The intellectual element is manifest from the nature of man as an intelligent being, and from the demands of God who desires only rational service. Man must apprehend sin as unutterably heinous, the divine law as perfect and inexorable, and himself as coming short or falling below the requirements of a holy God ( Job 42:5,6; Psalm 51:3; Romans 3:20). 2. The Emotional Element: There may be a knowledge of sin without turning from it as an awful thing which dishonors God and ruins man. The change of view may lead only to a dread of punishment and not to the hatred and abandonment of sin ( Exodus 9:27; Numbers 22:34; Joshua 7:20; 1 Samuel 15:24; Matthew 27:4). An emotional element is necessarily involved in repentance. While feeling is not the equivalent of repentance, it nevertheless may be a powerful impulse to a genuine turning from sin. A penitent cannot from the nature of the case be stolid and indifferent. The emotional attitude must be altered if New Testament repentance be experienced. There is a type of grief that issues in repentance and another which plunges into remorse. There is a godly sorrow and also a sorrow of the world. The former brings life; the latter, death ( Matthew 27:3; Luke 18:23; 2 Corinthians 7:9,10). There must be a consciousness of sin in its effect on man and in its relation to God before there can be a hearty turning away from unrighteousness. The feeling naturally accompanying repentance implies a conviction of personal sin and sinfulness and an earnest appeal to God to forgive according to His mercy ( Psalm 51:1,2,10-14). 3. The Volitional Element: The most prominent element in the psychology of repentance is the voluntary, or volitional. This aspect of the penitent’s experience is expressed in the Old Testament by “turn”, or “return,” and in the New Testament by “repent” or “turn.” The words employed in the Hebrew and Greek place chief emphasis on the will, the change of mind, or of purpose, because a complete and sincere turning to God involves both the apprehension of the nature of sin and the consciousness of personal guilt ( Jeremiah 25:5; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; 2 Corinthians 7:9,10).

The demand for repentance implies free will and individual responsibility.

That men are called upon to repent there can be no doubt, and that God is represented as taking the initiative in repentance is equally clear. The solution of the problem belongs to the spiritual sphere. The psychical phenomena have their origin in the mysterious relations of the human and the divine personalities. There can be no external substitute for the internal change. Sackcloth for the body and remorse for the soul are not to be confused with a determined abandonment of sin and return to God. Not material sacrifice, but a spiritual change, is the inexorable demand of God in both dispensations ( Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 6:20; Hosea 6:6).

Repentance is only a condition of salvation and not its meritorious ground.

The motives for repentance are chiefly found in the goodness of God, in divine love, in the pleading desire to have sinners saved, in the inevitable consequences of sin, in the universal demands of the gospel, and in the hope of spiritual life and membership in the kingdom of heaven ( Ezekiel 33:11; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:1-5; John 3:16; Acts 17:30; Romans 2:4; 1 Timothy 2:4). The first four beatitudes ( Matthew 5:3-6) form a heavenly ladder by which penitent souls pass from the dominion of Satan into the Kingdom of God. A consciousness of spiritual poverty dethroning pride, a sense of personal unworthiness producing grief, a willingness to surrender to God in genuine humility, and a strong spiritual desire developing into hunger and thirst, enter into the experience of one who wholly abandons sin and heartily turns to Him who grants repentance unto life.

LITERATURE.

Various theological works and commentaries Note especially Strong, Systematic Theology, III, 832-36; Broadus on Matthew 3:2, American Comm.; article “Busse” (Penance). Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Byron H. Dement REPETITIONS <rep-e-tish’-unz > : In Matthew 6:7 only, “Use not vain repetitions,” for [battaloge>w, battalogeo ] (so Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), a word found nowhere else and spelled variously in the manuscripts, battologeo in Codices K, L, M; etc., batologeo in Codices F G, blattologeo in Codex Bezae (probably influenced by the Latin blatero, “talk idly”); presumably connected with [battari>zw, battarizo ], “stammer,” and perhaps formed under the influence of the Aramaic beta’, “speak carelessly,” or baTel , “useless.” Whether, however battalogeo means the constant repetition of the same phrase or the mechanical recitation of a long series of obscure or meaningless formulas (if, indeed, a distinction between the acts was thought of) cannot be determined. Either practice is abundantly evidenced as a “heathen” custom of the day, and either can be classed as “much speaking.” See PRAYER.

Burton Scott Easton REPHAEL <re’-fa-el > , <ref’-a-el > ([ laep;r] , repha’el ], “God has healed”; [ JRafah>l, Rhaphael ]): The eponym of a family of gatekeepers ( 1 Chronicles 26:7). The name occurs in Tobit and Enoch (“Raphael”); it probably belongs to a group of late formations. See Gray, HPN, 225, 311.

REPHAH <re’-fa > ([ jp”r, , rephach ] (the form is corrupt); [ JRa>fh, Rhaphe ]): The eponym of an Ephraimite family ( 1 Chronicles 7:25).

REPHAIAH <re-fa’-ya > , <re-fi’-a > ([ hy;p;r] , rephayah ], probably “Yah is healing”; Septuagint [ JRafaia>(v)Rhaphaia(s)) ] : (1) In David’s family, Septuagint also Rhaphal ( 1 Chronicles 3:21). (2) A captain of Simeon ( 1 Chronicles 4:42). (3) A grandson of Issachar, Septuagint also Rhaphara ( 1 Chronicles 7:2). (4) A descendant of Saul ( 1 Chronicles 9:43; in 8:37 called “Raphah” ([ hp;r; , raphah ]); Septuagint also Raphai ). (5) One of the repairers of the wall under Nehemiah ( Nehemiah 3:9).

REPHAIM <ref’-a-im > , <re-fa’-im > ([ µyaip;r] , repha’-im ], from [ ap;r; , rapha’ ], “a terrible one “hence “giant,” in 1 Chronicles 20:4, [ ap;r;h; ydeyliy] , yelidhe ha-rapha’ ], “sons of the giant”; the King James Version, Rephaims): A race of aboriginal or early inhabitants East of the Jordan in Ashterothkarnaim ( Genesis 14:5) and in the valley of Rephaim Southwest of Jerusalem ( Joshua 15:8). They associated with other giant races, as the Emim and Anakim ( Deuteronomy 2:10,11) and the Zamzummim ( Deuteronomy 2:20). It is probable that they were all of the same stock, being given different names by the different tribes who came in contact with them. The same Hebrew word is rendered “the dead,” or “the shades” in various passages ( Job 26:5 margin; Psalm 88:10 margin; Proverbs 2:18 margin; 9:18 margin; 21:16 margin; Isaiah 14:9 margin; 26:14,19 margin). In these instances the word is derived from [ hp,r; , rapheh ], “weak,” “powerless,” “a shadow” or “shade.” H. Porter REPHAIM, VALE OF ([ µyaip;r] qm,[e , `emeq repha’-im ]; [koilam, koilas Rhaphaeim ], [koilanwn, koilas ton Titanon ]): This was a fertile vale ( Isaiah 17:5), to the Southwest of Jerusalem ( Joshua 15:8; 18:16; the King James Version “Valley of the Giants”), on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Here David repeatedly defeated the invading Philistines ( 2 Samuel 5:18,22; 23:13; 1 Chronicles 11:15; 14:9). It is located by Josephus between Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Ant., VII, iv, i; xii, 4). It corresponds to the modern el-Biqa`, which falls away to the Southwest from the lip of the valley of Hinnom. The name in ancient times may perhaps have covered a larger area, including practically all the land between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, where the head-waters of Nahr Ruben are collected. W. Ewing REPHAN <re’-fan > : A name for Chiun, the planet Saturn. See ASTROLOGY, 7; CHIUN.

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

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

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

The close phonetic resemblance and etymological affinity of dokimos to the verb dokimazo , “to try,” “test,” has caused the notion of “being tested,” “tried,” and its opposite of “being found wanting in the test” to associate itself more or less distinctly with the adjectives dokimos and adokimos .

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

LITERATURE.

Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gracitat (10) , 356-57. Geerhardus Vos REPROOF; REPROVE <re-proof’ > , <re-proov’ > : “Reprove” in Elizabethan English had a variety of meanings (“reject” “disprove” “convince,” “rebuke”), with “put to the proof” (see 2 Timothy 4:2 the Revised Version margin) as the force common to all, although in modern English the word means only “rebuke” (with a connotation of deliberateness). the King James Version uses the word chiefly (and the Revised Version (British and American) exclusively, except in 2 Esdras 12:32; 14:13; 2 Macc 4:33) for [ jk”y; , yakhach ], and [ejle>gcw, elegcho ], words that have very much the same ambiguities of meaning. Hence, a fairly easy rendition into English was possible, but the result included all the ambiguities of the original, and to modern readers such a passage as “But your reproof, what doth it reprove? Do ye think to reprove words” ( Job 6:25,26 the American Standard Revised Version) is virtually incomprehensible. The meaning is, approximately: “What do your rebukes prove? Are you quibbling about words?” In John 16:8 no single word in modern English will translate elegcho , and “reprove” (the King James Version), “convince” (King James Version margin), and “convict” (Revised Version) are all unsatisfactory. The sense is: “The Spirit will teach men the true meaning of these three words: sin, righteousness, judgment.” Burton Scott Easton REPTILE <rep’-til > , <-til > : Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) in Micah 7:17 has reptilis for zohale , “crawling things,” the American Standard Revised Version “worms of the earth,” the King James Version margin “creeping things.” See LEVIATHAN; LIZARD; SERPENT; TORTOISE.

REPUTATION <rep-u-ta’-shun > : the King James Version uses “reputation” where modern English would use “repute,” as connoting prominence rather than moral character. Hence, the Revised Version’s change to “repute” in Galatians 2:2 (for [doke>w, dokeo ], “seem,” perhaps with a slightly sarcastic touch). The Revised Version’s alteration of “reputation” into “have in honor” ( Acts 5:34; Philippians 2:29) is to secure uniformity of translation for the derivatives of [timh>, time ], “honor,” but the Revised Version (British and American) retains “reputation” in Susanna, verse 64.

The King James Version’s “made himself of no reputation” in Philippians 2:7 is a gloss. See KENOSIS . On Ecclesiastes 10:1 see the commentaries.

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

REREWARD <rer’-word > . See REARWARD.

RESAIAS <re-sa’-yas > , <re-si’-as > ([ JRhsai>av, Rhesaias ]; the King James Version Reesaias): One of the “leaders” with Zerubbabel in the return (1 Esdras 5:8) = “Reelaiah” in Ezra 2:2, “Raamiah” in Nehemiah 7:7. The name is apparently duplicated in 1 Esdras 5:8 in the form “Reelias.”

RESEN <re’-sen > ([ ˆs,r, , recen ]; Septuagint [ Da>sen, Dasen ], [ Da>sem, Dasem ]): 1. THE NAME AND ITS NATIVE EQUIVALENT:

The Greek forms show that the Septuagint translators had d for r but the reading of the Massoretic Text is to be preferred. Resen — the last of the four cities mentioned in Genesis 10:11,12 as having been founded by Nimrod (the King James Version by Asshur) — probably represents the Assyrian pronunciation of the place-name Res-eni , “fountainhead.” The only town so named in the inscriptions is one of 18 mentioned by Sennacherib in the Bavian inscription as places from which he dug canals connecting with the river Khosr — in fact, it was one of the sources of Nineveh’s water supply. It probably lay too far North, however, to be the city here intended. Naturally the name “Resen” could exist in any place where there was a spring. 2. POSSIBLY THE MODERN SELAMIYEH:

As the Biblical text requires a site lying between Nineveh and Calah (Kouyunjik and Nimroud ), it is generally thought to be represented by the ruins at Selamiyeh, about 3 miles North of the latter city. It is noteworthy that Xenophon (Anab. iii.4) mentions a “great” city called Larissa as occupying this position, and Bochart has suggested that it is the same place. He supposes that when the inhabitants were asked to what city the ruins belonged, they answered la Resen, “to Resen,” which was reproduced by the Greeks as Larissa. Xenophon describes its walls as being 25 ft. wide, 100 ft. high, and 2 parasangs in circuit. Except for the stone plinth ft. high, they were of brick. He speaks of a stone-built pyramid near the city — possibly the temple-tower at Nimroud. See CALAH; NINEVEH, 10.

T. G. Pinches RESERVOIR <rez’-er-vwor > , <-vwar > ([ hw;q]mi , miqwah ]; the King James Version ditch ( Isaiah 22:11)). See DITCH; CISTERN; POOL.

RESH <resh > , <rash > ( r ): The 20th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as “r”. It came also to be used for the number 200.

For name, etc., see ALPHABET .

RESHEPH <re’-shef > ([ tv,r, , resheph ], “flame” or “fire-bolt”): Personal name found in Phoenician as a divine name. In the Old Testament the name of a descendant of Ephraim, the eponym of an Ephraimite family or clan ( Chronicles 7:25).

RESIDUE <rez’-i-du > . See REMNANT.

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

Burton Scott Easton REST ([ j”Wn , nuach ], [ hj;Wnm] , menuchah ], “cessation from motion,” “peace,” “quiet,” etc.; [ajna>pausiv, anapausis , [kata>pausiv, katapausis ]): “Rest” in the above sense is of frequent occurrence, and is the translation of several words with various applications and shades of meaning, chiefly of the words given above. It is applied to God as ceasing from the work of creating on the 7th day ( Genesis 2:2 f) ; as having His place of rest in the midst of His people in the temple ( 1 Chronicles 28:2; <19D208> Psalm 132:8,14); as resting in His love among His people (Zeph 3:17, the Revised Version margin “Hebrew, `be silent’ “). The 7th day was to be one of rest ( Exodus 16:23; 31:15; see SABBATH); the land also was to have its rest in the 7th year ( Leviticus 25:4 f). Yahweh promised His people rest in the land He should give them; this they looked forward to and enjoyed ( Deuteronomy 12:9; Joshua 11:23). “To rest on” often means to come upon to abide, as of the Spirit of Yahweh ( Numbers 11:25 f; Isaiah 11:2), of wisdom ( Proverbs 14:33), of anger ( Ecclesiastes 7:9). There is again the “rest” of the grave ( Job 3:13,17,18; Isaiah 57:2; Daniel 12:13). Rest is sometimes equivalent to trust, reliance ( 2 Chronicles 14:11, the Revised Version (British and American) “rely”). Hence, rest in Yahweh ( Psalm 37:7, etc.); “rest” in the spiritual sense is not, however, prominent in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Christ’s great offer is rest to the soul ( Matthew 11:28). In Hebrews 4:1 ff, it is argued from God’s having promised His people a “rest” — a promise not realized in Canaan (4:8) — that there remains for the people of God “a Sabbath rest” (sabbatismos , 4:9). For “rest” the Revised Version (British and American) has “solemn rest” ( Exodus 16:23; 31:15, etc.), “resting-place” ( <19D208> Psalm 132:8,14; Isaiah 11:10), “peace” ( Acts 9:31), “relief” (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5), etc. See also REMNANT.

W. L. Walker RESTITUTION; RESTORATION <res-ti-tu’-shun > . See PUNISHMENTS.

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

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

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

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

Russell Benjamin Miller RESURRECTION <rez-u-rek’-shun > (in the New Testament [ajna>stasiv, anastasis ], with verbs [ajni>sthmi, anistemi ], “stand up,” and [ejgei>rw, egeiro ], “raise.”

There is no technical term in the Old Testament, but in Isaiah 26:19 are found the verbs [ hy;j; , chayah ], “live,” [ µWq , kum ] “rise,” [ 6yqi , kic ] “awake”).

I. ISRAEL AND IMMORTALITY. 1. Nationalism: It is very remarkable that a doctrine of life after death as an essential part of religion was of very late development in Israel, although this doctrine, often highly elaborated, was commonly held among the surrounding nations. The chief cause of this lateness was that Israel’s religion centered predominantly in the ideal of a holy nation. Consequently the individual was a secondary object of consideration, and the future of the man who died before the national promises were fulfilled either was merged in the future of his descendants or else was disregarded altogether. 2. Speculation: Much speculation about life after death evidently existed, but it was not in direct connection with the nation’s religion. Therefore, the Old Testament data are scanty and point, as might be expected, to non-homogeneous concepts. Still, certain ideas are clear. The living individual was composed of “flesh” and nephesh , or ruach (a trichotomy appears to be post-Biblical, despite 1 Thessalonians 5:23; see PSYCHOLOGY ). In the individual nephesh and ruach seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily “breath,” as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in <19A429> Psalm 104:29,30). But nephesh came to be used to denote the “inner man” or “self” ( Deuteronomy 12:20, etc.; see HEART ), and so in English Versions of the Bible is usually rendered “soul.” But there are only a very few cases where nephesh is used for the seat of the personality after death ( Psalm 30:3; compare 16:10; 38:17; Job 33:18, etc.), and nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the nephesh of a dead man is unmistakably his corpse ( Leviticus 19:28; Numbers 5:2; Haggai 2:13, etc.). It seems the question of what survives death was hardly raised; whatever existed then was thought of as something quite new. On the one hand the dead man could be called a “god” ( 1 Samuel 28:13), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship.

But more commonly the dead are thought of as “shades,” repha’im ( Job 26:5 margin, etc.), weak copies of the original man in all regards ( Ezekiel 32:25). But, whatever existence such “shades” might have, they had passed out of relation to Yahweh, whom the “dead praise not” ( <19B517> Psalm 115:17,18; Isaiah 38:18,19), and there was no religious interest in them. 3. Religious Danger: Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely to be anti-religious, as connected with necromancy, etc. ( Deuteronomy 14:1; 26:14; Isaiah 8:19; <19A628> Psalm 106:28, etc.; see SORCERY), or as connected with foreign religions. Here, probably, the very fact that the surrounding nations taught immortality was a strong reason for Israel’s refusing to consider it. That Egypt held an elaborate doctrine of individual judgment at death, or that Persia taught the resurrection of the body, would actually tend to render these doctrines suspicious, and it was not until the danger of syncretism seemed past that such beliefs could be considered on their own merits.

Hence, it is not surprising that the prophets virtually disregard the idea or that Ecclesiastes denies any immortality doctrine categorically. 4. Belief in Immortality: Nonetheless, with a fuller knowledge of God, wider experience, and deeper reflection, the doctrine was bound to come. But it came slowly.

Individualism reaches explicit statement in Ezekiel 14; 18; 33 (compare Deuteronomy 24:16; Jeremiah 31:29,30), but the national point of view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of this world only ( Ezekiel 14:14; Psalm 37, etc.), a doctrine that had surprising vitality and that is found as late as Sirach (1:13; 11:26). But as this does not square with the facts of life (Job), a doctrine of immortality, already hinted at (II, 1, below), was inevitable. It appears in full force in the post-Maccabean period, but why just then is hard to say; perhaps because it was then that there had been witnessed the spectacle of martyrdoms on a large scale (1 Macc 1:60-64). 5. Resurrection: Resurrection of the body was the form immortality took, in accord with the religious premises. As the saint was to find his happiness in the nation, he must be restored to the nation; and the older views did not point toward pure soul-immortality. The “shades” led a wretched existence at the best; and Paul himself shudders at the thought of “nakedness” (2 Cor 5:3). The nephesh and ruach were uncertain quantities, and even the New Testament has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man (“soul,” Revelation 6:9; 20:4; “spirit,” Hebrews 12:23; 1 Peter 3:19; Paul avoids any term in 1 Corinthians 15, and in 2 Corinthians 5 says: “I”). In the Talmud a common view is that the old bodies will receive new souls (Ber. R. 2 7; 6 7; Vayy. R. 12 2; 15 1, etc.; compare Sib Or 4:187). 6. Greek Concepts: Where direct Greek influence, however, can be predicated, pure soulimmortality is found (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 8:19,20; 9:15 (but Wisd’s true teaching is very uncertain); Enoch 102:4 through 105; 108; Slavonic Enoch; 4 Macc; Josephus, and especially Philo). According to Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Josephus graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast Ant, XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note, moreover, how Luke 6:9; 9:25; 12:4,5 has re-worded Mark 3:4; 8:36; Matthew 10:28 for Greek readers. In a vague way even Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2 Esdras 7:88; 2 Corinthians 4:16; 12:2), while it is commonly held that the souls in the intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a statement first appearing in Enoch 22 (Jubilees 23:31 is hardly serious).

II. RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE. 1. The Old Testament: For the reasons given above, references in the Old Testament to the resurrection doctrine are few. Probably it is to be found in Psalm 17:15; 16:11; 49:15; 73:24, and in each case with increased probability, but for exact discussions the student must consult the commentaries. Of course no exact dating of these Psalm passages is possible. With still higher probability the doctrine is expressed in Job 14:13-15; 19:25-29, but again alternative explanations are just possible, and, again, Job is a notoriously hard book to date (see JOB, BOOK OF). The two certain passages are Isaiah 26:19 margin and Daniel 12:2. In the former (to be dated about 332 (?)) it is promised that the “dew of light” shall fall on the earth and so the (righteous) dead shall revive. But this resurrection is confined to Palestine and does not include the unrighteous. For Daniel 12:2 see below. 2. The Righteous: Indeed, resurrection for the righteous only was thought of much more naturally than a general resurrection. And still more naturally a resurrection of martyrs was thought of, such simply receiving back what they had given up for God. So in Enoch 90:33 (prior to 107 BC) and 2 Macc 7:9,11,23; 14:46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2 Macc); compare Revelation 20:4. But of course the idea once given could not be restricted to martyrs only, and the intermediate literature contains so many references to the resurrection of the righteous as to debar citation. Early passages are Enoch 91:10 (perhaps pre-Maccabean); Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test.

Judah 25:4 (before 107). A very curious passage is Enoch 25:6, where the risen saints merely live longer than did their fathers, i.e. resurrection does not imply immortality. This passage seems to be unique. 3. The Unrighteous: For a resurrection of unrighteous men ( Daniel 12:2; Enoch 22:11; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8, Armenian text — in none of these cases a general resurrection), a motive is given in Enoch 22:13: for such men the mere condition of Sheol is not punishment enough.

For a general resurrection the motive is always the final judgment, so that all human history may be summed up in one supreme act. The idea is not very common, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8 (Greek text); Baruch 50:2; Enoch 51:1; Sib Or 4:178-90; Life of Adam (Greek) 10, and 2 Esdras 5:45; 7:32; 14:35 about account for all the unequivocal passages. It is not found in the earliest part of the Talmud, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8 (Greek) has two resurrections. 4. Complete Denial: Finally, much of the literature knows no immortality at all. Eccl, Sirach and 1 Maccabees are the most familiar examples, but there are many others. It is especially interesting that the very spiritual author of 2 Esdras did not think it worth while to modify the categorical denial in the source used in 13:20. Of course, the Jewish party that persisted most in a denial of any resurrection was the Sadducees ( Matthew 22:23 and parallel’s; Acts 23:8), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats.

III. TEACHING OF CHRIST. 1. Mark 12:18-27: The question is discussed explicitly in the familiar passage Mark 12:18-27 parallel Matthew 22:23-33 parallel Luke 20:27-38. The Sadducees assumed that resurrection implies simply a resuscitation to a resumption of human functions, including the physical side of marriage.

Their error lay in the low idea of God. For the Scriptures teach a God whose ability and willingness to care for His creatures are so unlimited that the destiny He has prepared for them is caricatured if conceived in any terms but the absolutely highest. Hence, there follows not only the truth of the resurrection, but a resurrection to a state as far above the sexual sphere as that of the angels. (The possibility of mutual recognition by husband and wife is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are asexual) Luke (20:36) adds the explanation that, as there are to be no deaths, marriage (in its relation to births) will not exist. It may be thought that Christ’s argument would support equally well the immortality of the soul only, and, as a matter of fact, the same argument is used for the latter doctrine in 4 Macc 7:18,19; 16:25. But in Jerusalem and under the given circumstances this is quite impossible. And, moreover, it would seem that any such dualism would be a violation of Christ’s teaching as to God’s care. 2. In General: However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the righteous, especially in the form given in Luke (compare Luke 14:14). (But that Luke thought of so limiting the resurrection is disproved by Acts 24:15.) Similarly in Matthew 8:11 parallel Luke 13:28; Mark 13:27 parallel Matthew 24:31. But, as a feature in the Judgment, the resurrection of all men is taught. Then the men of sodom, Tyre, Nineveh appear ( Matthew 11:22,24; 12:41,42 parallel Luke 10:14; 11:32), and those cast into Gehenna are represented as having a body ( Mark 9:43-47; Matthew 5:29,30; 10:28; 18:8,9). And at the great final assize ( Matthew 25:31-46) all men appear. In the Fourth Gospel a similar distinction is made ( John 6:39,40,44,54; 11:25), the resurrection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ and heir present possession of this union, and (in John 5:28,29) the general resurrection to judgment. Whether these passages imply two resurrections or emphasize only the extreme difference in conditions at the one cannot be determined.

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

IV. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE. 1. References: For the apostles, Christ’s victory over death took the resurrection doctrine out of the realm of speculative eschatology. Henceforth, it is a fact of experience, basic for Christianity. Direct references in the New Testament are found in Acts 4:2; 17:18,32; 23:6; 24:15,21; Romans 4:17; 5:17; 6:5,8; 8:11; 11:15; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15; 2 Corinthians 1:9; 4:14; 5:1-10; Philippians 3:10,11,21; Colossians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Timothy 2:18; Hebrews 6:2; 11:19,35; Revelation 20:4,5 (martyrs only); 20:12,13. Of these only Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:12,13, refer to a general resurrection with absolute unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly contained in others and in <550401> Timothy 4:1 besides. 2. Pauline Doctrine: A theology of the resurrection is given fully by Paul. Basic is the conception of the union of the believer with Christ, so that our resurrection follows from His (especially Romans 6:5-11; Philippians 3:10,11).

Every deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (2 Cor 4:10,11). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accomplished ( Ephesians 2:6). From another standpoint, the resurrection is simply part of God’s general redemption of Nature at the consummation ( Romans 8:11,18-25). As the believer then passes into a condition of glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (1 Cor 15:50; Philippians 3:21); it becomes a “spiritual” body, belonging to the realm of the spirit (not “spiritual” in opposition to “material”). Nature shows us how different “bodies” can be — from the “body” of the sun to the bodies of the lowest animals the kind depends merely on the creative will of God (1 Cor 15:38-41). Nor is the idea of a change in the body of the same thing unfamiliar: look at the difference in the “body” of a grain of wheat at its sowing and after it is grown! (1 Cor 15:37). Just so, I am “sown” or sent into the world (probably not “buried”) with one kind of body, but my resurrection will see me with a body adapted to my life with Christ and God (1 Cor 15:42-44). If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body shall be clothed upon my present body (1 Cor 15:53,54; 2 Corinthians 5:2-4) otherwise I shall be raised in it (1 Cor 15:52). This body exists already in the heavens (2 Cor 5:1,2), and when it is clothed upon me the natural functions of the present body will be abolished (1 Cor 6:13). Yet a motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that is to rise (1 Cor 6:13,14). 3. Continuity: The relation of the matter in the present body to that in the resurrection body was a question Paul never raised. In 1 Corinthians 6:13,14 it appears that he thought of the body as something more than the sum of its organs, for the organs perish, but the body is raised. Nor does he discuss the eventual fate of the dead body. The imagery of 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17; 1 Corinthians 15:52 is that of leaving the graves, and in the case of Christ’s resurrection, the type of ours, that which was buried was that which was raised (1 Cor 15:4). Perhaps the thought is that the touch of the resurrection body destroys all things in the old body that are unadapted to the new state; perhaps there is an idea that the essence of the old body is what we might call “non-material,” so that decay simply anticipates the work the resurrection will do. At all events, such reflections are “beyond what is written.” 4. 2 Corinthians 5: A partial parallel to the idea of the resurrection body being already in heaven is found in Slavonic Enoch 22:8,9, where the soul receives clothing laid up for it (compare Ascension of Isaiah 7:22,23 and possibly Revelation 6:11). But Christ also speaks of a reward being already in heaven ( Matthew 5:12). A more important question is the time of the clothing in 2 Corinthians 5:1-5. A group of scholars (Heinrici, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, Clemen, Charles, etc.) consider that Paul has here changed his views from those of 1 Corinthians; that he now considers the resurrection body to be assumed immediately at death, and they translate 2 Corinthians 5:2,3 “ `we groan (at the burdens of life), longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven’: because, when we shall be clothed with it, we shall have no more nakedness to experience” (Weizsacker’s translation of the New Testament). But 2 Corinthians would have been a most awkward place to announce a change of views, for it was written in part as a defense against inconsistency (1:17, etc.). The willingness to be absent from the body (5:8) loses all its point if another and better body is to be given at once. The grammatical reasons for the interpretation above (best stated by Heinrici) are very weak. And the translation given reads into the verse something that simply is not there.

Consequently it is far better to follow the older interpretation of Meyer (B.

Weiss, Bousset, Lietzmann, Bachmann, Menzies, etc.; Bachmann is especially good) and the obvious sense of the passage: Paul dreads being left naked by death, but finds immediate consolation at the thought of being with Christ, and eventual consolation at the thought of the body to be received at the Parousia . (In Philippians 1:21-24 this dread is overcome.)

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

V. SUMMARY. 1. New Testament Data: The points in the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous, then, seem to be these: The personality of the believer survives after death and is with Christ. But it is lacking in something that will be supplied at the consummation, when a body will be given in which there is nothing to hinder perfect intercourse with God. The connection of this body with the present body is not discussed, except for saying that some connection exists, with the necessity of a transformation for those alive at the end. In this state nothing remains that is inconsistent with the height to which man is raised, and in particular sexual relations ( Mark 12:25) and the processes of nutrition (1 Cor 6:13) cease. For this end the whole power of God is available. And it is insured by the perfect trust the believer may put in God and by the resurrection of Christ, with whom the believer has become intimately united. The unrighteous are raised for the final vindication of God’s dealings in history. Two resurrections are found in Revelation 20:5,13 and quite possibly in 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Corinthians 15:23,24. Hence, the phrase first resurrection. See LAST JUDGMENT. 2. Interpretation: Into the “blanks” of this scheme the believer is naturally entitled to insert such matter as may seem to him best compatible with his other concepts of Christianity and of philosophy. As is so often the case with passages in the Bible, the student marvels at the way the sacred writers were restrained from committing Christianity to metaphysical schemes that growth in human knowledge might afterward show to be false. But theologian must take care to distinguish between the revealed facts and the interpretation given them in any system that he constructs to make the doctrine conform to the ideas of his own time or circle — a distinction too often forgotten in the past and sometimes with lamentable results. Especially is it well to remember that such a phrase as “a purely spiritual immortality” rests on a metaphysical dualism that is today obsolete, and that such a phrase is hardly less naive than the expectation that the resurrection body will contain identically the material of the present body. We are still quite in the dark as to the relations of what we call “soul” and “body,” and so, naturally, it is quite impossible to dogmatize. A. Meyer in his RGG article (“Auferstehung, dogmatisch”) has some interesting suggestions. For an idealistic metaphysic, where soul and body are only two forms of God’s thought, the resurrection offers no difficulties. If the body be regarded as the web of forces that proceed from the soul, the resurrection would take the form of the return of those forces to their center at the consummation.

If “body” be considered to embrace the totality of effects that proceed from the individual, at the end the individual will find in these effects the exact expression of himself (Fechner’s theory). Or resurrection may be considered as the end of evolution — the reunion in God of all that has been differentiated and so evolved and enriched. Such lines must be followed cautiously, but may be found to lead to results of great value.

In recent years the attention of scholars has been directed to the problem of how far the teachings of other religions assisted the Jews in attaining a resurrection doctrine. Practically only the Persian system comes into question, and here the facts seem to be these: A belief among the Persians in the resurrection of the body is attested for the pre-Christian period by the fragments of Theopompus (4th century BC), preserved by Diogenes Laertius and Aeneas of Gaza. That this doctrine was taught by Zoroaster himself is not capable of exact proof, but is probable. But on the precise details we are in great uncertainty. In the Avesta the doctrine is not found in the oldest part (the Gathas), but is mentioned in the 19th Yasht, a document that has certainly undergone post-Christian redaction of an extent that is not determinable. The fullest Persian source is the Bundahesh (30) , written in the 9th Christian century. It certainly contains much very ancient matter, but the age of any given passage in it is always a problem.

Consequently the sources must be used with great caution. It may be noted that late Judaism certainly was affected to some degree by the Persian religion (see Tob, especially), but there are so many native Jewish elements that were leading to a resurrection doctrine that familiarity with the Persian belief could have been an assistance only. Especially is it to be noted that the great acceptance of the doctrine lies in the post-Maccabean period, when direct Persian influence is hardly to be thought of. See ZOROASTRIANISM.

LITERATURE.

The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the presuppositions, but Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, is always useful. Brown, The Christian Hope, 1912, is excellent and contains a full bibliography. Charles, Eschatology, and article “Eschatology” in Encyclopedia Biblica are invaluable, but must be used critically by the thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoon’s article “Resurrection” in DCG is good; Bernard’s in HDB is not so good.

On 1 Corinthians, Findlay or (better) Edwards; on 2 Corinthians, Menzies.

In German the New Testament Theologies of Weiss, Holtzmann, Feine; Schaeder’s “Auferstehung” in PRE3. On 1 Cor, Heinrici and J. Weiss in Meyer (editions 8 and 9); on 2 Corinthians, Bachmann in the Zahn series.

On both Corinthian epistles Bousset in the Schriften des New Testament of J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology), and Lietzmann in his Handbuch. See BODY; ESCHATOLOGY (OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT); FLESH; SOUL; SPIRIT.

Burton Scott Easton RESURRECTION, GOSPEL OF THE See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE The Resurrection has always been felt to be vital in connection with Christianity. As a consequence, opponents have almost always concentrated their attacks, and Christians have centered their defense, upon it. It is therefore of the utmost importance to give attention to the subject, as it appears in the New Testament. There are several converging lines of evidence, and none can be overlooked. Each must have its place and weight. The issues at stake are so serious that nothing must be omitted. 1. FIRST PROOF: THE LIFE OF JESUS:

The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a disappointment when a life which commenced well finishes badly. We have this feeling even in fiction; instinct demands that a story should end well.

Much more is this true of Jesus Christ. A perfect life characterized by divine claims ends in its prime in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a fitting close? Surely death could not end everything after such a noble career. The Gospels give the resurrection as the completion of the picture of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that Christ anticipated His own resurrection. At first He used only vague terms, such as, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But later on He spoke plainly, and whenever He mentioned His death, He added, “The Son of man .... must be raised the third day.” These references are too numerous to be overlooked, and, in spite of difficulties of detail, they are, in any proper treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim made for Himself by Jesus Christ ( Matthew 12:38-40; 16:21; 17:9,23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9,31; 10:34; 14:58; Luke 9:22; 18:33; John 2:19-21). His veracity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a One must be given due credence. We are therefore compelled to face the fact that the resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resurrection of no ordinary man, but of Jesus — that is of One whose life and character had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable (Denhey, Jesus and the Gospel, 122 f). Is it possible that, in view of His perfect truthfulness of word and deed, there should be such an anti-climax as is involved in a denial of His assurance that He would rise again (C.H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, 30)? Consider, too, the death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If that death was the close of a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so Godlike, we are faced with an insoluble mystery — the permanent triumph of wrong over right, and the impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world (C.H. Robinson, op. cit., 36). So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated event, a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken in close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is to be found in that estimate of Christ which “most entirely fits in with the totality of the facts” (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus,14). 2. SECOND PROOF: THE EMPTY GRAVE:

Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance of the body. That Jesus died and was buried, and that on the third morning the tomb was empty, is not now seriously challenged. The theory of a swoon and a recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss “practically gives its deathblow” (Orr, op. cit., 43). At Christ’s burial a stone was rolled before the tomb, the tomb was sealed, and a guard was placed before it. Yet on the third morning the body had disappeared, and the tomb was empty. There are only two alternatives. His body must have been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power.

If the hands were human, they must have been those of His friends or of His foes. If His friends had wished to take out His body, the question at once arises whether they could have done so in the face of the stone, the seal and the guard. If His foes had contemplated this action, the question arises whether they would seriously have considered it. It is extremely improbable that any effort should have been made to remove the body out of the reach of the disciples. Why should His enemies do the very thing that would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? As Chrysostom said, “If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it” (quoted in Day, Evidence for the Resurrection, 35). Besides, the position of the grave-clothes proves the impossibility of the theft of the body (see Greek of John 20:6,7; 11:44; Grimley, Temple of Humanity,69,70; Latham, The Risen Master; The Expository Times, XIII, 293 f; XIV, 510). How, too, is it possible to account for the failure of the Jews to disprove the resurrection? Not more than seven weeks afterward Peter preached in that city the fact that Jesus had been raised. What would have been easier or more conclusive than for the Jews to have produced the dead body and silenced Peter forever? “The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians” (Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 357).

The fact of the empty tomb with the disappearance of the body remains a problem to be faced. It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty tomb is adequate, and that it was part of the primitive belief (Foundations, 134, 154). It is important to realize the force of this admission, because it is a testimony to Paul’s use of the term “third day” (see below) and to the Christian observance of the first day of the week. And yet in spite of this we are told that a belief in the empty tomb is impossible. By some writers the idea of resurrection is interpreted to mean the revival of Christ’s spiritual influence on the disciples, which had been brought to a close by His death. It is thought that the essential idea and value of Christ’s resurrection can be conserved, even while the belief in His bodily rising from the grave is surrendered (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus,23). But how can we believe in the resurrection while we regard the basis of the primitive belief in it as a mistake, not to say a fraud? The disciples found the tomb empty, and on the strength of this they believed He had risen.

How can the belief be true if the foundation be false? Besides, the various forms of the vision-theory are now gradually but surely being regarded as inadequate and impossible. They involve the change of almost every fact in the Gospel history, and the invention of new scenes and conditions of which the Gospels know nothing (Orr, op. cit., 222). It has never been satisfactorily shown why the disciples should have had this abundant experience of visions; nor why they should have had it so soon after the death of Christ and within a strictly limited period; nor why it suddenly ceased. The disciples were familiar with the apparition of a spirit, like Samuel’s, and with the resuscitation of a body, like Lazarus’, but what they had not experienced or imagined was the fact of a spiritual body, the combination of body and spirit in an entirely novel way. So the old theory of a vision is now virtually set aside, and for it is substituted theory of a real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ. The question at once arises whether this is not prompted by an unconscious but real desire to get rid of anything like a physical resurrection. Whatever may be true of unbelievers, this is an impossible position for those who believe Christ is alive.

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

In view of the records of the Gospels and the general testimony of the New Testament, it is impossible to be “agnostic” as to what happened at the grave of Jesus, even though we are quite sure that He who died now lives and reigns. It is sometimes said that faith is not bound up with, holding a particular view of the relations of Christ’s present glory with the body that was once in Joseph’s tomb, that faithis to be exercised in the exalted Lord, and that belief in a resuscitation of the human body is no vital part of it. It is no doubt true that faith today is to be exercised solely in the exalted and glorified Lord, but faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it is difficult to understand how Christian faith can really be “agnostic” with regard to the facts about the empty tomb and the risen body, which are so prominent in the New Testament, and which form an essential part of the apostolic witness. The attempt to set faith and historical evidence in opposition to each other, which is so marked a characteristic of much modern thought will never satisfy general Christian intelligence, and if there is to be any real belief in the historical character of the New Testament, it is impossible to be “agnostic” about facts that are writ so large on the face of the records.

When once the evidence for the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the impossibility of any other explanation than that indicated in the New Testament is at once seen. The evidence must be accounted for and adequately explained. And so we come again to the insuperable barrier of the empty tomb, which, together with the apostolic witness, stands impregnable against all the attacks of visional and apparitional theories. It is becoming more evident that these theories are entirely inadequate to account for the records in the Gospels, as well as for the place and power of those Gospels in the early church and in all subsequent ages. The force of the evidence for the empty grave and the disappearance of the body is clearly seen by the explanations suggested by various modern writers (those of Oscar Holtzmann, K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, chapter viii, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ,69; see also the article by Streeter in Foundations). Not one of them is tenable without doing violence to the Gospel story, and also without putting forth new theories which are not only improbable in themselves, but are without a shred of real historical or literary evidence. The one outstanding fact which baffles all these writers is the empty grave.

Others suggest that resurrection means a real objective appearance of the risen Christ without implying any physical reanimation, that the “resurrection of Christ was an objective reality, but was not a physical resuscitation” (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ,12).

But the difficulty here is as to the meaning of the term “resurrection.” If it means a return from the dead, a rising again (re-), must there not have been some identity between that which was put in the tomb and the “objective reality” which appeared to the disciples? Wherein lies the essential difference between an objective vision and an objective appearance? If we believe the apostolic testimony to the empty tomb, why may we not accept their evidence to the actual resurrection? They evidently recognized their Master, and this recognition must have been due to some familiarity with His bodily appearance. No difficulty of conceiving of the resurrection of mankind hereafter must be allowed to set aside the plain facts of the record about Christ. It is, of course, quite clear that the resurrection body of Jesus was not exactly the same as when it was put in the tomb, but it is equally clear that there was definite identity as well as definite dissimilarity, and both elements must be faced and accounted for. There need be no insuperable difficulty if we believe that in the very nature of things Christ’s resurrection must be unique, and, since the life and work of Jesus Christ transcend our experience (as they certainly should do), we must not expect to bring them within the limitations of natural law and human history. How the resurrection body was sustained is a problem quite outside our ken, though the reference to “flesh and bones,” compared with Paul’s words about “flesh and blood” not being able to enter the kingdom of God, may suggest that while the resurrection body was not constituted upon a natural basis through blood, yet that it possessed “all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature” (Church of England Article IV). We may not be able to solve the problem, but we must hold fast to all the facts, and these may be summed up by saying that the body was the same though different, different though the same. The true description of the resurrection seems to be that “it was an objective reality, but, that it was not merely a physical resuscitation.” We are therefore brought back to a consideration of the facts recorded in the Gospels as to the empty tomb and the disappearance of the body, and we only ask for an explanation which will take into consideration all the facts recorded, and will do no violence to any part of the evidence. To predicate a new resurrection body in which Christ appeared to His disciples does not explain how in three days’ time the body which had been placed in the tomb was disposed of.

Does not this theory demand a new miracle of its own (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 271)? 3. THIRD PROOF: TRANSFORMATION OF THE DISCIPLES:

The next line of proof to be considered is the transformation of the disciples caused by the resurrection. They had seen their Master die, and through that death they lost all hope. Yet hope returned three days after.

On the day of the crucifixion they were filled with sadness; on the first day of the week with gladness. At the crucifixion they were hopeless; on the first day of the week their hearts glowed with certainty. When the message of the resurrection first came they were incredulous and hard to be convinced, but when once they became assured they never doubted again.

What could account for the astonishing change in these men in so short a time? The mere removal of the body from the grave could never have transformed their spirits and characters. Three days are not enough for a legend to spring up which should so affect them. Time is needed for a process of legendary growth. There is nothing more striking in the history of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in the disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological fact that demands a full explanation. The disciples were prepared to believe in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of a resurrection (see Mark 16:11). Men do not imagine what they do not believe, and the women’s intention to embalm a corpse shows they did not expect His resurrection. Besides, a hallucination involving five hundred people at once, and repeated several times during forty days, is unthinkable. 4. FOURTH PROOF: EXISTENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH:

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

It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into existence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts: (1) the Christian society was gathered together by preaching; (2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be rejected by Jews as accursed of God ( Deuteronomy 21:23). Yet multitudes of Jews were led to worship Him ( Acts 2:41), and a great company of priests to obey Him ( Acts 6:7). The only explanation of these facts is God’s act of resurrection ( Acts 2:36), for nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The apostolic church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the marks of primitive documents, and their evidence is unmistakable. It is impossible to allege that the early church did not know its own history, that myths and legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received, and that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience for principle, but manipulated their material at will, for any modern church could easily give an account of its history for the past fifty years or more (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 144). And it is simply absurd to think that the earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing vague or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other members of the church. “As the church is too holy for a foundation of rottenness, so she is too real for a foundation of mist” (Archbishop Alexander, The Great Question,10). 5. FIFTH PROOF: THE WITNESS OF PAUL:

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

Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition — the mention of “the third day.” A reference to the passage in the Gospels where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and persistent was this note of time. Why, then, should Paul have introduced it in his statement? Was it part of the teaching which he had “received”?

What is the significance of this plain emphasis on the date of the resurrection? Is it not that it bears absolute testimony to the empty tomb?

From all this it may be argued that Paul believed the story of the empty tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh, when he could examine it for himself, when he could make the fullest possible inquiry of others, and when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made it impossible for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was not absolutely true. “Surely common sense requires us to believe that that for which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibility of doubt” (Kennett, op. cit., V, 271).

In view, therefore, of Paul’s personal testimony to his own conversion, his interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after His resurrection, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the apostle’s own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence for the resurrection. It is well known that Lord Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each determining to give attention respectively during the long vacation to the conversion of Paul and the resurrection of Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both. They met again in the autumn and compared experiences. Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the truth of Paul’s conversion, and Gilbert West was convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, Paul’s 25 years of suffering and service for Christ were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began with that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to the sight of the risen Christ. 6. SIXTH PROOF: THE GOSPEL RECORD:

The next line of proof of the resurrection is the record in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen Christ, and it is the last in order to be considered.

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

Now, with this made clear, we proceed to consider the evidence afforded by the records of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Modern criticism of the Gospels during recent years has tended to adopt the view that Mark is the earliest, and that Matthew and Luke are dependent on it.

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

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

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

The very difficulties which have been observed in the Gospels for nearly nineteen centuries are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the narratives on the part of the whole Christian church. The church has not been afraid to leave these records as they are because of the facts that they embody and express. If there had been no difficulties men might have said that everything had been artificially arranged, whereas the differences bear testimony to the reality of the event recorded. The fact that we possess these two sets of appearances — one in Jerusalem and one in Galilee — is really an argument in favor of their credibility, for if it had been recorded that Christ appeared in Galilee only, or Jerusalem only, it is not unlikely that the account might have been rejected for lack of support. It is well known that records of eyewitnesses often vary in details, while there is no question as to the events themselves. The various books recording the story of the Indian mutiny, or the surrender of Napoleon III at Sedan are cases in point, and Sir William Ramsay has shown the entire compatibility of certainty as to the main fact with great uncertainty as to precise details (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 29). We believe, therefore, that a careful examination of these appearances will afford evidence of a chain of circumstances extending from the empty grave to the day of the ascension. 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

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

We challenge the tenableness of this position. It proves too much. We are not at all concerned by the charge of believing in the abnormal or unusual.

New things have happened from the beginning of the present natural order, and the Christian faith teaches that Christ Himself was a “new thing,” and that His coming as “God manifest in the flesh” was something absolutely unique. If we are not allowed to believe in any divine intervention which we may call supernatural or miraculous, it is impossible to account for the Person of Christ at all. “A Sinless Personality would be a miracle in time.”

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

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

And so we return to a consideration of the various lines of proof. Taking them singly, they must be admitted to be strong, but taking them altogether, the argument is cumulative and sufficient. Every effect must have its adequate cause, and the only proper explanation of Christianity today is the resurrection of Christ. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, no ordinary judge of historical evidence, said that the resurrection was the “bestattested fact in human history.” Christianity welcomes all possible sifting, testing, and use by those who honestly desire to arrive at the truth, and if they will give proper attention to all the facts and factors involved, we believe they will come to the conclusion expressed years ago by the Archbishop of Armagh, that the resurrection is the rock from which all the hammers of criticism have never chipped a single fragment (The Great Question,24). 8. THEOLOGY OF THE RESURRECTION:

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

LITERATURE.

Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 1908; W. J. Sparrow Simpson, The Resurrection and Modern Thought; Westcott, The Historic Faith and The Gospel of the Resurrection. Very full literary references in Bowen, The Resurrection in the New Testament, 1911, which, although negative in its own conclusions, contains a valuable refutation of many negative arguments. W. H. Griffith Thomas RETAIN <re-tan’ > : Several Hebrew words are thus translated: [ qz”j; , chazaq ], “to hold fast” ( Judges 7:8; 19:4; Job 2:9 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “hold fast”); Micah 7:18); [ rx”[; , `atsar ], “to shut up” (only in Daniel 10:8,16; 11:6); [ Ëm”T; , tamakh ], “to hold” ( Proverbs 3:18; 4:4; 11:16 the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) “obtain”)); in one case kala’ ( Ecclesiastes 8:8). In the New Testament [krate>w, krateo ], is used in John 20:23 of the “retaining” of sins by the apostles (see RETENTION OF SINS); in Romans 1:28, the Revised Version (British and American) has “refused to have,” margin “Greek, `did not approve,’ “ for the King James Version “did not like to retain” (echo ); and in Philem 1:13, substitutes “fain have kept” for “retained” (katecho ). Sirach 41:16 has “retain” for diaphulasso , “keep.”

RETALIATION <re-tal-i-a’-shun > , <re- > . See LAW THE NEW TESTAMENT; PUNISHMENTS; RETRIBUTION.

RETENTION OF SINS <re-ten’-shun > , ([krate>w, krateo ], “to lay fast hold of” ( John 20:23)):

The opposite of “the remission of sins.” Where there was no evidence of repentance and faith, the community of believers were unauthorized to give assurance of forgiveness, and, therefore, could only warn that the guilt of sin was retained, and that the sinner remained beneath God’s judgment.

While such retention has its place in connection with all preaching of the gospel, since the offers of grace are conditional, it is especially exercised, like the absolution, in the personal dealing of a pastor with a communicant, preparatory to the reception of the Lord’s Supper. As the absolution is properly an assurance of individual forgiveness, so the retention is an assurance of individual non-forgiveness. That the retention is exercised by the ministry, not as an order, but as the representatives of the congregation of believers to which Christ gave the power of the keys, is shown by Alford, Greek Testament, on above passage. See also Melanchthon, Appendix to the “Schmalkald Articles.” H. E. Jacobs RETRIBUTION <ret-ri-bu’-shun > : 1. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS:

The word as applied to the divine administration is not used in Scripture, but undoubtedly the idea is commonly enough expressed. The words which come nearest to it are [ojrgh>, orge ], and [qumo>v, thumos ] wrath attributed to God; [ejkdike>w, ekdikeo ], [ejkdi>khsiv, ekdikesis ], [e]kdikov, ekdikos ], and [di>kh, dike ], all giving the idea of vengeance; [ko>lasiv, kolasis ], and [timwri>a, timoria ], “punishment”; besides [kri>nw, krino ], and its derivatives, words expressive of judgment. 2. A REVELATION OF WRATH AS WELL AS GRACE:

Romans 2 is full of the thought of retribution. The apostle, in 2:5,6, comes very near to using the word itself, and gives indeed a good description of the thing: the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, “who will render to every man according to his works.” It is well in approaching the subject to remind ourselves that there is undoubtedly, as the apostle says, a Revelation of wrath. We are so accustomed to think of the gracious revelation which the gospel brings us, and to approach the subject of the doom of the impenitent under the influence of the kindly sentiments engendered thereby, and with a view of God’s gracious character as revealed in salvation, that we are apt to overlook somewhat the sterner facts of sin, and to misconceive the divine attitude toward the impenitent sinner. It is certainly well that we should let the grace of the gospel have full influence upon all our thinking, but we must beware of being too fully engrossed with one phase of the divine character. It is an infirmity of human nature that we find it difficult to let two seemingly conflicting conceptions find a place in our thought. We are apt to surrender ourselves to the sway of one or the other of them according to the pressure of the moment. 3. WITNESS OF NATURAL THEOLOGY:

Putting ourselves back into the position of those who have only the light of natural theology, we find that all deductions from the perfections of God, as revealed in His works, combined with a consideration of man’s sin and want of harmony with the Holy One, lead to the conclusion announced by the apostle: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” ( Romans 1:18). Wrath implies punishment, punishment is decreed, punishment is denounced. The word of God but confirms the verdict which conscience forecasts. Nature teaches that punishment, retribution, must follow sin. Within the sphere of physical law this is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of Nature is tolerated. Strictly speaking, the laws of Nature cannot be broken, but let a man fail to keep in harmony with them, and the natural consequences will be trouble, punishment, retribution. Harmony with law is blessing; collision with law is loss. Thus law in Nature “worketh wrath” to the neglecters of it. Punishment necessarily results. So we may well expect that in the higher sphere, God’s moral laws cannot be neglected or violated with impunity, and Scripture fully justifies the expectation and shows that sin must be punished. All things considered, the fact of punishment for sinners need not surprise; the fact of pardon is the surprising thing. The surprise of pardon has ceased to surprise us because we are so familiar with the thought. We know the “how” of it because of the revelation of grace. Grace, however, saves on certain conditions, and there is no such thing known in Scripture as indiscriminate, necessary, universal grace. It is only from the Bible that we know of the salvation by grace. That same revelation shows that the grace does not come to all, in the sense of saving all; though, of course, it may be considered as presented to all. Those who are not touched and saved by grace remain shut up in their sins. They are, and must be, in the nature of the case, left to the consequences of their sins, with the added guilt of rejecting the offered grace. “Except ye believe that I am he,” said Incarnate Grace, “ye shall die in your sins” ( John 8:24). 4. RETRIBUTION THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF SIN:

Another conclusion we may draw from the general Scriptural representation is that the future retribution is one aspect of the natural consequence of sin, yet it is also in another aspect the positive infliction of divine wrath. It is shown to be the natural outcome of sin in such passages as “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” ( Galatians 6:7); “He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” ( Galatians 6:8). It is not without suggestiveness that the Hebrew word `awon means both iniquity and punishment, and when Cain said “My punishment is greater than I can bear” ( Genesis 4:13), he really said “My iniquity is greater than I can bear”; his iniquity became his punishment. A due consideration of this thought goes a long way toward meeting many of the objections brought against the doctrine of future punishment. 5. ALSO THE POSITIVE INFLICTION OF DIVINE WRATH:

The other statement, however, remains true and must be emphasized, that there is an actual infliction of divine wrath. All the great statements about the divine judgment imply this, and while it is wrong not to take account of the natural working out of sin in its terrible consequences, it is equally wrong, perhaps more so, to refuse to recognize this positive divine infliction of punishment. This, indeed, is the outstanding feature of retribution as it assumes form in Scripture. Even the natural consequences of sin, rightly viewed, are part of the divine infliction, since God, in the nature of things, has conjoined sin and its consequences, and part of the positive infliction is the judicial shutting up of the sinner to the consequences of his sin. So in the case of Cain, his iniquity became his punishment, inasmuch as God sentenced him to bear the consequences of that iniquity. On the other hand, we might say that even the terribly positive outpourings of God’s wrath upon the sinner are the natural consequences of sin, since sin in its very nature calls down the divine displeasure. Indeed, these two phases of future punishment are so very closely connected that a right view of the matter compels us to keep both before us, and no full explanation of the punishment is possible when either phase is ignored. 6. INSTANCES OF THE USE OF ORGE AND THUMOS:

The terms in Scripture applied to the doom of sinners all imply divine displeasure, punitive action, retribution. The two outstanding Greek words for “wrath,” orge and thumos , are both freely applied to God. Orge indicates settled displeasure, whereas thumos is rather the blazing out of the anger. The former is, as we should expect, more frequently applied to God, and, of course, all that is capricious and reprehensible in human wrath must be eliminated from the word as used of God. It indicates the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin. It was an affection found in the sinless Saviour Himself, for “he looked round about on them with anger” ( Mark 3:5). In the Baptist’s warning “to flee from the wrath to come” ( Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7), it is unquestionably the wrath of God that is meant, the manifestation of that being further described as the burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire ( Matthew 3:12). In John 3:36 it is said of the unbeliever that “the wrath of God” abideth on him. In Romans it is used at least 9 times in reference to God, first in Romans 1:18, the great passage we have already quoted about “the wrath of God revealed from heaven.” The connection is a suggestive one and is often overlooked.

In the passage Paul has quite a chain of reasons; he is ready to preach the gospel at Rome for he is not ashamed of the gospel; he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation; it is the “power of God” for therein is revealed the righteousness of God by faith; and this salvation by faith is a necessity “for the wrath of God is revealed,” etc.

Thus the divine wrath on account of sin is the dark background of the gospel message. Had there been no such just wrath upon men, there had been no need for the divine salvation. The despising of God’s goodness by the impenitent means a treasuring up of “wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” ( Romans 2:3-5). God “visiteth with wrath” ( Romans 3:5).

In Romans 4:15 the apostle shows that “the law worketh wrath” (i.e. brings down the divine displeasure), while in 5:9 he shows that believers are saved from wrath — undoubted wrath of God. The other two instances are in 9:22. Men are “by nature children of wrath” ( Ephesians 2:3); surely not “wrathful children,” but liable to the wrath of God, and because of evil deeds cometh “the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience” ( Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6). Christ “delivereth us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess 1:10); wrath has come upon the opposing Jews (1 Thess 2:16); but believers are not appointed unto wrath (1 Thess 5:9). With all these specific passages in view, to say nothing of the general teaching of the apostle on the question of coming judgment and punishment, it is utterly impossible to eliminate the idea of the divine displeasure against sinners, and His consequent retributive action toward them. Even Ritschl, who absolutely denies the great principle of retribution, of positive displeasure, admits that Paul teaches it; hence, the only way for him out of the difficulty is to reject Paul’s teaching as unauthoritative. Other references to the “wrath of God” are in Hebrews 3:11; 4:3; and passages in the Apocalypse — Revelation 6:16 f; 11:18; 14:10; 16:19; 19:15. Two of these refer to the “wrath of the Lamb,” one of the most terrible phrases in the whole of the New Testament. Thumos is only used in the Apocalypse concerning God ( Revelation 14:10-19; 15:1-7; 16:1-19; 19:15). In each case it refers to the manifestation, the blazing forth of the wrath; in the last two passages it is used in combination with orge , and is rendered “fierceness,” the fierceness of His wrath. 7. INSTANCES OF USE OF GREEK WORDS FOR “VENGEANCE”: Ekdikeo , which means to avenge, is twice used of God ( Revelation 6:10; 19:2); and ekdikesis , “vengeance,” 6 times Luke 18:7 ff; Romans 12:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 10:30). In the first two instances it is used by Jesus concerning the divine action; ekdikos , “avenger,” occurs once in application to God (1 Thess 4:6); dike , “judgment” or “vengeance” is twice used of God (2 Thess 1:9; Jude 1:7). The use of these terms shows that the punishment inflicted on sinful men is strictly punishment of the vindicatory sort, the vindication of outraged justice, the infliction of deserved penalty. Very significant is the passage in 2 Thessalonians 1:6, “It is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you.” There is no question of bettering the offender. 8. WORDS MEANING “CHASTISEMENT” NOT USED OF THE IMPENITENT:

It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo , and they are frequently used of the “chastisement” of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria , may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka , “on account of the one suffering it,” “has the punished one in view,” whereas timoria is tou poiountos , “on account of the one inflicting” “that he may be satisfied”), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner ( Hebrews 10:29). 9. JUDGMENT IMPLIES RETRIBUTION:

All the representations of the coming day of judgment tell of the fact of retribution, and Christ Himself distinctly asserts it. Apart from His great eschatological discourses, concerning which criticism still hesitates and stammers, we have the solemn close of the Sermon on the Mount, and the pregnant statement of Matthew 16:27, “The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds,” and all the apostolic teaching upon the solemn theme is but the unfolding of the same great thought. 10. MORAL SENSE DEMANDS VINDICATION OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS:

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

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

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

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

Archibald M’Caig REU <re’-u > , <roo > ([ W[r] , re`u ], [ JRagau>, Rhagau ]): A son of Peleg, a descendant of Shem ( Genesis 11:18 ff; 1 Chronicles 1:25; Luke 3:35).

REUBEN <roo’-ben > , <ru’-ben > ([ ˆbeWar] , re’ubhen ]; [ JRoubh>n, Rhouben ]): The eldest son of Jacob, born to him by Leah in Paddan-aram ( Genesis 29:32). 1. JACOB’S OLDEST SON:

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

The incidents recorded are regarded by a certain school of Old Testament scholars as the vague and fragmentary traditions of the tribe, wrought into the form of a biography of the supposed ancestor of the tribe. This interpretation raises more difficulties than it solves, and depends for coherence upon too many assumptions and conjectures. The narrative as it stands is quite intelligible and self-consistent. There is no good reason to doubt that, as far as it goes, it is an authentic record of the life of Jacob’s son. 2. TRIBAL HISTORY:

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

May not the influence of this incident on Moses’ mind be traced in his “blessing,” wishing for the continuance of the tribe, indeed, but not in great strength ( Deuteronomy 33:6)? This was a true forecast of the tribal history.

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

The land given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben reached from the Arnon, Wady el-Mojib, in the South, to the border of Gad in the North. In Numbers 32:34 cities of Gad are named which lay far South, Aroer being on the very lip of the Arnon; but these are probably to be taken as an enclave in the territory of Reuben. From Joshua 13:15 ff it is clear that the northern border ran from some point North of the Dead Sea in a direction East-Northeast, passing to the North of Heshbon. The Dead Sea formed the western boundary, and it marched with the desert on the East.

No doubt many districts changed hands in the course of the history. At the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, e.g., we read that Aroer was in the hands of the Reubenites, “and eastward .... even unto the entrance of the wilderness from the river Euphrates” ( 1 Chronicles 5:8 f). Bezer the city of refuge lay in Reuben’s territory ( Joshua 20:8, etc.). A general description of the country will be found under MOAB; while the cities of Reuben are dealt with in separate articles.

Reuben and Gad, occupying contiguous districts, and even, as we have seen, to some extent overlapping, are closely associated in the history.

Neither took part in the glorious struggle against Sisera ( Judges 5:15 ff). Already apparently the sundering influences were taking effect. They are not excepted, however, from “all the tribes of Israel” who sent contingents for the war against Benjamin ( Judges 20:10; 21:5), and the reference in Judges 5:15 seems to show that Reuben might have done great things had he been disposed. The tribe therefore was still powerful, but perhaps absorbed by anxieties as to its relations with neighboring peoples. In guarding their numerous flocks against attack from the South, and sudden incursions from the desert, a warlike spirit and martial prowess were developed. They were “valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skillful in war” ( 1 Chronicles 5:18).

They overwhelmed the Hagrites with Jetur and Naphish and Nodab, and greatly enriched themselves with the spoil. In recording the raid the Chronicler pays a compliment to their religious loyalty: “They cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust in him” ( 1 Chronicles 5:19 ff). Along with Gad and Manasseh they sent a contingent of 120,000 men “with all manner of instruments of war for the battle, .... men of war, that could order the battle array,” men who “came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king” ( 1 Chronicles 12:37 f). Among David’s mighty men was Adina, “a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him” ( 1 Chronicles 11:42). In the 40th year of David’s reign overseers were set over the Reubenites “for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king” ( 1 Chronicles 26:32).

Perhaps in spite of the help given to David the Reubenites had never quite got over their old loyalty to the house of Saul. At any rate, when disruption came they joined the Northern Kingdom ( 1 Kings 11:31).

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

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

Ezekiel finds a place for Reuben in his picture of restored Israel (48:6). He appears also — in this case preceded by Judah only — in Revelation 7:5. W. Ewing REUBENITES <roo’-ben-its > ([ ynibeWar]h; , ha-re’ubheni ]; [dh~moi JRoubh>n, demoi Rhouben ]): Members of the tribe of Reuben ( Numbers 26:7, etc.).

Adina, one of David’s mighty men, was a Reubenite ( 1 Chronicles 11:42).

REUEL <roo’-el > ([ laeW[r] , re`u’el ], “God is his friend”; the Septuagint [ JRagouh>l, Rhagouel ]): (1) In the genealogical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by Basemath ( Genesis 36:4,10,13,17; 1 Chronicles 1:35,37) and the father of the father-in-law of Moses, Hobab ( Numbers 10:29). In the account of the marriage of Zipporah to Moses ( Exodus 2:16-21) Jethro seems to be called Reuel (compare HOBAB). The various names of Jethro perplexed the Talmudists, too; some held that his real name was “Hobab,” and that Reuel was his father. Reuel is probably a clan name (Gray, “Nu,” ICC), and Hobab is a member of the clan (“son”) of Reuel ( Numbers 10:29, the King James Version reads “Raguel”). (2) The father of Eliasaph, the prince of Gad ( Numbers 2:14), called (by some copyist’s mistake) “Deuel” in Numbers 1:14; 7:42,47; 10:20. The Septuagint has uniformly Rhagouel. (3) A Benjamite ( 1 Chronicles 9:8). Horace J. Wolf REUMAH <roo’-ma > ([ hm;War] , re’umah ]): The concubine of Nahor ( Genesis 22:24).

REVELATION <rev-e-la’-shun > :

I. THE NATURE OF REVELATION. 1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion: The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this is not meant merely that, according to it, all men, as creatures, live, move and have their being in God. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world’s development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his social environment ( Genesis 3:8). This intimate association was broken up by the Fall. But God did not therefore withdraw Himself from concernment with men. Rather, He began at once a series of interventions in human history by means of which man might be rescued from his sin and, despite it, brought to the end destined for him. These interventions involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by whom God should be known, and whose distinction should be that God should be “nigh unto them” as He was not to other nations ( Deuteronomy 4:7; <19E518> Psalm 145:18). But this people was not permitted to imagine that it owed its segregation to anything in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine preference; no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that Yahweh had chosen it, not it Him, and that Yahweh’s choice of it rested solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people permitted to imagine that it was for its own sake alone that it had been singled out to be the sole recipient of the knowledge of Yahweh; it was made clear from the beginning that God’s mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its ultimate end the blessing of the whole world ( Genesis 12:2,3; 17:4,5,6,16; 18:18; 22:18; compare Romans 4:13), the bringing together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign of Yahweh, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay for its sin ( Genesis 12:3). Meanwhile, however, Yahweh was known only in Israel. To Israel God showed His word and made known His statutes and judgments, and after this fashion He dealt with no other nation; and therefore none other knew His judgments ( <19E719> Psalm 147:19 f).

Accordingly, when the hope of Israel (who was also the desire of all nations) came, His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation He brought, though of universal application, was “from the Jews” ( John 4:22). And the nations to which this salvation had not been made known are declared by the chief agent in its proclamation to them to be, meanwhile, “far off,” “having no hope” and “without God in the world” ( Ephesians 2:12), because they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of the promise.

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

It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revelation — which is made by the religion of the Bible in all the stages of its history — that the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, has left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world ( Acts 14:17). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His redemptive work, God suffered for a season all the nations to walk in their own ways; but it is added that to none of them has He failed to do good, and to give from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus wooing them to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him and find Him ( Acts 17:27), but as from the foundation of the world openly manifesting Himself to them in the works of His hands, in which His everlasting power and divinity are clearly seen ( Romans 1:20). That men at large have not retained Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not due therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to knowledge of Him, but to the darkening of their senseless hearts by sin and to the vanity of their sin-deflected reasonings ( Romans 1:21 ff), by means of which they have supplanted the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and serve the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed, precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the truth in unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their knowledge (so it is intimated); and because, moreover, in their sin, the revelation God gives of Himself in His works of creation and providence no longer suffices for men’s needs, that God has intervened supernaturally in the course of history to form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the world should be blessed. 2. General and Special Revelation: It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several representations two species or stages of revelation, which should be discriminated to avoid confusion. There is the revelation which God continuously makes to all men: by it His power and divinity are made known. And there is the revelation which He makes exclusively to His chosen people: through it His saving grace is made known. Both species or stages of revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. They are, for example, brought significantly together in such a declaration as we find in Psalm 19: “The heavens declare the glory of God .... their line is gone out through all the earth” (19:1,4); “The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul” (19:7). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the praise of the glory of God, the Creator of all that is, which has been written upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. From this he rises, however, quickly to the more full-throated praise of the mercy of Yahweh, the covenant God, who has visited His people with saving instruction.

Upon this higher revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with adoring gratitude: “O Yahweh, my rock, and my redeemer” (19:14). “The heavens,” comments Lord Bacon, “indeed tell of the glory of God, but not of His will according to which the poet prays to be pardoned and sanctified.” In so commenting, Lord Bacon touches the exact point of distinction between the two species or stages of revelation. The one is adapted to man as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on becoming sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new needs requiring additional provisions to bring him to the end of his existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does not supersede that given to man as man, but supplements it with these new provisions for his attainment, in his new condition of blindness, helplessness and guilt induced by sin, of the end of his being.

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

Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man.

Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to communion with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God.

And not being a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the works of God, saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of vision, and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his heart with a trustful intimacy of association, inconceivable to sinners. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Eden was not merely “natural.” Not only does the prohibition of the forbidden fruit involve a positive commandment ( Genesis 2:16), but the whole history implies an immediacy of intercourse with God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the picturesque art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless creatures. The impression is strong that what is meant to be conveyed to us is that man dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed with Him immediate and not merely mediate communion. In that case, we may understand that if man had not fallen, he would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with God, and that the cessation of this immediate intercourse is due to sin. It is not then the supernaturalness of special revelation which is rooted in sin, but, if we may be allowed the expression, the specialness of supernatural revelation. Had man not fallen, heaven would have continued to lie about him through all his history, as it lay about his infancy; every man would have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech with Him. Man having fallen, the cherubim and the flame of a sword, turning every way, keep the path; and God breaks His way in a round-about fashion into man’s darkened heart to reveal there His redemptive love. By slow steps and gradual stages He at once works out His saving purpose and molds the world for its reception, choosing a people for Himself and training it through long and weary ages, until at last when the fullness of time has come, He bares His arm and sends out the proclamation of His great salvation to all the earth. (2) Revelation among the Heathen.

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

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

There remain, no doubt, the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, perhaps also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of Balaam, who also, however, appear in the sacred narrative only in connection with the history of God’s dealings with His people and in their interest. Their unexplained appearance cannot in any event avail to modify the general fact that the life of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The heathen were suffered to walk in their own ways ( Acts 14:16).

II. THE PROCESS OF REVELATION.

Meanwhile, however, God had not forgotten them, but was preparing salvation for them also through the supernatural revelation of His grace that He was making to His people. According to the Biblical representation, in the midst of and working confluently with the revelation which He has always been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God was making also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Himself on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natural revelation, in which all men by virtue of their very nature as men share, this special, supernatural revelation was granted at first only to individuals, then progressively to a family, a tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fullness of time was come, it was made the possession of the whole world. It may be difficult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose thus to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, to be more explicit, through the process of a historical development. Such is, however, the ordinary mode of the Divine working: it is so that God made the worlds, it is so that He creates the human race itself, the recipient of this revelation, it is so that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the individual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowledge of God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, the Scriptures are explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying in their own growth, the record of the steady advance of this gracious revelation through definite stages from its first faint beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus Christ. 1. Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God: So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom of God itself, or rather to that great series of divine operations which are directed to the building up of the kingdom of God in the world, that it is sometimes confounded with them or thought of as simply their reflection in the contemplating mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation, meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been communicated in deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elaborately argued that the sole manner in which God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by performing those mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not, however, the Biblical representation. Revelation is, of course, often made through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of His great redemptive acts by which He saves the world constitutes the pre-eminent revelation of the grace of God — so far as these redemptive acts are open to observation and are perceived in their significance. But revelation, after all, is the correlate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation. The series of the redemptive acts of God, accordingly, can properly be designated “revelation” only when and so far as they are contemplated as adapted and designed to produce knowledge of God and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series of unexplained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought to have as its main design the production of knowledge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the production of knowledge of the divine grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is attained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it.

Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the redeeming acts of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of His redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end. Thus, the Scriptures represent it, not confounding revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of God and giving it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore not made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be understood. It occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompanies or follows them to interpret their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act of God and by no means the least important in the series of His redemptive acts.

This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very nature, and from the nature of the salvation which was being worked out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over the brute is found, among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God — for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has been brought into an evermore and more adequate knowledge of God, and been led ever more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of grace. 2. Stages of Material Development: This is not the place to trace, even in outline, from the material point of view, the development of God’s redemptive revelation from its first beginnings, in the promise given to Abraham — or rather in what has been called the Protevangelium at the gate of Eden — to its completion in the advent and work of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily advancing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the pages of Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the consummation backward, the appearance of the shadow cast athwart preceding ages by the great figure of Christ. Even from the formal point of view, however, there has been pointed out a progressive advance in the method of revelation, consonant with its advance in content, or rather with the advancing stages of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve which is the whole object of revelation. Three distinct steps in revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. They are distinguished precisely by the increasing independence of revelation of the deeds constituting the series of the redemptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation is a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too absolutely; and in the present instance the chronological sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing, three generally successive stages of revelation may be recognized, producing periods at least characteristically of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the Patriarchal age is characteristically “the period of Outward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theophanies”: during it “God spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc. ..... In the Prophetic age, on the contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward prophetic inspiration”: God spoke to men characteristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. “Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God” (A.B.

Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; compare pp. 12-14, ff). This internal method of revelation reaches its culmination in the New Testament period, which is preeminently the age of the Spirit. What is especially characteristic of this age is revelation through the medium of the written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs, but through these organs in such a fashion that the most intimate processes of their souls become the instruments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus, at all events there are brought clearly before us three wellmarked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respectively, not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not misleadingly, (1) external manifestation, (2) internal suggestion, and (3) concursive operation.

III. THE MODES OF REVELATION. 1. Modes of Revelation: Theophany may be taken as the typical form of “external manifestation”; but by its side may be ranged all of those mighty works by which God makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every supernatural intervention in the affairs of men, by means of which a better understanding is communicated of what God is or what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under “internal suggestion” may be subsumed all the characteristic phenomena of what is most properly spoken of as “prophecy”: visions and dreams, which, according to a fundamental passage ( Numbers 12:6), constitute the typical forms of prophecy, and with them the whole “prophetic word,” which shares its essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes not by the will of man but from God. By “concursive operation” may be meant that form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity — not even the control of the will — is superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhuman.

There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly characteristic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every age. And they occur side by side, broadly speaking, on the same level. No discrimination is drawn between them in point of worthiness as modes of revelation, and much less in point of purity in the revelations communicated through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to ( Numbers 12:8) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses and even of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs of revelation:

God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to others. But though Moses was thus distinguished above all others in the dealings of God with him, no distinction is drawn between the revelations given through him and those given through other organs of revelation in point either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revelation with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of divine communications. But there is no suggestion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others; and we should not fail to remember that the essential characteristics of revelations through dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which (whether we should call them visions or not) the images or ideas which fill, or pass in procession through, the consciousness are determined by some other power than the recipient’s own will. It may seem natural to suppose that revelations rise in rank in proportion to the fullness of the engagement of the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Divine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God. This is what gives unity to the whole process of revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in divers manners and distributed though it may be through the ages in accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have suited His developing purpose — this and its unitary end, which is ever the building up of the kingdom of God. In whatever diversity of forms, by means of whatever variety of modes, in whatever distinguishable stages it is given, it is ever the revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently developing redemptive revelation of God. 2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes: On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a difference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevitably obtain between revelations given through such divergent modes. The completely supernatural character of revelations given in theophanies is obvious. He who will not allow that God speaks to man, to make known His gracious purposes toward him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the stories legendary. The objectivity of the mode of communication which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these communications we are given accordingly just a series of “naked messages of God.” But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not, indeed, leave behind us theophanies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of revelation except only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face ( Deuteronomy 34:10), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches ( Numbers 12:8); but throughout the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in objective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the characteristic of the Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His servants “in a vision,” “in a dream” ( Numbers 12:6). And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfillment of His promise ( Deuteronomy 18:18), put His words in the mouths of His prophets and gave them His commandments to speak, yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of men as instruments of revelation that the words of God given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but their minds and hearts as well — the play of their religious feelings, or the processes of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history — the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still farther into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and the supernatural in such revelations, and, in many current manners of thinking and speaking of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has been limited and curtailed in the interests of the natural instrumentalities employed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the more necessary that we should observe the unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the absolute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes alike. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has been given through the instrumentality of men. They affirm, indeed, with the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men is the pure word of God, diluted with no human admixture whatever. 3. The Prophet God’s Mouthpiece: We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is exalted above all other organs of revelation ( Numbers 12:6 ff), in point of dignity and favor, no suggestion whatever is made of any inferiority, in either the directness or the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face ( Deuteronomy 34:10). But each of the whole series of prophets raised up by Yahweh that the people might always know His will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what Yahweh commanded them ( Deuteronomy 18:15,18,20). In this great promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there is also included a declaration of precisely how Yahweh would communicate His messages not so much to them as through them. “I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,” we read ( Deuteronomy 18:18), “and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by which Yahweh put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. “Then Yahweh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth,” explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophecies, “and Yahweh said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth” ( Jeremiah 1:9; compare 5:14; Isaiah 51:16; 59:21; Numbers 22:35; 23:5,12,16). Accordingly, the words “with which” they spoke were not their own but the Lord’s: “And he said unto me,” records Ezekiel, “Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them” ( Ezekiel 3:4). It is a process of nothing other than “dictation” which is thus described ( 2 Samuel 14:3,19), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Exodus 4:10-17; 7:1- 7. Here, in the most express words, Yahweh declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is “a mouth of God,” who speaks not his own but God’s words. Accordingly, the Hebrew name for “prophet” (nabhi’ ), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the Scriptures just “spokesman,” though not “spokesman” in general, but Spokesman by way of eminence, that is, God’s spokesman; and the characteristic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is: “The word of Yahweh came to me,” or the brief “saith Yahweh” ([ hwhy µaun] , ne’um Yahweh ]). In no case does a prophet put his words forward as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophesies or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts his mouth ( Ezekiel 3:26 f) and creates for him the fruit of the lips ( Isaiah 57:19; compare 6:7; 50:4). In contrast with the false prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own heart (“heart” in Biblical language includes the whole inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of Yahweh. 4. Visionary Form of Prophecy: The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with this general declaration. It describes the characteristic manner in which Yahweh communicates His messages to His prophets as through the medium of visions and dreams. Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revelation to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indications in the record that the universal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so called.

The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form.

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

It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the divine communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external appearances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly distinguished ( Numbers 12:6-8). It is also an exaggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state must be conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amentia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their revelations that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these extreme views is the good one of doing full justice to the objectivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets.

If these revelations took place entirely externally to the prophet, who merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they were implanted in the prophets by a process so violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets’ own minds. It is undoubtedly the fundamental contention of the prophets that the revelations given through them are not their own but wholly God’s. The significant language we have just quoted from Ezekiel 13:3: “Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing,” is a typical utterance of their sense of the complete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they “prophesy out of their own heart” ( Ezekiel 13:2-17), or, to draw the antithesis sharply, that “they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Yahweh” ( Jeremiah 23:16,26; 14:14). But these extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally important fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious fact that the intelligence of the prophets is alert throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revelation made through them. See INSPIRATION; PROPHECY.

That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the category of visions, strictly so called, and dreams is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject’s will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subject’s own psychoses. A power not himself takes possession of his consciousness and determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Yahweh Himself or, to be more specific, the Spirit of Yahweh ( 1 Samuel 10:6,10; Nehemiah 9:30; Zechariah 7:12; Joel 2:28,29). The prophets were therefore `men of the Spirit’ ( Hosea 9:7). What constituted them prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them ( Isaiah 42:1) or poured out on them ( Joel 2:28,29), and they were consequently filled with the Spirit ( Micah 3:8), or, in another but equivalent locution, that “the hand” of the Lord, or “the power of the hand” of the Lord, was upon them ( 2 Kings 3:15; Ezekiel 1:3; 3:14,22; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1), that is to say, they were under the divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the “mover,” but the “moved” in the formation of his message. The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic consciousness in his well-known declaration: `No prophecy of scripture comes of private interpretation; for prophecy was never brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God’ (2 Pet 1:20,21). 5. “Passivity” of Prophets: What this language of Peter emphasizes — and what is emphasized in the whole account which the prophets give of their own consciousness — is, to speak plainly, the passivity of the prophets with respect to the revelation given through them. This is the significance of the phrase: `it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.’ To be “borne” ([fe>rein, pherein ]) is not the same as to be led ([a]gein, agein ]), much less to be guided or directed ([oJdhgei~n, hodegein ]): he that is “borne” contributes nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved. The term “passivity” is, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelligence of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by means of their active intelligence that their message was received: their intelligence was the instrument of revelation. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was active in the production of their message: that it was creatively as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself is a kind of activity. What the prophets are solicitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense coauthors with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but “His mouth.” But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them — instruments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them.

There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely receptive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God as dealing mechanically with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them.

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

No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the power of God, and dumb beasts speak, and mysterious voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in languages whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the services of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and according to the particular nature of the tongue which He employs. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, limited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be announced in any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities imprinted on the messages of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct communications from God. 6. Revelation by Inspiration: A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have called “concursive operation.” This mode of revelation differs from prophecy, properly so called, precisely by the employment in it, as is not done in prophecy, of the total personality of the organ of revelation, as a factor. It has been common to speak of the mode of the Spirit’s action in this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintendence, a direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect aimed at — the discovery and enunciation of divine truth — is attained through the action of the human powers — historical research, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious aspiration — acting not by themselves, however, but under the prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as involving merely a determining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a supercessive action of the revealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole body of Scripture in such passages as 2 Peter 1:20 f in the category of prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a mere “leading” but to the “bearing” of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, control, inadequately express the nature of the Spirit’s action in revelation by “concursive operation.” The Spirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, therefore, which is attained by their means is His product through them. It is this fact which gives to the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called passively, a revelation. Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result above what could by any possibility be achieved by mere human powers and constitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are traceable throughout its whole extent, but at bottom it is a divine gift, and the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be applied to it: “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor 2:13); “The things which I write unto you .... are the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). See INSPIRATION. 7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ: It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible may without violence be subsumed under one or another of these three modes — external manifestation, internal suggestion, and concursive operation. All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ.

As in His person, in which dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. He does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God’s purpose of redemption, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. The theophanies are but faint shadows in comparison with His manifestation of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Yahweh; from Him as His Son, Yahweh has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glorified.

Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in Him — so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word — had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its meaning made the possession of men, revelation was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the law.

IV. BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY. 1. The Ordinary Forms: There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and processes of revelation, from the terms currently employed in Scripture to express the idea. These terms are ordinarily the common words for disclosing, making known, making manifest, applied with more or less heightened significance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the English Bible (the King James Version) the verb “reveal” occurs about times, of which 22 are in the Old Testament and 29 in the New Testament.

In the Old Testament the word is always the rendering of a Hebrew term [ hl;G; , galah ], or its Aramaic equivalent [ hl;G] , gelah ], the root meaning of which appears to be “nakedness.” When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects to perception. In the New Testament the word “reveal” is always (with the single exception of Luke 2:35) the rendering of a Greek term [ajpokalu>ptw, apokalupto ] (but in 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 4:13 the corresponding noun [ajpoka>luyiv, apokalupsis ]), which has a very similar basal significance with its Hebrew parallel. As this Hebrew word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun “revelation” does not occur in the English Old Testament, the idea being expressed, however, by other Hebrew terms variously rendered. It occurs in the English New Testament, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and always as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the verb rendered “reveal” (apokalupsis ). On the face of the English Bible, the terms “reveal,” “revelation” bear therefore uniformly the general sense of “disclose,” “disclosure.” The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the terms “reveal” “revelation” in English Versions of the Bible. Indeed, the Hebrew and Greek terms exclusively so rendered occur more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the English Bible.

And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way or another the general conception.

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

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

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

Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the New Testament in a written form, and it was impossible to speak freely of it without consciousness of and at least occasional reference to its written form.