A

Sree mn

Vyas

σθαι

ὑαυ σάλος ὀαψα : =

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/dictionaryofchri01 hastuoft

A

Dictionary of Christ

and the Gospels

ΣΤΥ

Wavy

Z

SS

Ν

My MAINT os my

δ

= SS anes

δὰ

δὰ

-- "πῃ μοι 5 SPDOY

Els OF Ξ ΒΌΤΗ͂Ν USSU FO 9ΤΒῸς

a XLS WW εἴ

vith

AS NS

δ my

ἡ ἡ

ΣΝ ᾿ Wai ἡ f Hn aN

ANZA WS A EWA Ni S

36

ἃ, Edinburgh & London

Ἢ W|I) Ἧϊ Du

fil

yes

Oy Q Ξ { i L i} My ; ἢ

ΤΥΏΠΑΌ-

NOUN MAAN

Ai ἡ

MOM

5 Longitude East of Greenwich

3

30᾽

Engraved & Prmted by

COPYRIGHT, 1906, BY, CHAS. SCRIBNERS SONS

i <4 a, ae

δὴν a

——

ri ; nN? a) ice) κ᾿ ΡῈ ἘΣ ἄν. ἡ i » a seh Selene -eitao ιν eee Χ - ee ΡΟ Dy tok eee nate ΝᾺ ‘ae oe te ῃ Fras 5 Po 4 j - ee λον se Se > 4- τ ν a WAY VE) Pl a S| 7 hs at

ashe

A

Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels

EDITED BY

JAMES HASTINGS, D.D.

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF

JOHN (Ac (SEE BPE. Dib:

ND (IN THE READING OF THE PROOFS) OF

JOHN C. DAMIR ERT, -):D:

ROE UV of 4 AARON—KNOWLEDGE 747

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS ἘΙ ΙΝΒΙΠΝΘΗ: Ὁ. ἃ ΟΥΑΙ Kk

1900

COPYRIGHT, 1906, BY

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

The above copyright notice is for the protection of articles copyrighted in the United States.

Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, have the sole right of publication of this DIcTIONARY OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS jn the United States and Canada.

P RE ACC

THE Purpose of this DicTionary is to give an account of everything that relates to CHRIST—His Person, Life, Work, and Teaching.

It is in a sense complementary to the Dictionary of the Bible, in which, of course, Christ has a great place. But a Dictionary of the Bible, being occupied mainly with things biographical, historical, geographical, or antiquarian, does not give attention to the things of Christ sufficient for the needs of the preacher, to whom Christ is everything. This is, first of all, a preacher’s Dictionary. The Authors of the articles have been carefully chosen from among those Scholars who are, or have been, themselves preachers. And even when the articles have the same titles as articles in the Dictionary of the Bible, they are written by new men, and from a new standpoint. It is thus a work which is quite distinct from, and altogether independent of, the Dictionary of the bible.

It is called a DicTIONARY OF CHRIST AND THE GOSPELS, because it includes everything that the Gospels contain, whether directly related to CHRIST or not. Its range, however, is far greater than that of the Gospels. It seeks to cover all that relates to Christ throughout the Bible and in the life and literature of the world. There will be articles on the Patristic estimate of Jesus, the Medieval estimate, the Reformation and Modern estimates. There will be articles on Christ in the Jewish writings and in the Muslim literature. Much attention has been given to modern thought, whether Christian or anti-Christian. Every aspect of modern life, in so far

as it touches or is touched by Christ, is described under its proper title

Still, the Gospels are the main source of our knowledge of Christ, and it will be found that the contents of the Gospels, especially their spiritual contents, have never

before been so thoroughly investigated and set forth. 4

vi PREFACE

It will be observed at once that a large number of the titles of the articles are new. Thus—to take the first letter of the alphabet—there are no articles in the Dictionary of the Bible (unless the word happens to be used in some obsolete sense) on ABGAR, ABIDING, ABOVE AND BELOW, ABSOLUTION, ACCOMMODATION, ACTIVITY, AFFLICTION, AGONY, AMAZEMENT, AMBASSAGE, AMBITION, ANNOUNCEMENTS OF DEATH, ANNUNCIATION, ARBITRATION, ARISTEAS, ARISTION, ARREST, ASCETICISM, ATTRACTION OF CHRIST, ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIS!, AUTHORITY OF CHRIST, AUTHORITY IN RELIGION, AWE.

These articles are enough to give the present work distinction

Again, there are certain topics which are treated more fully here than in the Dictionary of the Bible, because they have specially to do with Christ. In the letter A may be named ACCEPTANCE, ACCESS, ALPHA AND OMEGA, ANGER, ANOINTING, ASCENSION, ASSURANCE, ATONEMENT.

All these articles, moreover, have a range which is greater than the corresponding articles in the Dictionary of the Bible, if they occur there. They describe some aspect of Christ’s Person or Work, not only as it is presented in the Bible, but also as it

has been brought out in the history of the Church, and in Christian experience.

And even when the articles are confined to the Gospels they have a character of their own. The ground that has to be covered being less, the treatment can be fuller. It has also been found possible to make it more expository. Take the

following examples—ABBA, AMEN, ANGELS, APOSTLES, ARCHELAUS, ART, AUGUSTUS.

Thus, in a word, there are three classes of topics, each of which contributes something towards the distinction of this work. There are topics, like AUTHORITY or ΟἬΒΙΒΤ, which are wholly new. There are topics which may or may not be wholly new, like ATTRACTION (which is new) and ATONEMENT (which is not), but which have a wider range than any topics in the Dictionary of the Bible. And there are topics, like ANGELS, which have a narrower range, having no occasion to go beyond the limits of the Gospels, but within that range are fuller, ard of more

practical value for the preacher.

The subject is inexhaustible. It has not been exhausted in this work. Perhaps

the most that has been done is to show how great Christ is.

Many scholars have rendered valuable assistance. In addition to the services of Dr. Selbie and Dr. Lambert, the Editor desires especially to acknowledge those of Professor Howard Osgood οἵ Rochester Theological Seminary, New York, who examined the Gospels minutely to see that no topic had been omitted, and added

some useful titles to the list.

The Dictionary will be completed in two volumes, of which this is the first.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

I. GENERAL

Alex. = Alexandrian.

Apoc. = Apocalypse, Apocalyptic. Apocr. = Apocrypha, Apocryphal. Aq. =Aquila.

Arab. = Arabic.

Aram. = Aramaic.

Assyr. = Assyrian.

Bab. = Babylonian.

c.=cirea, about.

Can. = Canaanite.

οἵ. =compare.

ct. = contrast.

D= Deuteronomist.

E= Elohist.

edd. = editions or editors.

Egyp. = Egyptian.

Eng. = English.

Eth. = Ethiopic.

f.=and following verse or page: as Ac 10%. ff. =and following verses or pages: as Mt 11°§*-, Gr. =Greek.

H=Law of Holiness.

Heb. = Hebrew.

Hel. = Hellenistic.

Hex. = Hexateuch.

Isr. = Israelite.

J =Jahwist.

J” = Jehovah.

Jerus. = Jerusalem.

Jos. = Josephus.

LXX=Septuagint.

MSS = Manuscripts.

MT= Massoretic Text.

n. =note.

NT=New Testament.

Onk. = Onkelos.

OT=Old Testament. P=Priestly Narrative.

Pal. = Palestine, Palestinian. Pent. = Pentateuch.

Pers. = Persian.

Phil. = Philistine.

Phoen. = Phanician.

Pr. Bk. = Prayer Book.

R= Redactor.

Rom. = Roman.

Sam. =Samaritan.

Sem. = Semitic.

Sept. =Septuagint.

Sin. = Sinaitie.

Symm. =Symmachus.

Syr. =Syriac.

Talm. = Talmud.

Targ. = Targum.

Theod. = Theodotion. TR=Textus Receptus.

tr. =translate or translation. VSS= Versions.

Vulg. = Vulgate. WH=Westcott and Hort’s text.

IJ. Booxs or tHE BIBLE

Old Testament. Ca=Canticles. Is= Isaiah. Jer=Jeremiah.

La= Lamentations. Ezk = Ezekiel.

Gn = Genesis.

Ex = Exodus.

Ly = Leviticus. Nu= Numbers. Dt= Deuteronomy.

Jos=Joshua. Dn= Daniel. Jg=Judges. Hos= Hosea. Ru= Ruth. Jl=Joel.

Am = Amos.

1S, 2S=1 and 2 Samuel. Ob= Obadiah.

1 K, 2 K=1 and 2 Kings.

1 Ch, 2 Ch=1 and 2 Jon =Jonah. Chronicles. Mic= Micah. Ezr = Ezra. Nah= Nahum.

Hab= Habakkuk. Zeph= Zephaniah. Hag= Haggai. Zee = Zechariah.

Mal= Malachi.

Neh = Nehemiah. Est = Esther. Job.

Ps= Psalms.

Pr= Proverbs.

Ec = Ecclesiastes.

Apocrypha.

1 Es, 2 Es=1 and 2 To=Tobit. Esdras. Jth=Judith.

Ad. Est = Additions to Sus=Susanna.

Esther. Bel = Bel and _ the Wis= Wisdom. Dragon. Sir =Sirach or Ecclesi- Pr. Man = Prayer of asticus. Manasses. Bar = Baruch. 1 Mac, 2 Mac=1 and 2 Three = Song of the Maccabees.

Three Children.

New Testament.

Mt= Matthew. hain —el Sandee? Mk= Mark. Thessalonians.

Lk= Luke. πο, ΠῚ ἀπο 9 Jn=John. Timothy.

Ac= Acts. Tit —AiGus:

Ro= Romans. Philem = Philemon.

1 Co, 2 Co=1 and 2 He=Hebrews.

Corinthians. Gal=Galatians. Eph = Ephesians. Ph= Philippians. Col= Colossians.

Ja=James.

1b oP ilrand 2 Peter:

I din 2 din, 8 dint, Ὁ and 3 John.

Jude.

Rev = Revelation.

vii

Vill

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

111. Eneuish VERSIONS

Wyc.=Wyclif’s Bible (NT c. 1380, OT ὁ. 1382, | Purvey’s Revision ὁ. 1388). |

Tind. = Tindale’s NT 1526 and 1534, Pent. 1530. !

Cov. = Coverdale’s Bible 1535. |

Matt. or Rog.=Matthew’s (i.e. prob. Rogers’) | Bibie 1537.

Cran. or Great =Cranmer’s ‘ Great’ Bible 1539.

Tav. = Taverner’s Bible 1539.

Gen. =Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.

Bish. = Bishops’ Bible 1568.

Tom. =Tomson’s NT 1576.

Rhem. = Rhemish NT 1582.

Dou. = Douay OT 1609.

AV =Authorized Version 1611.

AVm= Authorized Version margin.

RV =Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885. RVm= Revised Version margin.

EV =Auth. and Rev. Versions.

LV. For THE

AHT= Ancient Hebrew Tradition.

AJSL=American Journal of Sem. Lang. and | Literature.

AJTh=American Journal of Theology.

AT= Altes Testament.

BL= Bampton Lecture. ]

BM= British Museum.

BRP = Biblical Researches in Palestine.

CIG =Corpus Inscriptionum Greecarum.

CIL=Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

CIS=Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.

COT =Cuneiform Inscriptions and the OT.

DB = Dictionary of the Bible.

DCA = Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.

DRE = Dictionary of Religion and Ethics.

EHH= Early History of the Hebrews.

KzpT= Expository Times.

GAP =Geographie des alten Palistina. |

GGA =Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.

GGN=Nachrichten der kénigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen.

GJ V =Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes.

GVI=Geschichte des Volkes Israel.

HCM = Higher Criticism and the Monuments.

HE= Historia Ecclesiastica.

HGHL = Historical Geog. of Holy Land.

HI= History of Israel.

HJ P= History of the Jewish People.

MPM = History, Prophecy, and the Monuments.

. HPN=Hebrew Proper Names.

I JG =Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte. ]

JBL=Journal of Biblical Literature. |

J DTh=Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie.

JQ =Jewish Quarterly Review.

JhAS=Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

JSL=Journal of Sacred Literature.

JThSt=Journal of Theological Studies

KAT = Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Test.

KGF= Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsforschung.

KIB = Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.

IL EB=The Land and the Book.

LCBt= Literarisches Centralblatt.

LOT= Introd. to the Literature of the Old Test. |

LITERATURE

MNDPV=Mittheilungen u. deutschen Pal.-Vereins.

NHW B=Neuhebriisches Wérterbuch.

NTZG = Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte.

ON = Otium Norvicense.

OP = Origin of the Psalter.

OTJC=The Old Test. in the Jewish Church.

PB=Polychrome Bible.

PEF= Palestine Expioration Fund.

PEFSt=Quarterly Statement of the same.

PSB A = Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archeeology.

PRE = Real-Encyklopiidie fiir protest. Theologie und Kirche.

QPB=Queen’s Printers’ Bible.

LEB = Revue Biblique.

LEJ = Revue des Etudes Juives.

RP= Records of the Past.

£S= Religion of the Semites.

SBE=Sacred Books of the East.

SBOT =Sacred Books of Old Test.

Si =Studien und Kritiken.

SP=Sinai and Palestine.

SIV P=Memoirs of the Survey of W. Palestine.

ThL or ThLZ=Theol. Literaturzeitung.

ThT=Theol. Tijdschrift.

TS=Texts and Studies.

TSBA =Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. Archeology.

TU =Texte und Untersuchungen.

WAI= Western Asiatic Inscriptions.

WZKM=Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Morgenlandes.

ZA =“Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie.

ZAW or ZATW=Zeitschrift fiir die Alttest. Wissenschaft.

ZDMG=Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen- landischen Gesellschaft.

ZDPV=Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palistina- Vereins.

ZKSF = Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftforschung.

ZK W =Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft.

ZNTW =Zeitschrift fiir die Neutest, Wissen- schaft.

ZThK = “Zeitschrift f. Theologie u. Kirche.

Nachrichten d.

Kunde des

A small superior number designates the particular edition of the work referred to: as KAT”, LOT*.

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL I

Rev. Ropert M. ApAmson, M.A., Ardrossan.

tev. WALTER Ε΄ ApDENEY, D.D., Professor of Theology and Principal of the Lancashire College, Manchester.

tev. P. HENDERSON Glasgow.

Rey. Gross ALEXANDER, S.T.D., late Professor of

AITKEN, B.Se., B.D.,

New Testament Greek and Exegesis in Vander- |

bilt University, Nashville. Rev. WILLoUGHBY ©. ALLEN, M.A., Chaplain,

Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.

Rev. WILLIAM P. ARMSTRONG, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary, N.J.

2evy. BENJAMIN WISNER Bacon, D.D., Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpreta- tion in Yale University, New Haven.

Rev. P. MorDAUNT BARNARD, B.D., late Rector of Headley, Epsom.

Rev. FRANCIS R. BEATTIE, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky.

Very Rev. JoHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of St. Patrick’s, Fellow of Trinity College, and Archbishop King’s Lecturer in Divinity in the University of Dublin.

Rev. HARRY BIssEKER, M.A., The Leysian Mission, London.

Rev. ARCHIBALD Bisset, Ratho.

tev. ANDREW N. BoG.Le, M.A., Leith.

Rev. ALBERT Bonus, M.A., Alphington, Exeter,

2ev. GEOPGE H. Box, M.A., late Hebrew Master, Merchant Taylors’ School, London, Rector of Linton, Ress.

Rev. E. P. Boys-Smitu, M.A., Vicar of Hordle, Brockenhurst.

Rev. J. B. Bristow, B.D., Rector of Clondalkin, Co. Dublin.

Rev. Morison Bryce, Baldernock, Milngavie. Rev. A. E. Burn, D.D., Rector of Handsworth, Birmingham, and Prebendary of Lichfield. tev. DUGALD CLARK, B.D., Glassary,

gilphead.

Rey. Joun: ὃ. CLEMENS, M.A., Principal of Ran- moor College, Sheffield.

Rev. ArTHUR W. CookE, M.A., Newcastle-on- Tyne.

Loch-

Rev. JAMES Cooper, D.D., Professor of Ecclesi- astical History in the University of Glasgow.

Rey. HucuH H. Curris£, B.D., Keig, Aberdeen- shire.

Rev. EDGAR DAPLYN, London.

Right Rev. CHARLES FREDERICK D’ArRcy, D.D., Bishop of Clogher.

Rey. EDWIN CHARLES DARGAN, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Homiletics and Ecclesiology in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louis- ville, Ky.

Rey. W. THEOPHILUS DAvison, D.D., Professor of Theology in Richmond Theological College, Surrey.

Rev. Percy DEARMER, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary’s the Virgin, Primrose Hill, London.

Rey. FRANCIS BRIGHAM DEN1IO, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature in Bangor Theological Seminary, Maine.

Rev. JAMES DENNEY, D.D., Professor of New Testainent Language, Literature, and Theology in the United Free Church College, Glasgow.

Rey. C. T. Dimont, M.A., Vicar of Holy Trinity, Halifax.

Rey. Marcus Dons, D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology in the New College, Edinburgh. Rev. Henry E. Dosker, D.D., Professor of Church History in the Presbyterian Theo-

logical Seminary of Kentucky.

Rev. F. Homes DupDEN, B.D., Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford.

Rev. ALEXANDER A. DUNCAN, B.D., Auchterless, Aberdeenshire.

Rev. Hucu DuncaAN, B.D., Garturk, Coatbridge.

Rev. W. H. DunpAs, B.D., Curate Assistant of St. Thomas’s, Belfast.

Rev. WILLIAM HENRy Dyson, Edgerton, Hudders- field.

Rev. GEORGE BOARDMAN EAGER, D.D., Professor of Biblical Introduction and Pastoral Theology in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

Rev. WILLIAM Ewinc, M.A., Edinburgh, for- merly of Tiberias, Palestine.

Rev. J. W. FALCONER, B.D., Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Rey. R. A. FALCONER, D.Litt., D.D., Principal of the Presbyterian Theological College, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

ix

| | | |

x AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I

Rev. GEORGE FARMER, formerly Vicar of Hartlip, Kent.

Rev. J. H. FARMER, Professor in M‘Master Uni- versity, Toronto.

tev. C. L. FEtror, D.D., Rector of Duxford, Cambridge.

tev. ADAM FYFE FINDLAY, M.A., Arbroath.

Rev. J. Dick FLEMING, B.D., Tranent.

fev. FRANK HuGuH Foster, Ph.D., D.D., lately Professor of Systematic Theology in the Pacitic Seminary, Berkeley, Cal.

Rey. WILLIAM BARRETT FRANKLAND, M.A., late Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, and Assistant-Chaplain at Giggleswick School.

Rev. ROBERT SLEIGHTHOUSE FRANKS, M.A., B.Litt., Birmingham. Rev. NORMAN FRASER, B.D., Edinburgh.

tev. HENRY WILLIAM FULFORD, M.A., Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.

Rey. C. E. GARRAD, M.A., Fellow of Clare College, and Vice-Principal of the Clergy Training School, Cambridge.

Rev. ALFRED ERNEST GARVIE, D.D., Professor of Ethics, Theism, and Comparative Religion in New and Hackney Colleges, London.

Rev. OWEN H. GATES, Ph.D., Professor in Andover | if

Theological Seminary, Mass.

Rev. LucIEN GAUTIER, Ph.D., Honorary Pro- fessor of Old Testament Exegesis and History, Geneva.

Rev. ALFRED S. GEDEN, M.A., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in Richmond College, Surrey.

Rev. GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT, Ph.D., D.D., late Professor of New Testament Literature and

Interpretation in Chicago Theological Semi- |

nary.

Rev. RICHARD GLAISTER, B.D., Kirkcudbright.

TERROT REAVELEY GLOVER, M.A., Fellow and Classical Lecturer, St. John’s College, Cam- bridge.

Rev. CALVIN GOODSPEED, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

tev. GEORGE PEARCE GOULD, M.A., Principal of

tegent’s Park College, London.

Rev. JAMES GORDON GRAY, D.D., Rome.

Rev. THOMAS GREGORY, M.A., Kilmalcolm.

Rev. Canon CHARLES T. P. GrirRsoN, B.D., Rector of Seapatrick, Banbridge, Co. Down.

Rev. JAMES O. HANNAY, M.A., Rector of Augh- aval, Westport, Co. Mayo.

Rev. CHARLES HARRIS, D.D., Vicar of Claverley, Wolverhampton, late Lecturer in Theology in St. David’s College, Lampeter.

Rev. JOHN HERKLEsS, D.D., Professor of Church History in the University of St. Andrews. Rey. F. R. Montcomery Hitcucock, B.D.,

Rector of Kinnitty, King’s Co.

Rey. CASPAR WISTAR HopGE, D.D., Lecturer in Systematic Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary, N.J.

tev. A. MITCHELL HUNTER, Dumbartonshire.

tev. WILLIAM RALPH INGE, D.D., Vicar of All

Saints’, Ennismore Gardens, London, Fellow aud Tutor of Hertford College, Oxford.

M.A., Cardross,

late |

tev. JAMES IVERACH, D.D., Professor of Apolo- getics and Dogmatics, Principal of the United Free Church College, Aberdeen.

Rev. H. L. JAckson, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary’s, Huntingdon.

Rev. ARTHUR JENKINSON, Innellan, Greenock.

A. J. JENKINSON, M.A., Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford.

Rev. E. GRIFFITH-JONES, B.A., London.

Rev. W. S. Kerr, B.D., Vicar of Ballywalter, Co. Down.

Rev. THomAs B. KiLparrick, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Knox College, Toronto.

Rev. RICHARD JOHN KNOWLING, D.D., Canon of Durham, and Professor of Divinity in the University of Durham.

Rev. DAvip M. W. Larrp, M.A., Edinburgh.

Rev. JoHN C. LAMBERT, DD., Fenwick, marnock.

Rev. RoBERT LEGGAT, Berwick-on-T weed. Rev. JOHN Rosert Lecce, M.A., Buckhurst Hill, Essex.

Nev. WILLIAM F. Lorrnouse, M.A., Professor in the Theological College, Handswerth, Bir- mingham.

Rev. CHARLES ScoTT MACALPINE, B.D., Man- chester.

Rev. A. B. MACAULAY, M.A., Dundee. tev. GEORGE M‘HaArpy, D.D., Kirkealdy.

tev. GEORGE M. Mackie, D.D., Chaplain to the Church of Scotland at Beyrout, Syria.

Kil-

i Rev. DUNCAN A. MACKINNON, M.A., Marykirk,

Kincardineshire.

Rey. RoBERT MACKINTOSH, D.D., Professor of Christian Ethics, Apologetics, and Socislogy in the Lancashire Independent College, Man- chester.

Right Rev. ARTHUR JOHN MACLEAN, D.D., Bishop of Moray.

tev. A. H. M‘NEILE, B.D, Fellow and Dean of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.

Rev. JAMES EDMOND M‘Ovat, B.D., Logiealmond, Perthshire.

Rev. WILLIAM M. M‘PHEETERS, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis, Columbia Theological Seminary, S.C

Rev. RoBERT MACPHERSON, D.D., Elgin. Rev. JosePH T. L. Maaas, D.D., Leeds.

tev. JOHN TURNER MARSHALL, D.D., Principal of the Baptist College, Manchester.

| Rev. A. StUART MARTIN, B.D., Scone, Perth.

Rev. G. CURRIE MARTIN, D.D., Professor of New Testament Theology and Patristics in the United College, Bradford.

| E. W. GurNEY MASTERMAN, M.D., F.R.C.S.,

F.R.G.S., D.P.H., Jerusalem, Syria.

Rev. SHAILER MATHEWS, D.D., Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation in the University of Chicago.

Rev. J. H. Maupr, M.A., Rector of Hilgay, Downham Market.

Late Rev. PREBENDARY F. MEYRICK, Rector of Blickling, Aylesham.

M.A.,

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I xi

Rev. ANDREW MILLER, M.A., Glasgow.

Rev. W. J. 5. MILLER, B.D., Houndwood, Reston.

Rev. GEORGE MILLIGAN, D.D., Caputh, Perth- shire.

Rev. JAMES MOFFATT, D.D., Dundonald, Ayrshire.

Rev. W. 5. MontTGoMeErRy, B.D., Abbeyleix, Queen’s County.

Rev. W. W. Moors, D.D., President of Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va.

Rev. W. MorGan, M.A., Tarbolton, Ayrshire.

Rey. R. WApDDY Moss, D.D., Professor of Classics |

in the Didsbury College, Manchester. Kev. JoHN Muir, B.D., Kirkcowan, Wigtownshire. Rev. JosepH Muir, B.D., Edinburgh. Rey. Lewis A. MUIRHEAD, D.D., Broughty Ferry. Rey. GEORGE MuRRAY, B.D., Sauchie, Alloa. Rev. JAMES Ross Murray, M.A., Manchester.

EBERHARD NESTLE, Ph.D., D.D., Professor at Maulbronn.

Rev. M. R. NEWBOLT, ΒΑ. Vicar of Iffley, Oxford.

Rev. ALBERT HENRY NEWMAN, D.D., LL.D.,

Professor of Church History in Baylor Uni- |

versity, Texas. Rev. Tuomas Nicou, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Aberdeen.

Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, B.D., Organizing Secretary of the Parochial Missions to the Jews at Home and Abroad.

Rev. J. W. OMAN, D.Phil., Alnwick. Rey. JAMES PATRICK, B.D., B.Sc., Burntisland.

Rev. WILLIAM PATRICK, D.D., Principal of Manitoba College, Winnipeg.

ARTHUR 5. PEAKE, B.D., Professor of Biblical Exegesis and Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Victoria University, Manchester.

Rev. JOHN ROBERT VAN PELT, Ph.D., Lewisburg, Pa.

Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., late Master of University College, Durham.

Rev. E. B. POLLARD, Georgetown, Ky.

Rey. Cyrin HENRY PRICHARD, M.A., Rector of Wiston, Steyning, Sussex.

Rev. F. S. RANKEN, M.A., Rector of South Walsham, Norwich.

Rev. W. M. RANKIN, B.D., Glasgow.

Rev. JOHN Retp, M.A., Inverness.

Rev. J. S. Rices, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Theological Seminary of Auburn, N.Y.

Rev. C. W. RIsHELL, D.D., Professor of Historical Theology in Boston University, Mass.

Rev. JoHN EDWARD Roserts, B.D., Manchester.

Rev. ARCHIBALD THOMAS ROBERTSON, D.D., Pro- fessor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

Rey. JAMES ROBERTSON, D.D., Whittingehame.

; Rev. F. E. Ropinson, B.D., Professor of Hebrew in the Baptist College, Bristol.

Rev. GEORGE LivINGsTON RoBinson, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis in the M‘Cormick Theological Seminary, Chicago.

Rev. ANDREW E. Ross, B.D., Rector of Portrush, Co. Antrim.

Rev. ALFRED NORMAN ROWLAND, M.A., London.

Rev. JOHN RICHARD SAMPEY, D.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor of Interpretation of the Old Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.

tev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., D.Se., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, Chaplain in Ordinary to H.M. the King.

Rev. CHARLES ANDERSON Scott, M.A., London.

Rev. ErneEsT F. Scott, B.A., Prestwick.

tev. RoBERT Scott, M.A., Professor in Wilson College, Bombay.

Rev. HENRY CLAY SHELDON, T.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Boston University.

tev. EDWARD SHILLITO, M.A., Brighton.

Rev. S. J. RAMSAY SIBBALD, B.D., Crathie, Ballater.

Rey. J. G. Stupson, M.A., Principal of the Clergy School, Leeds.

Rev. DAvip SmiTH, M.A., Tulliallan.

Rev. HAROLD SmirH, M.A., Rector of Grimley, Worcester.

Rev. J. CROMARTY SMITH, B.D., Coatdyke, Coat-

bridge.

W. TAYLOR SMITH, M.A., Sevenoaks, Kent. Rev. HARRY HERBERT SNELL, B.A., Reading. | Late Rev. J. SourAr, M.A., Tiberias, Palestine.

ALEXANDER SoutTER, M.A., Litt.D., Yates Pro- fessor of New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield College, Oxford.

Rey. W. B. STEVENSON, B.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Introduction in the Theo- logical Coilege, Bala.

Rev. GEORGE WAUCHOPE STEWART, B.D., Aber- deen.

| Rev. ROBERT LAIRD STEWART, D.D., Professor in Lincoln University, Chester Co., Penn.

Rev. DARWELL STONE, M.A., Pusey Librarian, Oxford.

Rey. ἃ. GORDON 5ΤΟΤΊ, B.D., London. Rev. R. H. STRACHAN, M.A., Elie. Rey. A. PoLLoK Sym, B.D., Lilliesleaf.

| Rev. JOHN G. TASKER, D.D., Professor of Biblical

Literature and Exegesis in Handsworth Col- lege, Birmingham.

Rev. R. BrucE TAytor, M.A., Aberdeen.

Rey. MILTON SPENCER TERRY, D.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor of Christian Doctrine in the Garrett Biblical Institute, Northwestern University.

Rey. G. W. THATCHER, B.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament History in Mansfield Col- lege, Oxford.

Rey. W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS, D.D., Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.

| Rev. WILLIAM D. THomson, M.A., Edinburgh.

ΧΙ

AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN VOL. I

Rev. EpDwarRD HARPER TITCHMARSH, M.A., | Shetheld.

Rey. GEERHARDUS Vos, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary, N.J.

Rev. G. H. 5. WALPOLE, D.D., Rector ef Lambeth.

Rev. BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary, N.J.

Rev. GEORGE C. WATT, B.D., Edinkillie.

Rev. THOMAS H. WeErr, B.D., M.R.A.S., Lecturer in Hebrew and Arabic in the University of Glasgow.

Professor Dr. JOHANNES WEISS of the University of Marburg.

Rev. Newport J. ἢ. WHITE, D.D., Lecturer in Hebrew and Divinity in the University of

Dublin, and Canon of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

tev. B. WHITEFOORD, D.D., Prebendary of Salis- bury Cathedral and Principal of the Theological College, Salisbury.

Rev. A. R. WHITHAM, M.A., Principal of the Culham Training College, Abingdon.

Rev. J. R. WILLIS, B.D., Rector of Preban and Moyne, Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow.

HERBERT G. Woop, M.A., Fellow of Jesus Col- lege, Cambridge.

Rev. NATHAN E. Woop, President of the Theo- logical Seminary, and Professor of Christian Theology, Newton Centre, Mass.

Rev. ARTHUR W. WOTHERSPOON, M.A., Glasgow. Rey. T. H. Wricat, Edinburgh.

Rev. ANDREW C. ZENOS, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology in the M‘Cormick Theo- logical Seminary, Chicago.

PiCVVONAR Y. Of eR iS 'E

ΔΝ) ΤΠ Te

GOSPELS

ae ee

A

AARON.—The name occurs only 5 times in the NT. Three of the passages contain historical references only: Lk 1° where Elisabeth is de- scribed as ‘ of the daughters of Aaron’; Ac 7% which refers to the request of the Israelites that Aaron would ‘make them gods’; and He 9: ‘Aaron’s rod that budded.’ The other two pas- sages refer to Aaron’s office as high priest, and are directly concerned with the Christian doctrine of the priesthood of Christ. In He 54 we read, ‘ And no man taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron’; and He 7}! speaks of another priest after the order of Mel- chizedek, who should ‘not be reckoned after the order of Aaron.’ It is as the representative high priest that Aaron has been regarded as a type of Christ.

The two points on which the writer of Hebrews insists are, one of comparison, and one of contrast. On the one hand, Christ, like Aaron, did not take His priestly office on Himself, but was directly appointed by God (5°) ; on the other, the Aaronic type of priesthood is sharply distinguished from that of our Lord in certain fundamental respects. Christ was indeed divinely appointed: He was

repared for service, in being made like His

rethren (217), and fitted by His aya pauhy, (435) and fidelity to undertake priestly work on their behalf ; through His death on the cross He offered Himself as a sacrifice, apparently on earth and certainly in heaven as a temple not made with hands (9%); He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him as priest, seeing He ever lives to make priestly intercession for them (7%). Thus far He was Aaron’s antitype. But the analogy fails most seriously in certain important features, as the writer of Hebrews

shows. Christ’s priesthood was not according to the Law. If He were on earth, He would not be

a priest at all, springing as He did from Judah, not from Levi (74). He did not hold His office in virtue of earthly descent, nor was He limited to an earthly sanctuary, nor did He present to God a sin-offering which could be, or needed to be, frequently repeated (9). None of the sacrifices of the Law could ‘make perfect as pertaining to the conscience’ (9°). At best they procured only a limited access to God. Into the holiest place

the high priest. was permitted to enter only once a year, and then in virtue of sacrifices offered for VOL. I.—I

his own sins, as well as the people’s (9). Christ’s priesthood was ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ (6°), eternal: His sacrifice was a spiritual one, offered once for all; it is impossible to think of the repetition on earth of that offering which ‘through (the) eternal Spirit’ (914) our glorified High Priest presents continually in ‘a more per- fect tabernacle’ (v.!) in heaven itself, for us. He was made a priest, not according to any legal enactment belonging to earth and finding its ex- pression in the flesh ; but dynamically, according to the enduring power of an indissoluble life (71°).

Thus Christ may well be spoken of as the second Adam, but not as a second Aaron. The lines of Bishop Wordsworth’s hymn, ‘Now our heavenly Aaron enters, Through His blood within the veil,’ can be defended only in so far as the name Aaron is synonymous with high priest. The personal name suggests just those limitations which the generic name avoids, and which the writer of Hebrews expressly warns us must on no account be attributed to our great High Priest who has passed into the heavens. So far as the doctrine of Christ is concerned, it is well to follow Scripture usage and to speak of Him as our Eternal High Priest, rather than to press an analogical or typical relation to Aaron, which fails at many cardinal points.

LITERATURE.—For the further discussion of the subject see Westcott and A. B. Davidson on Hebrews, especially the detached note of the latter on the Priesthood of Christ ; also Milligan’s Baird Lectures on Vhe Ascension and Heavenly

Priesthood of our Lord, and the art. of Dr. Denney on ‘ Priest- hood in NT’ in Hastings’ DB, vol. iv. W,'T. DAVISON.

ABBA.—An Aramaic word preserved by St. Mark in our Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane (14°6 ᾿Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ, πάντα δυνατά σοι), and given twice in the same association with ὁ πατήρ by St. Paul (Ro 8:5 ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν, ABBA ὁ πατήρ; and Gal 46 ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κρᾶζον, ᾿Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ). A difficulty arises both as to the spelling and the pronunciation of the word Abba, and also as to its being found in all the above passages joined to ὁ πατήρ.

1. Abba (ἀββᾶ) corresponds to the Aramaic x2x abbd, which is the definite state of as dbh (con- struct state 2x abh), and means ‘ Father,’ unless it is used for ‘my Father’ (sax for 3 Ν) as in Gn 19548

(Targ. of Onkelos and pseudo-Jonathan ; see Dal-

mes

2 ABBA

ABBA

man, Aramdisch-Neuhebrdisches Worterbuch, s.v., Gramm. p. 162, and Words of Jesus, p. 192 [Dal- man says that the suffix of 1 pers. sing. is ‘ deliber- ately avoided with 2s and is supplied by the de- terminative form’]). It is not, however, quite certain that the word was pronounced abéd in Palestine in our Lord’s time. As the points were not invented till many centuries after, we cannot be sure that 7464 was then the definite state rather than abhd as in Syriac ; and we have no indication except the Greek transliteration that the 6 was then doubled. But the fact that, when points were first used (A.D. 700 3), the daghesh was employed for the definite state of this word in the Targumic litera- ture, coupled with the doubling of the β in the Greek, affords a presumption that the ὁ was hard and doubled in this word at the beginning of our era [Dalman gives for the definite state sax Gn 4419. or sa Nu 254, or in Palestinian Targum also 82x; with other pronominal suffixes we have ‘71% ete., and the pl. definite state is snq3x). The Syriac, on the other hand, has ὦ aspirated through-

i ῦ AY out, 2| abh, 1o| abhad (pron. av, avd, or aw,

awd), ete., and the distinction between 15] aba, a spiritual father, and to} ava, a natural father,

which the grammarians make, appears not to be founded on any certain basis, nor to agree with the manuscripts (Payne-Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus,

0 J s.v.). The proper name 15] also in Syriac has always aspirated 6, while Dalman (Worterbuch) gives for Targumic zx, and says it is an ab- breviation of 7:2x. In Mk 1456 (Peshitta) Pusey

0 a and Gwilliam give 15] as in Massora 1 in the

British Museum (Codex Additionalis 12138, Nes- torianus, A.D. 899); the American edition prints

12] (1.6. with .9) in all three NT places; but this

is rather a following of the grammarians than of good manuscripts. It is very noteworthy, however, that the Harkleian version in the Markan passage

Mf v spells the word last, transliterating the Greek directly back into Syriac, rather than using the Syriac word itself.

John Lightfoot (Hore Hebraice on Mk 1458) remarks that the Targum, in translating the OT, never renders a ‘civil’ father, ὁ.6. a master, prince, lord, etc., by 82x, but only a natural father, or a father who adopts; in the former sense they use some other word. But this throws no light on the pronunciation of Abba.

It is to be noticed that it is not certain how the Greeks of the Ist cent. themselves pronounced ἀββᾶ, whether abba or, as the modern Greeks pro- nounce it, a@vvd. The word is not found in the LXX. It passed into ecclesiastical Latin with a doubled 6, and gave us such words as ‘abbot,’ ‘abbacy,’ etc.

But does it mean ‘ Father’ or ‘my Father’? If it be a Jewish formula or fixed manner of begin- ning prayer, it may well be the latter.. We must, however, note that whatever be the way of ac- counting for ᾿Αββᾶ 6 πατήρ (see below), the origina- tors or originator of that phrase in Greek, whether the Jews, or our Lord, or St. Paul, or the Second Evangelist, seem to have taken ᾿Αββᾶ to mean merely ‘Father.’ And the same is probably true of the translators of the Peshitta. The Sinaitic

oO Syriac, however, appears to read ol my Father

(see below). The Curetonian Syriac is wanting here.

2. We have next to account for the association of A884 in its Greek dress with ὁ πατήρ in all the three places where it occurs in NT. In Mk 14%

0 ῦ oY the Peshitta reads a] 15] ‘Father, my

a? Father,’ and the Sinaitie Syriac has simply Of ‘my Father.’ In Ro 8 and Gal 4° the Peshitta

rT 0 7 reads 15:3] 151]. All these appear to be mere expedients adopted to avoid the awkwardness of

0 repeating 15], and they do not really throw light on the origin of the Greek phrase.

We may first take as a supposition that our Lord, praying in Gethsemane, used the Aramaic language, and therefore said ‘Abba’ only, ard that ὁ πατήρ is the Evangelist’s explanation, for Greek readers, of the Aramaic word. St. Mark undoubtedly reports several Aramaic words, and except in the case of the well-known ‘ Rabbi,’ ‘Rabboni’ (95 10 ete.), explains them. But then he always uses a formula, 6 ἐστιν (317 711: *4) or ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον (5% 15%). It is suggested that in the case of Abba the familiarity of the word would make the connecting formula unnecessary ; but the same consideration would make it unnecessary toexplainit at all. Another suggestion is that the solemnity of the context would make the formula incongruous. The strongest argument for ὁ πατήρ being an addition of the Evangelist is that, what- ever view we take of our Lord’s having made use of Greek in ordinary speech, it is extremely un- likely that His prayers were in that language ; and if He prayed in Aramaic, He would only say ‘Abba.’ It is the common experience of bilingual countries that though the acquired language may be in constant use for commerce or the ordinary purposes of life, the native tongue is tenaciously retained for devotion and prayer. Sanday-Head- lam’s supposition (Romans, in loc.), that our Lord used both words spontaneously, with deep emotion, might. be quite probable if He prayed in the foreign tongue, Greek ; but scarcely so if He prayed in the native Aramaic (see, however, below). :

If ὁ πατήρ be due to St Mark, it is probably not a mere explanation for the benefit of Greek readers. The suggestion that “A884 ὁ πατήρ had become a quasi-liturgical formula, possibly even among the

ews, or more probably among the Christians, would account for its introduction in a prayer, where interpretations would be singularly out of place. And this suggestion would account for St. Paul’s using the phrase twice, in two Epistles written about the same time, indeed, but to two widely distant Churches. St. Paul is not in the habit of introducing Aramaic words (‘ Maran atha’ in 1 Co 162 is an exception), and if he were not quoting a well-known form, it is unlikely that he would have introduced one in writing to the Romans and Galatians. It is not probable, however, that he is quoting or thinking of our Lord’s words in Geth- semane, for there is nothing in the context to suggest this.

If the phrase be a liturgical formula, we may account for it in various ways. J. b. Lightfoot (Galatians, in loc.) suggests that it may have originated among Hellenistic Jews ; or else among Palestinian Jews, after they had learned Greek, as ‘an expression of importunate entreaty.’ He prefers the latter view, thinking that perhaps our Lord Himself used both words. He apparently

means that Jesus took the Greek word into His Aramaic prayer; and he quotes from Schottgen a similar case where a woman entreats a judge and addresses him as 73 "> ‘ My lord, lord,’ the second word being equivalent to the first, except for the

ABEL

possessive suffix, and being a transliteration of κύριε. Chase (‘The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church,’ in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. i. p. 23) has suggested another origin for the phrase, which would place its home, not among the Jews (for which there is no evidence), but among the Christians. He suggests that it is due to the shorter or Lukan form of the Lord’s Prayer (Lk 112%), The Aramaic shorter form would begin with Abba, for the Greek begins with Πάτερ ; and the hypothesis is that the early Christians in the intensity of their devotion repeated the first word of the prayer in either language. A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen in the repetitions for emphasis in Rev 9!! 12% 205, where the names are given in both languages. Such a repetition is possible only in a bilingual country. That it is the shorter form of the Lord’s Prayer that is used (if Dr. Chase’s hypothesis be true), is seen from the Aramaic xix Abba. If the longer form had been in question, Πάτερ ἡμῶν, the initial word of the Aramaic would have had the possessive pronominal suffix of 1 pers. pl., and would be xnas abhind. It is a confirmation of this theory that the words which follow, ‘Not what I will but what thou wilt,’ recall. ‘Thy will be done’ of the Lord’s Prayer; compare especially Mt 26” γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά cov, the exact words of the longer form of the Lord’s Prayer. This shows that both Evangel- ists had that prayer in their minds when relating the agony. The only consideration which militates against the theory is that ὁ πατήρ is used for Πάτερ. The nominative with the article is, however, often used in NT, by a Hebrew analogy, for an emphatic vocative, and the desire for sinphasis may account for its use here. A. J. MACLEAN.

ABEL (527, "A8e\).—1. The name occurs in the Gospels only in Mt 23% || Lk 11°, where Jesus declares that the blood of the prophets will be required of this generation. The passage is one of a series of invectives against Pharisaism, col- lected in Mt 23, parts of which are preserved in Lk 11. 13. 14. 20, 21. Abel is named as the first of the long line of martyrs whose blood had_ been shed during the period covered by the OT, the last being Zachariah (which see). ‘In both cases the ἐκζήτησις is indicated: ‘‘the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” (Gn 419): “the Lord look upon it, and require it” (2 Ch 24”).? In St. Matthew the words are ad- dressed to the Pharisees in the 2nd person : ‘ that upon you may come every righteous blood [1.6. the blood of each righteous person] shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous, until the blood of Zachariah . . . ete.’ In St. Luke the

assage is thrown into the 3rd_ person: ‘ that the

lood of all the prophets which hath been shed

from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel until the blood of Zachariah . . . ete.’

The description of Abel in St. Matthew as ‘ the righteous’ is noteworthy, and should be compared with He 114. In the story of Abel nothing what- ever is said as to his moral character ; the contrast between him and his brother lay in the fact that ‘Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offer- ing ; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.’ The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that it was faith which led Abel to offer the more excellent sacrifice ; but wherein the excellence consisted the narrative of Genesis does not explain. But the expression τοῦ δικαίου seems to reflect the Pharisaic conception of righteousness as that which ‘consisted primarily in the observance of all the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the law’ (cf. Lk 15). Abel’s offering must have been preferred presumably because it was in some way more to

ABGAR 3

God’s liking—more correct. This, however, was not consonant with Christ’s idea of righteousness — ‘except your righteousness shall abound beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 53). It may be concluded, therefore, that St. Luke has preserved the more original form of Christ’s words, and that ‘the righteous’ is an addition in Mt 23% due to current Jewish conceptions.

2. It is possible that Christ had the story of Abel in mind when He spoke of the devil as being ‘a murderer (dv@pwroxrivos) from the beginning,’ i.e. the instigator of murder as he is of lies (Jn 8*), But the passage may be a reference to the intro- duction of death into the world by the fall of Adam.

3. In He 12% the ‘ blood of Abel’ is contrasted with the ‘ blood of sprinkling’ under the new dis- pensation. In Gn 4! God says: ‘ Hark ! (ΠΡ) thy brother’s blood erieth unto me from the ground,’ i.e. it pleads for vengeance. But the blood of sprinkling ‘speaketh something better’ (κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι) : it is the blood shed in ratification of a New Covenant, whose mediator is Jesus.

LIrERATURE.—The most recent commentaries on Matthew and Luke (ad loce.); Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 232 ; Sanday-Headlam, Rumans, pp. 28-31, on δίκαιος and its cognates ; Driver, Genesis (in Westminster commentaries); Dillmann, ‘Genesis,’ in Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. z. AT [Eng. tr. by Stevenson, Edinburgh, 1897]; Marcus Dods, ‘Genesis’ in Ha- positor’s Bible. A. H. M‘NEILE.

ABGAR.— Between the years B.c. 99 and A.D. 217 eight (or ten) kings or toparchs of Edessa in Osrhoéne bore this name. It is with the toparch that ruled in the time of our Saviour, Abgar Ukkéma (‘the Black,’ 6. B.c. 13 to A.D. 50 [Gut- schmid], B.c. 9 to A.D. 46 [Dionysius of Telmahar]), that we are here concerned, owing to the legendary accounts of his correspondence with Jesus, accepted as historical fact by Eusebius, and by him given wide currency. Eusebius (H/ 1. 13) relates, with- out any suggestion of scepticism, that ‘king Ab- gar, who ruled with great glory the nations beyond the Euphrates, being afflicted with a terrible disease which it was beyond the power of human skill to cure, when he heard of the name of Jesus and His miracles, . . . sent a message to Him by a courier and begged Him to heal the disease.’ Eusebius proceeds to impart the letter of Abgar and the answer of Jesus, which he claims to have derived directly from the archives of Edessa, and to have translated (or caused to be translated) literally from Syriac into Greek. The letter of Abgar reads as follows :—

‘ Abgar, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the excellent Saviour who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting. I have heard the reports of thee and of thy cures as performed by thee without medicines or herbs. For it is said that with a word only thou makest the blind to see and the lame to walk, that thou cleansest lepers and castest out impure spirits and demons, and that thou healest those afflicted with lingering diseases, and also that thou raisest the dead. And having heard all these things concerning thee, I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either thou art God and hast come down from heaven to do these things, or else thou who doest these things art the Son of God. Wherefore I have written to thee to ask thee that thou wouldest take the trouble to come even to me and heal the disease which I have. For I have been informed that the Jews are murmuring against thee and are plotting to injure thee. But I have a city, small indeed yet honourable, which may suffice for us both.’

The answer of Jesus runs—

‘Blessed art thou who hast believed in me when thou thyself hast not seen me. For it stands written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved. But in regard to what thou hast written me, that I should come to thee, it 1s necessary for me to fulfil all things here for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to Him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I will

send to thee one of my disciples, that he may heal thy disease and give life to thee and those who are with thee,’

4 ABGAR

ABIATHAR

From an accompanying narrative in the Syriac language, giving an account of the fulfilment of Christ’s promise, Eusebius quotes at considerable length. A brief summary of the contents of this document must here suffice. Judas, also called Thomas, is said to have sent Thaddeus, one of the Seventy, to Edessa, soon after the ascension of Jesus. Arriving in Edessa he took lodgings, and without reporting himself at the court engaged extensively in works of healing. When the king heard thereof he suspected that he was the disciple promised by Jesus, and had him brought to court. On the appearance of Thaddeus ‘a great vision appeared to Abgar in the countenance of Thad- deus,’ which led the former to prostrate himself before the latter, to the astonishment of the courtiers, who did not see the vision. Having become assured that his guest is the promised disciple of Jesus, and that he has come fully em- powered to heal and to save on condition of his exercise of faith, Abgar assures Thaddeus that his faith is so strong that, had it not been for the presence of the Romans, he would have sent an army to destroy the Jews that crucified Jesus. Thaddeus assures him that in fulfilment of the Divine plan of redemption Jesus has been taken up to His Father, and, on a further profession of faith in Father and Son, Thaddeus lays his hands upon the king and healshim. Many other healings follow, accompanied by the preaching of the gospel. At Thaddeus’ suggestion the king summons the citizens as a body to hear the preaching of the word, and afterwards offers him a rich reward, which is magnanimously refused. According to the Syriac document from which Eusebius quotes, the visit of Thaddeus occurred in the year 340 of the era of the Seleucid (corresponding, according to K. Schmidt in PRE, sub voc., to A.D. 29; according to others, A.D. 30, 31, or 32).

From the same Edessene materials Moses of Chorene, the Armenian historian of the middle of the 5th cent., prepared independently of Eusebius an account of the intercourse between Abgar and Christ and His disciples, which attests the general correctness of Eusebius’ work. The fact that Moses was for several years a student in Edessa enhances the value of his account. He represents the reply of Jesus as having been written on His behalf by Thomas the Apostle. In Moses’ account occurs the statement that after his conversion Abgarus wrote letters to the emperor Tiberius, to Narses, king of Assyria, to Ardaches, king of Persia, and others, reeommending Christianity (Hist. Arm. ii. 30-33). Here also appears the legend that Christ sent by Ananias, the courier of Abgar, a picture of Himself impressed upon a handkerchief. This part of the story was still further elaborated by Cedrenus (Hist. Comp. p. 176), who represents Ananias, the courier of Abgar, as himself an artist, and as so overcome by the splendour of the countenance of Jesus when attempting to depict it that he was obliged to desist ; whereupon Christ, having washed His face, wiped it with a towel which retained His likeness. This picture was taken by Ananias to his master, and it became for the city a sort of talisman. This miraculously produced portrait, or what purported to be such, is said to have been transferred to the church of St. Sophia at Constantinople in the 10th cent., and later to have passed thence to the church of St. Sylvester in Rome, where it is still exhibited for the edification of the faithful. A church in

Genoa makes a rival claim to the possession of the original handkerchief portrait.

Any suspicion that Eusebius fabricated the docu- ments that he professes to translate was set aside by the discovery and publication of what have been accepted as the original Syriac documents

(The Doct. of Addai the Apostic, with an English Translation and Notes, by G. Phillips, London, 1876). The Syriac document contains the story of the portrait, which was probably already current in the time of Eusebius. The Syriac version of the story given by Cureton in his Ancient Syriac Documents seems to be an elaborate expansion of that of Eusebius, and to have been composed con- siderably later.

The letter of Christ to Abgar was declared by a Roman Council in 494 or 495 to be spurious. Tille- mont sought to prove the genuineness of the corre- spondence (Memoirs, i. pp. 362, 615), and similar attempts have keen made by Welte (Tvbingen Quartalschr. 1842, p. 335 ff.), Rinck (Zeitschr. 7. Hist. Theol. 1843, ii. pp. 3-26), Phillips (preface to The Doct. of Addai), and Cureton (Ane. Syr.

oc.).

It may be assumed that the documents were forged some time before Eusebius used them. Christianity seems to have been introduced into Osrhoéne during the 2nd cent. A.D. The first king known to have favoured Christianity was Abgar Vul. (bar-Manu), who reigned 176-213, and is said to have been on very intimate terms with Bardesanes, the scholarly Gnostic. A Christian church building modelled after the temple in Jeru- salem existed in Edessa some time before 202, until, according to the Edessene Chronicle, it was destroyed (middle of the 6th cent.) by flood. As Edessa grew in importance as a Christian centre, with its theological school, its ambition for dis- tinction may have led some not over-scrupulous ecclesiastic to fabricate these documents and_ to palm them off on the too eredulous authorities. The forgery may have occurred early in the 3rd cent. (Zahn), but more probably early in the 4th. The only piece of real information that has come down to us regarding the Abgar of the time of Christ is a very uncomplimentary reference in Tacitus (Ann. xii. 12. 14).

LivErATURE.—In addition to the works already mentioned, special reference should be made to Lipsius, Die edessenische Abgarsage, 1880, where the available materials are brought under review and critically tested ; cf. also Matthes, Die edes- senische Abgarsage auf ihre Fortbildung untersucht, 1882 ; Tixeron, Les origines de Uéglise d’Edesse et la légende d’ Abgar, 1888 ; Farrar, Christ in Art, p. 79f.

ALBERT HENRY NEWMAN,

ABIA (AV of Mt 1’, Lk 1°).—See ABIJAH.

ABIATHAR.—The son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli. Heis mentioned in Mk 2” 6 ‘Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread?’ The RV, however, translates, ‘when Abiathar was high priest.’ The reference is evidently to 18S 2], where, according to the Hebrew text, Ahimelech gives David the sacred bread. There is thus a discrepancy between the two passages. The facts are these:—The AV, cited above, follows the reading of A and Ὁ (ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ τοὺ ἀρχιερέω5), RV follows that of B and δὲ (which omit the article) and the Vulgate (‘sub Abiathar principe sacer- dotum’). The clause is omitted altogether by D. In the MT of 1S 21 and 22 and in Ps 52? (title) the high priest is Ahimelech the son of Ahitub and the father of David’s friend Abiathar. In the Greek text of all these passages, however, the name is Abimelech. In 28 8! and 1 Ch 24% Ahimelech (in 1 Ch 18:6 Abimelech) the son of Abiathar is priest along with Zadok, but it is generally supposed that Abiathar the son of Ahimelech is meant. Ahimelech is usually held to be identical also with Ahijah the son of Ahitub OP S428)

ABIDING

ABIDING 5

The discrepancy between Mk 2% and 1S 21f. has been sought to be accounted for in several ways. It may readily be due to a mere lapsus memorie or calamt, Abiathar, David’s high priest, being a much more familiar figure than his father, just as in Jer 271 ‘Jehoiakim’ is a slip for Zede-

iah. It is not impossible that father and son may each have borne both names, according to Arab usage, Abiathar corresponding to the Arab kunyah, and Ahimelech being the isin or lakab, or name proper. It has been suggested that the reference in St. Mark is not to 18S 21 at all, but to some later unrecorded incident, such as might have occurred during the flight from Absalom. But this is very improbable.* Τ. Η. Witt:

ABIDING.—Of the three possible renderings of the Greek μονή and μένω, ‘remaining, to remain,’ ‘dwelling, to dwell,’ ‘abiding, to abide,’ the last is the most satisfactory. The first has the advantage of being akin to the Greek in deriva- tion, but it is too passive in its sense, and in so far as it includes the conception of expectation it is misleading; the second is too local, and is rather the fitting rendering of κατοικία, κατοικέω ; the last is an adequate though not a perfect rendering. ‘ Mansions’ (RVm ‘abiding-places’) is the stately rendering (AV and RV), through the Vulg. mansiones, of the noun in Jn 14°; but it be- comes impossible in v.*? of the same chapter when the translators fall back on ‘abode.’ Further, in the English of to-day ‘mansion’ suggests merely a building, and that of an ostentatious type. The Scottish ‘manse,’ self-contained, modest, and secure, would be a nearly exact equivalent if it carried with it more than the idea of a dwelling- house ; yet neither it nor ‘mansion’ has any corre- spondent verb.

Students who desire to get at the full meaning of verb or noun will find all that is needful in the etymological paragraph sib voc. μένω in the larger edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon. They will discover how rich in language product is the root of this word. The inquiry cannot be pursued further here. It is enough to say that locality enters very slightly into its conception, and that what is dominant is ethical. The leading idea is that of steadfast continuance. This is apparent the moment one turns to the derivative ὑπομονή (cf. Ro 27), the term of Stoic virtue boldly incor- porated and transmuted in Christian usage and experience. The primitive noun, however (μονή), reminds Christians more clearly of the sphere in which it is contained, of a life in which it survives, of a power not its own on which it depends, and which in turn it exercises. If, as will be shown, the ethical import of μένω and μονή is dominant in the Gospels, the instances where the verb has a purely local sense, the sense of stopping or staying, may be dismissed. As a matter of fact, the instances are almost entirely confined to the Synoptists, and occur but in twelve passages; the use of the noun is purely Johannine. Only twice in the Synoptists does the verb occur in relation to persons, viz. Lk 24% in the pathetic appeal of Cleopas and his anonymous comrade, and the gracious response of the risen Christ ; and even here there is no ethical significance, for the pre- positions which link the verb and the personal pronouns imply only association (μεῖνον μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν), or joint action (εἰσῆλθεν τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν αὐτοῖς). Ὁ

ΑΒ soon as the student turns from the Synoptists to the Johannine literature, the idea of ‘mansion’ (one could wish it were a theological term) becomes full, luminous, and suggestive. St. John uses the verb μένω only thrice in its literal sense in the

* Swete (St. Mark, ad loc.) suggests that the clause ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, which is peculiar to Mark, may be an editorial note.

Gospel (2132 4% 10%); he seems almost jealously to reserve it for metaphorical, z.e. ethical, application. We are not here concerned with St. John’s letters, but it is pertinent to observe that μένω occurs 23 times therein, while it is used in the Gospel some 35 times. Moreover, as if the Evangelist and letter-writer would not suffer the spiritual point to be lost, he perpetually reminds his readers and children of the sphere of ‘ mansion,’ and the source of its power. With a singular and marked uni- formity, he employs the preposition ἐν in connexion with the verb. The Evangelist presses the idea not only of intimate relationship, but also of resultant power and blessing.

It is to be observed that, until we reach the great ‘discourses in the chamber and on the way (chs. 14 and 15), we have only passing hints of the nature of the Abiding. The former chapter unfolds its meaning. The difficulties besetting the interpretation of these discourses are familiar to all students of the Fourth Gospel, and need not be dealt with here. They are not adequately met by references to the subjectivity or mysticism of the Evangelist. Our modes of thought, as Bishop Westcott reminds us,* follow a logical sequence ; Hebrew modes of thought follow a moral sequence. The sermon to the Apostles in the chamber, especi- ally, bears this moral impress throughout, and is rightly interpreted as the complement to the Sermon on the Mount. But while the connexion is thus somewhat precarious to the reader, certain great ideas or conceptions of the Abiding stand luminously forth for the devout mind. Here is set forth—(1) the Abiding of Christ in the Father ; (2) the Abiding of Christ in the Church, as in the individual believer; (3) the issues of the Abiding.

1. The Abiding of Christ in the Father.—Here the student is, indeed, on ground most holy. He may not add to the Lord’s words, he trembles as he ventures to interpret them. He feels with the patriarch that this place in the Scriptures is dread- ful—full of a holy awe. Thus much, however, may be said, that the abiding of Christ in the Father belongs wholly to the operation and energy of the Holy Spirit. The keynote of this truth is struck by the testimony of the Baptist in the preamble of the Gospel (Jn 153). It is important to notice that; that which was the object of sight to the Baptist was not merely the descent of the Holy Spirit, but the Abiding. And here the careful student will observe that, though the preposition used in these verses is not ἐν but ἐπί, yet the employment of the latter is necessary as linking the descent and the continuous indwelling of the Spirit in the Son. But if any hesitation remains as to the view that the character and sphere of Christ’s abiding in the Father lies in and through the indwelling Spirit, it must disappear on con- sideration of our Lord’s words (Jn 14”), “At that day [the day of realized life] ye shall come to know [by the Spirit what is at present a matter of faith only] that I am in my Father.’ The thought is inevitably linked with the Spirit’s work both in Him and for them. When, therefore, the Lord invites His own to abide in His love (151°), He does not merely imply that His love is the atmosphere of their discipleship, but, as St. Augustine t+ sug- gests, He invites them to abide in that Holy Spirit whose love as fully permeates Him as it is imperfectly exhibited in His disciples.

2. The Abiding of Christ in the Church, as in the individual believer.—Our Lord’s teaching as to the Abiding in Him refers even more closely to the Church than to the individual. Jn 14 and 15 are penetrated through and through by Pente-

* Introd. to the Gospel of St. John, ii. 7. + Hom. in Joan. xiv. No. Ixxiv, ad jin.

6 ABILJAH

ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

costal thought and Pentecostal expectations. Christ looked eagerly forward to the birthday of the Spirit-bearing body. He could and does, indeed, fully abide in the heart of each individual believer; but that believer is not a mere unit standing solitary and unsupported. The indivi- dual disciple will be a terrible loser unless he realize his incorporation, his oneness with the universal body, the body of Christ. But as if to make sure that this great truth should never escape His own down the ages, Christ introduces the great figure of the Vine and the branches (15'). The vine was already the symbol of the ancient Church ;* Christ speaks of Himself as the true, the ideal Vine. But it is as a formula incomplete without the complement of v.° “1 am the Vine, ye are the branches.’ As a vine is inconceivable without branches,+ so in all devoutness it may be said He is inconceivable without His disciples. Again, they draw their life from abiding in Him. The life may be imperfectly realized, the fruitage may be disappointing, it may be nothing but leaves (Mt 21); the task of discipline, or of cleansing (καθαίρειν, Jn 157) is in the hands of the Great Husbandman. Thus as in ancient Israel union with the Church nation was the condition of life, so in the new dispensation the condition of life was to be the abiding in Christ. As apart from the vine the branches are useless since the living sap is therein no longer, so separated from Christ there can be no productiveness in Christian lives. St. John bears record of one more thought of the highest consolation to Christian hearts. There is a true analogy and correspondence between the abiding of Christ in the Father and the abiding of believers in Him (1519). Our abidings in Christ, oiten so sadly brief, uncertain, precarious, through the consequences of sin, have still their sublime counterpart in the abiding of Christ in the Father.

3. The issues of the Abiding.--We have seen that the Abiding finally depends upon the Spirit’s work, whether in the Church or in the individual heart. The first fruit of that Spirit is love. The Spirit moves in this sphere, He manifests and expresses Himself in love. Thus love furnishes the test of the indwelling, as truly as it contains the pledge of a fruitful issue. According, moreover, to Johannine teaching, this love spread abroad in the hearts of believers is not a stagnant or senti- mental afiection. Of the basal or abiding virtues (1 Co 1315) it is the greatest because of its fruitful action. St. John presents another aspect of this truth when he shows that obedience and love are strictly correlated (Jn 1510). This love is seen in action. It doeth the will, and the reward of such loving obedience is final and complete. Those who in this dutiful and affectionate temper keep the commandments are raised by Christ Eon the base of bond-service to the height of friendship. It is enough—the fiat has gone forth—‘such ones I have called friends.’ +

LITERATURE.—A. Maclaren, Holy of Holies, 190; A. Murray, Abide in Christ; T. D. Bernard, Central Teaching of Jesus Christ, 219; J. H. Jowett, Apostolic Optimism, 225; B. F. Westcott, Peterborough Sermons, 49, 61; Sir A. Blackwood, Christian Service, 46; G. B. Stevens, Johannine Theology, 258.

B. WHITEFOORD.

ABIJAH (a:38, ᾿Αβιά, ‘Jah is my father’; or more probably without the particularizing pronoun, ‘Jah is father ’).—4. Son of Rehoboam (Mt 117) by Maacah (2 Ch 11°—see art. ‘Maacah’ No. 3 in Hastings’ DB ili. 180). Abijah reigned over Judah from about B.C. 920, and the impressions made by him are given with some variety in 1 K 15° and by a later tradition in 2 Ch 13***. His name is introduced by St. Matthew simply as a link in the pedigree,

* Hos 101, Is 5'UF, Jer 221,

1 Westcott’s Commentary, in loco. t Jn 1515.

in which it is shown that Jesus was both of Jewish and of royal stock.

2. A descendant of Eleazar, son of Aaron. The name was attached to the eighth of the twenty- four courses into which the priests were alleged to have been divided by David (1 Ch 241). Mem- bers of only four courses seem to have returned from the Captivity (Neh 7%, Ezr 250:Ὁ9 10!%-2), According to Jerus. Talm. Taanith, iv. 68, these men were divided into twenty-four courses with a view to restore the ancient arrangement. ‘The authority for this statement is not of the best kind; but the statement itself is substantially confirmed by Neh 12'’, where twenty-two groups are referred to (in Neh 12!***! the number has fallen to twenty-one, and two of the courses are grouped under a single representative), and by Ezr 8%, where two other priestly families are mentioned. Slight changes were probably made in the classification dur- ing the process of the resettlement of the country ; but by the time of the Chronicler the arrangement seems to have become fixed. The course of Abijah is not mentioned amongst those that returned from the Exile; but in one of the later rearrangements the name was attached to a course that afterwards included Zacharias (Lk 15). Each course was on duty for a week at a time, but all were expected to officiate as needed at the three great annual festivals. It is not possible with our present materials to determine exactly how the various services were divided amongst the members of a course, or at what times in the year Zacharias would be on duty. Nor does his inclusion in the course of Abijah carry with it lineal descent through that line from Aaron. Rh. W. Moss.

ABILENE.—Mentioned in Lk 3! as the district of which Lysanias was tetrarch in the 15th year of Tiberius It was called after its capital Abila, situated on the Barada, about 18 miles from Damni- ascus, and represented by the modern village of Suk. The identity of Sué with Abila is confirmed by a Roman rock-inscription to the west of the town. According to popular tradition, the name Abila is derived from Abel, who was buried by Cain in a tomb which is still pointed out in the neighbourhood. Little is known of the history of Abilene at the time referred to by St. Luke; but when Tiberius died in A.D. 37, some ten years later, the tetrarchy of Lysanias was bestowed by Caligula on Herod Agrippa 1. (Jos. Ané. XVII. v1. 10), and this grant was confirmed in A.D. 41 by Claudius (ΧΙΧ. v. 1; BJ UU. xi. 5). On the death of Agrippa I. (A.D. 44) his dominions passed into the charge of Roman procurators (Ané. XIX. ix. 2; BJ τ΄. xi. 6), but in A.D. 53 some parts of them, including Abilene, were granted by Claudius to Agrippa Il. (Ant, XX. vil. 1; BJ II. xii. 8), and remained in his possession till his death in A.D. 100. See LYSANIAS.

LITERATURE.—Schirer, HJP τ. ii. 335ff. Robinson, Later BRP 479 ff.; Porter, Giant Cities of Bashan, 352 f.; Conder, Tent Work in Pal. 127; SWAP, Special Papers.

JAMES PATRICK.

ABIUD (Αβιούδ).---Α son of Zerubbabel, Mt 113, The name appears in the OT in the form dAbihud (max ‘Father is glory’), 1 Ch 8°.

ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς épnusoews).—This phrase is found in the NT only in Mt 9415 and Mk 13%, in both cases forming part of the passage in which Christ predicts the woes to come on the Jews, culminating in the de- struction of Jerusalem. St. Mark’s words, which

are probably more exact than those of St. Matthew, are: ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ (ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω), τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ Three points in this

φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰ ὄρη, K.T.X.

ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

account are to be noticed : (1) the change of gender * τὸ βδέλυγμα- ἑστηκότα (cf. 2 Th 26:1, Rev 2114); (2) the ‘editorial note’ ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, calling special attention to the prophecy (cf. Dn 9%, Rev 2? 1318) ; (3) the command to flee to the mountains, which seems to have been obeyed by the Christians who escaped to Pella (Euseb. HZ iii. 5 ; Epiphan. Heres. xxix. 7). St. Matthew characteristically adds the words (absent from the best MSS [RBL] of St. Mark) τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου ; substi- tutes the neuter ἑστός for the mase. ἑστηκότα ; and instead of the quite general phrase ὅπου οὐ de? has the more definite ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ,- —an expression which may refer to the Temple (cf. Ac 6 2138). but (with- out the article) may mean nothing more than ‘on holy ground.’ To the Jews all Jerusalem (and, indeed, all Palestine) was holy (2 Mae 17 31). St. Luke, writing most probably after the destruction of Jerusalem, omits the ‘editorial note’; and for ὅταν ἴδητε TO βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως substitutes ὅταν ἴδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων ᾿᾽Ιερου- σαλήμ (215).

The phrase we are considering occurs three times

in the LXX of Daniel : + 9% (86. τῶν ἐρημώσεων), 1151 (86. ἐρημώσεως) and 12" (ef. 815), and is quoted in 1 Mae 153, The original reference is clearly to the desecration of the Temple by the soldiers ot Antio- chus Epiphanes, the ceasing of the daily burnt- ofiering, and the erection of an idol-altar upon the ereat Altar of Sacrifice in B.c. 168 (1 Mae 13-59; Jos. Ant. xu. v. 4, Βύ τ. 1. 1). Thus it is plain that Christ, in quoting the words of Daniel, intends to foretell a desecration of the Temple (or perhaps of the Holy City) resembling that of Antiochus, and resulting in the destruction of the national life and religion. Josephus (Ant. X. xi. 7) draws a similar parallel between the Jewish mis- fortunes under Antiochus and the desolation caused by the Romans (ὁ Aavindos καὶ περὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας ἀνέγραψε, καὶ ὅτι ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἐρημωθήσεται). But the precise reference is not so clear. _ (1) Bleek, Alford, Mansel, and others explain it of the desecration of the Temple by the Zeaiots just before the investment of Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. BJ Iv. ili. 6-8, vi. 3). Having seized the Temple, they made it a stronghold, and ‘entered the sanctuary with polluted feet’ (μεμιασμένοις τοῖς ποσὶ παρήεσαν eis τὸ ἅγιον). In opposition to Ananus, they set up as high priest one Phannias, ‘a man not only unworthy of the high priesthood, but ignorant of what the high priesthood was’ (ἀνὴρ οὐ μόνον ἀνάξιος ἀρχιερεὺς GAN οὐδ᾽ ἐπιστάμενος σαφῶς τί ποτ᾽ ἣν ἀρχιερωσύνη. The Temple precincts were detiled with blood, and Ananus was murdered. His murder, says Josephus, was the beginning of the capture οἵ the city (οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοιμι δ᾽ εἰπὼν ἁλώσεως ἄρξαι τῇ πόλει τὸν ᾿Ανάνου θάνατον). In sup- port of this view it is urged (a) that the ‘little Apocalypse’ (2 Th 2”, a passage closely resem- bling this) clearly contemplates a Jewish apostasy ; (6) that the eee used in Daniel (73~¥ = βδέλυγμα) is properly used not of idolatry in the abstract, but of idolatry or false worship adopted by Jews (1 K 11°, 2K 23%, Ezk 5"); (6) that there was among the Jews a tradition to the effect that Jerusalem would be destroyed if their own hands should pollute the Temple of God (ἐὰν χεῖρες οἰκεῖαι προμιάνωσι τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τέμενος, Jos. BJ Iv. vi. 3).

* Dr. A. Wright (Synopsis2, 131) says that the masculine indi- cates that St. Mark interprets τὸ βδέλυγμα to signify a man. But this does not seem necessary. The masc. appears to denote a personification rather than a person. Such personifications are not uncommon in prophetic and apocalyptic literature (Ezk 38, Rev 21 [ayyeacs] 220 [Isla Ber] 123 [δρά κων]). In 2 Th 29 ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας (ΜΞ Ὁ) Βελίαρ) may denote not a person, but a sin (ἀποστασία); see Nestle in Expos. Times, July 1905, p. 472f.

+ The Hebrew text and its meaning are doubtful (see A. A.

Bevan, Daniel, p. 192). Our Lord adopted the current view with which the LXX had made the Jews familiar.

ABOVE AND BELOW 7

(2) Others (Bengel, Swete, Weiss) explain it by reference to the investment of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. A modification of this view is that of H. A. W. Meyer, who explains it of the ‘doings of the heathen conquerors during and after the capture of the Temple.’ When. the city was taken, sacrifices were offered in the Temple to the standards (BJ vi. vi. 1, οἵ. Tertullian, Apol. 16). Between the first appearance of the toman armies before Jerusalem (A.D. 66) and the final investment by Titus (just before Passover

D. 70), there would be ample time for flight ‘to the mountains.’ Even after the final investment there would be opportunities for ‘those in Judia’ to escape. St. Luke’s words (2159) are quoted in support of this view.

(3) Theodoret and other early Commentators , refer the prophecy to the attempt of Pilate to set up effigies of the emperor in Jerusalem (BJ 11. 1x. -2).

(4) Spitta (Offenb. des Joh. 493) thinks it has to do with the order of Caligula to erect in the Temple a statue of himself, to which Divine honours were to be paid (An. XVIII. viii. 8). This order, though never executed, caused widespread apprehension among the Jews.

(5) Jerome (Commentary on Mt 24) suggests that the words may be understood of the eques- trian statue of Hadrian, which in his time stood on the site of the Holy of Holies. Similarly, Chrysostom and others refer them to the statue of Titus erected on the site of the Temple.

(6) Bousset treats the passage as strictly escha- tological, and as referring to an Antichrist who should appear in the ‘last days. *

Of these views (1) and (2) are the most probable. Considerations of chronology make (3), (4), and (5) more than doubtful, while the warnings that the events predicted should come to pass soon (Mt 2433. 34 Mk 1378-89, Lk 219-83) and the command to flee ‘to the mountains’ seem fatal to (0). Between (1) and (2) the choice is not easy, though the balance of evidence is on the whole in favour of (1). St. Luke’s language (ὅταν ἴδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ) is not decisive. He may not have intended his words to be an exact repro- ducticn of Christ’s words so much as an accommo- dation of them which would be readily understood by his Gentile readers.

LITERATURE.—R. W. Newton on Mt 24 (1879); Bousset, Der Antichrist (1885), English tr. by A. H. Keane, 1896; J. H. Russell, The Parousia (1887); articles in Hastings’ DB (by 5. R. Driver), Encyc. Bibl. (by T. K. Cheyne), Smith’s DB? (by W. L. Bevan) ; the Commentaries of Bengel, Cornelius a Lapide, H. A. W. Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Mansel (in Speaker's Commentary on NT, i. 139), H. B. Swete, St. Mark, ad loc.; A. A. Bevan, The Book of Daniel, ad loc. H. W. FULFORD.

ABOVE AND BELOW.—_4. As cosmological terms. Like all similar expressions (ascent, descent, etc.), they presented to early ages a clear-cut image, which has disappeared with the rise of modern astronomy. But this is rather a gain than a loss. Here, as in so many other cases, the later know- ledge is an aid to faith. At the beginning of the Christian era the earth was still regarded as a fixed body placed at the centre of the Universe, with the heavens surrounding it as vast spheres. But we know now that it is only a small planet revolving round the sun, which also has a ‘solar way, so immense and obscure that it is not yet determined: while the whole sidereal system—of which our constellation forms a ‘mere speck “—is ‘alive with movements’ too complex to be under-

* Some (Keim, Holtzmann, Cheyne) hold the passage to be part of an independent Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) Apocalypse inserted subsequently in the Gospels. But it occurs in all the Synoptists, and ‘it is difficult to think that even these words

. .. are without a substantial basis in the words of Christ’ (Driver).

8 ABOVE AND BELOW

stood. While, therefore, ‘above and below’ (like ‘east,’ ‘west,’ ‘north,’ ‘south’) would have for the ancients an absolute and cosmic, they can have for us only arelative and phenomenal, significance. We stil) use the old terms, just as we still speak of the rising sun, but we do so with a new interpretation. They have no meaning in a boundless Universe save in relation to our observation, and appearances are misleading. But these wider views of the Uni- verse should help us to realize that all language involving conceptions of time and space is utterly inadequate to express spiritual realities.

2. For the spiritual significance of these and kindred terms we turn first of all to Jn 8°, Manifestly, ‘I am from above’ (ἐκ τῶν dvw)=‘I1 came forth and am come from God’; and clearly also, ‘ Ye are from beneath’ (ἐκ τῶν xatw)=‘ Ye are of this world,’ ‘Ye are of your father, the devil.’ ‘The source of My life is above, z.e. in My Father; ye draw your inspiration from below, 7.e. from a malign spirit of darkness.’ This is the spiritual significance of ‘above and below.’ To be ‘born again,’ or ‘born from above’ (ἄνωθεν) (Jn 3°), is to be ‘born of God’ (Jn 115). To receive power ‘ from above’ (ἄνωθεν), as in the case of Pilate (Jn 191), is to receive it from God (Ro 131). The wisdom which is from deneath is ‘ earthly, sensual, devilish’ (Ja 3"); while the wisdom which is ‘from above’ ‘is of God’ (cf. 15 3%). The following passages may also be consulted: Jn 33! 6 1678 201, ROM Oss Cols:

3. But, as has been already suggested, in using these and all similar terms, it is important to bear in mind their inadequacy and limitations. Not merely has theology suffered to an extent that is little realized, but the spiritual life of thousands has been impoverished through a tenacious clinging to an order of ideas in a region where they no longer apply. The difficulty, of course, is that we must employ such categories of thought even though we are compelled to recognize their inade- quacy. ‘A danger besets us in the gravest shape when we endeavour to give distinctness to the unseen world. We transfer, and we must transfer, the language of earth, the imagery of succession in time and space, to an order of being to which, as far as we know, it is wholly inapplicable. We cannot properly employ such terms as ‘‘ before” and “after,” ‘‘here” and ‘‘ there,” of God or of Spirit. All is, is at once, is present, to Him; and the revelations of the Risen Lord seem to be designed in part to teach us that, though He resumed all that belongs to the perfection of man’s nature, He was not bound by the conditions which we are forced to connect with it’ (Westcott, 7he Historic Faith, p. 74). We invoke ‘our Father in heaven,’ not as One who is divided from us by immeasurable tracts of space, but as far beyond our ignorance and sin—infinitely above us, yet unspeakably near. ‘Speak to Him thou for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can

meet,— Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.’

So, when the Apostle bids us ‘seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God’ (Col 3'), we must shake off the in- cumbent thought of immeasurable distances to be crossed. And when we think of Christ’s Ascension into heaven, we must not conceive of it as a flight into some far-off region, but as His passing into a state of existence (of which we gain hints during the great forty days) which we can describe only by employing words which, in the very act of using them, we see to be utterly inadequate. He has gone into a state which we cannot even imagina- tively picture to ourselves without robbing it of much of its truth.

LiTrRATURE.—Westcott, Gospel of St. John; F. Ὁ. Maurice, The Gospel of St. John [especially valuable]. If the reader

es

ABRAHAM

wishes to pursue the -subject of the inadequacy of the cate- gories of the understanding, and of the concepts of time and space in relation to spiritual realities, he will find an ample field of investigation by beginning with Kant’s Critique of the Pure leason, and then, if he cares to, following the discussion into more recent works of Philosophy. He will find two valuable chapters (vi. and vii.) in Caird’s Intro- duction to the Philosophy of Religion, dealing with the sub- ject. ARTHUR JENKINSON.

ABRAHAM.—It is noteworthy that while in the Synoptic Gospels references to the patriarch Abraham are comparatively frequent, and his per- sonality and relation to Israel form part of the historical background which they presuppose, and of the thoughts and conceptions which are their national inheritance, in the Gospel of St. John his name does not appear except in ch. 8. In the Synoptists he is the great historical ancestor of the Jews, holding a unique place in their reve- rence and affections; he is their father, as they are each of them his children (Mt 3° |j Lk 38, Lk 1316 1674-89 19°), To this the introductory title of St. Matthew’s Gospel testifies ; it is ‘the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ And in the genealogical record that follows, his name stands at the head (Mt 1°), and through equally graduated stages,—epochs marked by the name of Israel’s most famous king, and by the nation’s most bitter humiliation (ν.}7), —the ascent of the Christ is traced to the great fountain and source of all Jewish privilege and life. It is otherwise in the genealogy of St. Luke; and the difference indicates the different standpoints of Jewish and Gentile theught. Here the historian records no halting-places in his genealogy, but carries it back in an uninterrupted chain, of which the patriarch Abraham forms but one link (Lk 3%), to its ultimate source in God. See art. GENE- ALOGIES.

Other references in the Synoptists are on the same plane of thought, and presuppose a prevalent and accepted faith, which not only knew Abrahaim as the forefather and founder of their national life in the far-off ages of the past, but realized that in some sort or other he was still alive; and it was believed that to be with him, to be received into his bosom (Lk 167"), was the highest felicity that awaited the righteous man after death. Both St. Matthew and St. Mark bear emphatic testimony to this belief, in their narrative of the incident of our Lord’s solution of the dilemma presented by the Sadducees with their tale of the seven brothers. Jesus quotes Ex 3° in proof of the fact of the patriarchs’ resurrection and continued existence (Mt 2282 || Mk 1276 Lk 20%7), inasmuch as the Divine sovereignty here asserted over Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob necessarily implies the conscious life of those who are its subjects. In the Songs of Mary and Zacharias, again (Lk 14%. 6-79), Abraham is the forefather of the race, the recipient of the Divine promises (confirmed by an oath, Lk 1%) of mercy and goodwill to himself and his descendants (cf. Gal 3!6- 18, He 6, Ac 7!7, Ro 4%); and his name is a pledge that the same mercy will not overlook or cease to eare for his children (Lk 155). And, finally, to be with Abraham and his great sons, to ‘sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 81), is the desire and re- ward of the faithful Israelite. This reward, how- ever, Christ teaches, is not confined to the Jews, the sons of Abraham according to the flesh, still less is it one to which they have any right by virtue of the mere fact of physical descent from him ; it is one that will be enjoyed by ‘many’ faith- ful ones from other lands, even to the exclusion of the ‘sons of the kingdom,’ if they prove themselves, like His present opponents, faithless and unworthy (Lk 1555).

The expression ‘ Abraham’s bosom’ (Lk 16°) or

ABRAHAM

ABSOLUTION 9

‘bosoms’ (v.”) * is hardly to be understood as con- veying the idea of an eminent or unusual degree of happiness. It is practically equivalent to ‘ Para- dise.” And the new condition of blessedness in which’ Lazarus finds himself is pre-eminent only in the sense that it is so striking a reversal of the relations previousl existing between Dives and himself. The ἐπεάν says nothing of any superior piety or faith exhibited by Lazarus, which might win for him a more exalted position than others. As far as his present and past are concerned, it but sets forth retributive justice redressing for him and Dives alike the unequal balance of earth. ‘ Abra- ham’s bosom,’ like the Hades in which the rich man lifts up his eyes, is part of the figurative or pictorial setting of the parable, and indicates no more than a haven of repose and felicity, the home and resting-place of the righteous with Abraham, who is the typical example of righteousness. The parable is on the plane of popular belief, and of set purpose employs the imagery which would be most familiar and intelligible to the hearers. +

In conformity with the general character of St. Jolin’s Gospel, the references to Abraham there would seem to imply a more mystical, less matter of fact and as it were prosaic manner of regarding the great patriarch. He is spoken of in the 8th chapter alone, in the course of a discussion with Jews who are said to be believers in Jesus (v.*!). Here also Abraham is the father of the Jews, and they are his children, his seed (vyv.*7- %- °) ; and this posi- tion they claim with pride (vv.* 5), It is a name and position, however, which Christ declares is belied by their conduct, in that, though nomi- nally Abraham’s seed, they do not Abraham’s works, in particular when they conceive and plot the death of an innocent man (vv.*: #). To the charge itself they have no answer, except to reassert their son- ship, in this instance of God Himself (v.“), and to repeat the offensive imputation of demoniacal pos- session (v.*). But with almost startling abruptness, taking advantage of a phrase quietly introduced, which they interpret to imply freedom from physi- cal death for those who accept Christ's teaching, they interrupt with the assertion that Abraham died « and the prophets’ (ν.53), in apparent contra- diction to the tenor and assumption of the language which a moment before they had employed. Pro- bably they meant no more than that he and they, like all other men, had passed through the gate of death which terminates life on earth; and were more intent on gaining a dialectic advantage than on weighing the implications of their own words. But, in spite of them, for the few moments that are left the discourse preserves the high level of other- worldliness, to which Christ’s last words have raised it; and gives occasion for one of the most striking and emphatic assertions in which He is recorded to have passed beyond the boundaries and limitations of mere earthly experience. Abraham has seen His day (v.®). And by silence He con- cedes and affirms the half-indignant, half-con- temptuous and protesting question of the Jews; He has seen Abraham, and is greater even than their father (vv.* °7). The climax is reached in v.°8,—in a brief sentence, which, if it did not bear so evidently the stamp of simplicity and truth, would be said to have been constructed with the most consummate skill and the finest touch of artistic feeling and insight. ‘Before Abraham came into being, —the speaker gathers up and

* The plural form is frequently used by the Greek Fathers, e.g. Chrys. Hom. XL in Gen.: πάντες οἱ δίκαιοι... εὐχῆς ἔργον

ποιοῦνται εἰς TOUS κόλπους τοῦ πατριάρχου καταντῆσαι. ᾿

+ On the phrase ‘Abraham’s bosom,’ see Trench, Ῥαγαῤ[6513, p. 461 ff., and the references there given ; Lightfoot, Hore Heb. et Talm. iii. p. 167 ff.; Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, p- 82; Meyer, and the commentators, in Joc. in Hastings’ DB i. 17>f.

Cf. also Salmond

utilizes Jewish belief in its past and reverence for its head,—‘I am.’ Abraham éyévero; Christ is. Thus was conveyed the answer to their question, ‘ Art thou greater γ᾽ (ν. 58) ; and thus was reasserted with emphasis the measureless distance between Himself and the greatest of the Jews, and a fortiori, as it would appear to the company around, of the whole human race.

It is remarkable and suggestive that in the only notice of the patriarch Jacob that is contained in the Fourth Gospel, ch. 451. 12, the same question is addressed by the woman of Samaria to Christ: ‘Art thou greater than our father Jacob,’—the Dispenser of the new water with its marvellous properties than the actual giver of the well? It was natural and inevitable that one of the questions that more particularly forced itself upon the attention of His contemporaries should be the relation of the Teacher, who had arisen in their midst and who claimed so great things, not only to the earlier prophets, but to the patriarchs and ancestors of the Jewish nation. See further art. JACOB.

The figure of Abraham, therefore, in the Gospels is idealized, and invested with a simple grandeur as the head and founder of the race in the indis- tinct ages of the past, to whom are owing its present privileges, and around whom gather its future hopes. There is, however, no indication of hero-worship, as in the case of the more or less mythical ancestors of other peoples. This conception, moreover, apart from St. John’s Gospel, is purely patriarchal. The characteristic Pauline presentation of Abraham as the father of the faithful in a moral and spiritual sense, as the type and pattern of all righteousness and obedience, as it is developed in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, is absent (cf. also He 1151. Ja 231-383. References to the details of his history are not indeed wanting in the remaining books of the New Testament, but they are all, as it were, witha moral and didactic purpose: Gal 4’, the two covenants; He 7!*-, Abraham and Melchizedek ; Ro 4!8& and He 11% 17, faith exhibited in the aban- donment of his fatherland, in the birth and offering up of Isaae ; Ac 75 16, the same abandonment of his country and the purchase of a tomb from the sons of Emmor in Sychem; ef. 1 P 3°, with a possible reference to Gn 18”.

Later Hebrew literature discussed especially this aspect of his character, and the historical view was superseded by the ethical or theological. Cf., for example, Pirke Aboth v. 4, of the ten testings or trials (msvo3) of Abraham, and Taylor, in loc.; ‘Testament of Abraham,’ ed. M. R. James, Texts and Studies, li. 2.

LITERATURE.—THe authorities cited above, with articles on ‘ Abrahain’ in Bible Dictionaries, and the Commentaries.

A. 5. GEDEN.

ABSOLUTION.—1. Our Lord’s words on Absolu- tion.—We find these in the following passages: Mt 16!%-", especially this word spoken to Peter, ‘1 will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ ; Mt 1818 (spoken to all the Apostles), ‘Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’; Jn 207!" ‘Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send 1 you. And when he had said this he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them: whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.’

The first of the sayings—that about the keys and the binding and loosing—we might have been under some compulsion to take as for Peter alone, if it had not been that the like saying is repeated to all the Apostles afterwards. The words were special to Peter, as the early history of the Acts

shows; but they were not limited to him. And |

10 ABSOLUTION

ABSOLUTION

following as they do on his great confession—being a prize and reward of that confession—they belong to him as aman who had attained by the revela- tion of the Father to a true faith that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God : they belonged to all the Apostles as men of like faith: and they belong to the whole Church of which these twelve were the nucleus, in proportion as that faith is alive in it. In regard to the saying (in Jn 20:9) about the for- giveness and retaining of sins, it was spoken in ‘a general gathering of the believers in Jerusalem’ (see Lk 2455), and ‘there is nothing in the context to show that the gift was confined to any particu- lar group (as the Apostles) among the whole com- pany present. The commission, therefore, must be regarded properly as the commission of the Chris- tian society and not as that of the Christian ministry ’ (Westcott, in loco).

The ‘keys’ may be understood as the keys of the porter at the outer door of the house, and as symbolic of authority to admit into the kingdom of heaven or to exclude from it. Or they may be taken as the keys of the steward for use inside the house, and as symbolic of authority to open the stores or treasuries of the household of God and to give forth from these treasuries according to the requirements of the household. It is rather in this second sense that authority is given to bind and to loose, which in Rabbinical usage meant to forbid and allow in matters of conduct ; that is to say, to interpret the will of God and to enjoin rules of life in harmony with that will. This is the work of the steward of the mysteries of God, and has to do directly with things, not persons. But the first sense, that of admitting and excluding, which has to do with persons, is what is chiefly meant by the power of the keys, and it is as an exercise of this power and of the power given in the words, ‘Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them,’ that absolution must be considered.

Our Lord’s words seem at first reading to invest the Church with absolute authority, and to promise that Heaven will follow and ratify the action of the Church on earth, whatever that action may be, in forgiving or judging, in admitting into the kingdom of heaven or excluding from it. But we recoil from this as impossible. ‘Vhere is no Church, how great soever its claims in regard to absolution, which does not admit that God alone forgives sin. We feel, however, that we must find a great sense in which to understand so great words as those of our Lord in these commissions. And we observe that before the words in Jn 20% our Lord breathed upon His disciples and said, ‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost.’ He imparted to them His own very Spirit, so enabling them to be His representatives and equipping them to continue His work. (The faith which Peter had by revelation of the Father, that is to say, by the same Spirit, was an equivalent endowment before he received the promise of the keys). It was evidently the purpose of the Lord Jesus that His Church should continue the exercise on earth of the power which He constantly exer- cised and set in the forefront of His ministry, the power of saying to the penitent, ‘Thy sins are for- given thee’; and of saying this with such assured knowledge of the truth of God and such sympa- thetic discernment of the spirits of men, that what was done by the Church on earth should be valid in heaven, and the word of Christ by the Church powerful to give comfort to truly penitent souls.

The Lord is concerned not only that men be for- given, but that His disciples should know that they are forgiven. The grace of forgiveness has not its ΕΣ power in transforming their lives unless they know that they have it. As long as men are under fear and doubt they are not Christ’s freemen: their religion is still only regulative. It

is when they have an assured sense of forgiveness and reconciliation to God that a great impulse of gratitude, with a new life in their souls, makes them free indeed, and strong in their freedom to serve God. Christ accordingly equips His Church to convey this assurance of torgiveness, and if a Church does not succeed in doing this, especially if, as often, the current idea in the Chureh is that to be assured of forgiveness is abnormal and unusual, the Church is greatly failing in its mission. If the form of our Lord’s promise in Jn 20:9 ‘Whose soever sins ye forgive,’ ete., seem too absolute, we must remember that the gift of the Holy Spirit, which He then gave the sign of imparting, is a gift of exceeding power, and that no limit can be set to the degree in which God

through Christ is willing to give the Spirit. ‘He giveth not the Spirit by measure’ (Jn 3%). Ard

our Lord is speaking, according to His wont, to the ideal Church, to the Church which receives in the fulness with which He is willing to bestow. Just as, speaking at the high level of the ideal, He says to His servants in another place (Lk 10), ‘He that heareth you heareth me: and he that de- spiseth you despiseth me’; so He says here, ‘ Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven,’ ete. But all these and such like promises depend for their fulfilment on the Spirit of Christ working, nay, reigning, in the Church. This power and reign of the Spirit ebbs and flows according to the faith and receptivity of the Church; and while it is the duty of the Church to believe in God being with it, and while the Church ought to clothe itself with the mighty assurance of heaven assenting to its judgments, it can dare to do so, and will be able to do so, only in proportion as it has sought and obtained the indwelling of the Spirit.

The words of our Lord before us certainly do not mean that forgiveness by the mouth and at the will of man is always to be followed by a ratification of God in heaven, even though that man be an apostle. But they do imply that when Christ’s servants do their work in the enlighten- ment and guidance of the Spirit, they will be able , to convey messages of grace which will be accord- ing to the truth of things, and therefore valid in heaven: they will be able also to convey assur- ances of forgiveness, which will be owned of God as true, and will be made efiective by His Spirit in yenitent souls. So then the great and chief means iy which the Church has in all ages fulfilled the work which is sustained by these startling promises, is the preaching of the gospel of recon- ciliation by Jesus Christ. By preaching in the power of the Spirit, thousands of souls have been in all ages receiving remission of sins and an assurance of forgiveness. Although the preaching is public, and the preacher has little or no separate knowledge of individual hearts, there is a ‘ privacy of publicity’ in which whatever message he has from God is made an absolution Divine in power and assurance to one and another of the hearers. So effectual is preaching in the Spirit, that 1t may perhaps be found that in the Churches in which there is no ordinance with the title of ‘private absolution,’ the sense of forgiveness of sins is truer, deeper, and more widely spread than in those which have such an ordinance, and count it neces- sary. Obviously another means by which the Church carries out the Lord’s purpose of conveying absolution to the penitent is by the sacraments. But there is great occasion also for the Church to afford full opportunity for individual help to souls in spiritual trouble, and such individual dealing as may in its issue amount to private absolution. In every revival of religion the need for this is felt. There are souls in doubt whether their repentance and faith are true, and whether they are them-

ABSOLUTION

selves accepted of God. Such souls seek the help of the Church, and often greatly profit by it. ‘Inquiry-rooms’ have been of ἜΝ service in modern ‘missions,’ and it is a common thine for people in trouble of conscience about some special sin to long to unbosom themselves about it to one whom they feel to have spiritual authority. Evan- gelical religious newspapers have found that they supply a demand by setting apart a column, often largely used, for the answers of some minister of reputation to men who open their minds to him, confess their chief sins, doubts, or temptations, and seek comfort through him. ΑἸ] the Churches, to a greater or less extent, supplement the preach- ing of the word by ‘discipline,’ and their admis- sion to communion and exclusion from it tell powerfully on the individual conscience. The effectiveness of all such dealing has a natural basis in the fact of experience that a man’s judgment of himself is greatly influenced by the judgment of his fellow-men, It belongs to human nature that the judgment of the community in which a man lives so tells upon his spirit that it is hard for him to bear up against it. This is earried to a higher power in the Church, in the sphere wherein the Spirit of Christ works. The testimony of men who are spiritually minded and in communion with God is felt to have an authority such that great relief is given to souls by the Church’s absolution, and great burden imposed by its re- fusal. And justly, for the discernment of spirits is one of the gifts of the Spirit of Christ to His servants. They all have it in some measure, some in a wonderful measure (1 Co 2’, 1 Jn 2” 4), and it may be recalled that after our Lord promised to Peter that on him He would build His Church, He did not say, as we should have expected, ‘I will give thee tlhe keys of the Church,’ but ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’: from which we infer that, while the Church and the kingdom are not conterminous, the Church is meant to be a true realization of the kingdom, and its judgments valid for that kingdom. In an ideal Church this would be fulfilled. In any actual Church the power spoken of, at once gracious and awful, varies in its effectiveness according to the fulness of the Spirit in its office-bearers and members.

A 000.

2. History of Absolution in the Church.—In the NT age there is no trace of the practice of private confession to ministers of the Church for private absolution (Ja 516 cannot be so inter- preted). But very early in the history of the Church it became customary for those who, after baptism, had fallen into gross sins, especially the sins of idolatry, adultery, or murder, to be cut off from fellowship, and to be readmitted after repentance manifested by public confession in the church. This readmis- sion was an absolution, which came to be spoken of as the Church’s power to forgive sins,—a power, however, declared by Tertullian (de Pudic. xxi.) to belong to the Church only in so far as she is composed of spiritual men. This power in the 2nd cent. was claimed as vested in the whole episcopate, and, by and by, in every single bishop; still later, in every priest. And from the time of Leo the Great (Bishop of Rome A.D. 440), the custom grew of private confession and private absolution.

In the Middle Ages there were many discussions as to whether the priest had power simply to declare the forgiveness of sins, God alone having power to forgive, or whether the priest truly himself exercises a power to forgive as representative of God.

The final doctrine of the Church of Rome, as fixed by the Council of Trent, combines both these views. God alone forgives sins, and He does this solely on account of the sinner’s repentance. But the priest is the necessary instrument of God. God has been pleased to make the priest’s absolution the means by which the grace is conveyed, and the word of the priest 15 a judicial act in which he passes sentence on the penitent. The priest is entitled to use the wordsof the ritual, ‘I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.’ It is admitted that ‘perfect sorrow for sin without addition of external rite blots out the stains, and restores the peace of God in the soul’; yet this perfect sorrow involves in a well-instructed Catholic the intention of confessing and receiv- ing the priest’s absolution when opportunity offers. Protestants truly penitent may indeed receive the peace of God, because this desire of confession may be regarded as implicit in them. But confession to the priest is a necessary duty, and priestly absolution may not be omitted without loss of salvation.

The Lutheran Church did not entirely abolish confession and

ABSOLUTION

ΠῚ

absolution ; but Luther made changes which very greatly altered its character. Confession was not made compulsory: it was a free opportunity that might be used in case of sins about which the penitent could not otherwise attain to peace. Luther made it unnecessary in confession to enumerate every individual sin ; and so little was absolution sacerdotal that it might be given by a Christian layman. In course of time, private confession to the pastor mostly died out in the Lutheran Church. But it has often been spontaneously resumed in times of religious revival, of which interesting examples may be found in Dr. Biichsel’s Erinnerungen. He testifies strongly to the benefit both to pastor and people of the Privatbeichte, as he calls the Lutheran method, in contradistinction to the Roman Catholic Ohrbeichte (vol. ii. p. 113ff.). And he justifies the word of absolution spoken by the minister, ‘I absolve thee,’ etc., defending it from the objection that it is falsified and of no effect if the absolved has not truth and faith, by saying that in that case it is still effectual for judgment, as in the case of the misuse of the Lord’s Supper, or, indeed, of the preached gospel.

In regard to the Anglican Church, in its ordinary service ‘ the absolution or remission of sins to be pronounced by the priest alone, the people still kneeling,’ is no more than a gospel pro- clamation of God’s pardon to the penitent, ending in a prayer for true repentance. The exhortation before the Communion contains this invitation, to be pronounced by the curate: ‘If there be any of you who . . . cannot quiet his own conscience, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God’s holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.’ From this, the teaching of the Church of England appears to be simi- lar to that of the Lutheran, making confession exceptional not compulsory, and absolution not sacerdotal, but a part of the ministry of the Word.

In the service for the visitation of the sick, the minister is enjoined ‘to move the sick person to make a special confession of his sins if be feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort: ‘‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences : and by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghest.””’

In the Presbyterian Churches the words ‘absolve’ and ‘absolution’ are used only of the restoration to Communion by the minister and elders—7.e. the Kirk-Session—of those members of the Church who have fallen into any scandalous sin by which Christ is publicly dishonoured. These are usually dealt with first by the minister in private: then they appear before the Session, or before a delegation of it, to make acknowledgment, and profess repentance. Thereupon they may be addressed and ‘absolved,’ by which is meant restored to Communion. This dealing has been undoubtedly, when used with spiritual tact and tenderness, a great means of deepening both the sense of sin and the trust of God’s forgiveness, and it has the effect of giving many who had lost character a new spiritual start. The value, however, of this discipline depends wholly on the measure in which those who administer it are Christian, not legal, in their spirit, and on the support which the discipline receives from the spiritual level of the general body of the Church.

3. Conclusion.—Absolution, in the full meaning of bringing men into the sense of Goi’s forgiveness and keeping them in that sense, may be said to be the primary work of the Church and its ministry. This work is carried out mainly by preaching, sacraments, and individual dealing with souls. The short history given above indicates the more or less fitting and successful methods by which the Christian Church has endeavoured to fulfil especially the duty of individual dealing. In order that a Church may be truly successful in this work of grace, it must be largely and widely per- vaded by the Spirit of Christ in its whole mem- bership. The gift of power in this work is not confined to the ministry ; it is found wherever there is a deeply spiritual mind and Christian experience. Men in spiritual trouble do not betake themselves to a priest or minister unless they feel him to have the spiritual authority that belongs to Christ-like character. A merely official spiritual authority is not seriously believed in. What com- forts and assures in time of soul-trouble is the word or sign of acknowledgment from the Chris- tian company speaking by those who truly repre- sent it—those who are truly called of God to the ministry, or who are shown by their goodness to be in the fellowship of Ged. On the training- ship Shaftesbury a bad boy met with an accident ; he was taken to the little hospital. When he was

12 ABYSS

i Ὁ

ACCESS

awake at night he talked to the nurse. One night he said, ‘Sister, I think I am dying, and it is so hard; but I think if you kissed me as if I was a good boy, I could bear it.’ This boy, conscious of an evil past and struggling to escape from it, felt as if the kiss of that good woman would give him cheer, and hope of acceptance with God—would be, in fact, an absolution. A Christian minister, in converse with a dying man in whom he discerns a true repentance, may be able to say with great power, ‘ Brother, be assured thy sins are forgiven thee,’ and great blessing of comfort to the man may follow, may indeed be looked for. Only ina high moment of spiritual impulse and assurance could the minister venture to say, ‘In the name of the Lord Jesus I absolve thee from thy sins.’ LITERATURE.—The Commentaries on the Gospels, especially Westcott on St. John, Bruce on St. Matthew, Dods on St. John; Bishop Harold Browne’s Eaposition of the Thirty-nine Articles; A Catholic Dictionary by Addis and Arnold, art. ‘Penance’; Canon Carter’s The Doctrine of Confession in the Church of england ; Dean Wace’s Confession and Absolution ; Dr. Drury’s Confession and Absolution; Dr. Buchsel’s Evrin- nerungen aus dem Leben eines Landgeistlichen ; F. ΝΥ. Robert- son, of Brighton, Sermons, 3rd series, v. ; Selby, The Imperfect Angel, etc., xii. J. ROBERTSON.

ABYSS (ἡ &8vccos).—The word ‘abyss,’ which we find in several places in the RV of the NT, is not found in the AV. There we find instead, in St. Luke (8*!) and in Romans (107) ‘the deep,’ and in the Apocalypse ‘the bottomless pit.’ In Rev 91? we find (RV) ‘the pit of the abyss’ (τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἀβύσσου), a somewhat peculiar expression, but not having, it would seem, a different signification from the simple word ‘abyss.’

It is not easy to see that the word ‘abyss’ has the same signification in Romans as it has in St. Luke and the Apocalypse. In a general way, of course, the word may be taken as meaning the underworld, the world of departed spirits and of things dim and mysterious,—a world conceived of as deeply hidden away from that of things seen and known, even as the interior of the earth and the depths of the ocean are hidden. The abyss is certainly the realm of the departed in Ro 10’, where St. Paul himself interprets the word for us: ‘Who shall descend into the abyss (that is, to bring up Christ from the dead)?’ But a more specific meaning than that of simply the under- world must be given to the word in Lk 851 and in the various passages in the Apocalypse where it occurs. The abyss is not even in ae 851, perhaps, the ultimate place of punishment, but it is there assuredly a place of restraint and of terror, as it is also so far in the Apocalypse. The abyss in the latter is the Satanic underworld, the dark and mysterious region out of which evil comes, but also the prison in which during the millennial period Satan is confined. Of course much that is given in the Apocalypse is given under poetic imagery. The abyss is rather a condition of spiritual beings than a region of space. But under the imagery there is fact, the fact that there are spiritual beings setting themselves in opposition to the Kingdom of God, and yet in their very opposi- tion conscious of His restraining power. Satan is bound for a season in the abyss. He has no absolute power, but must submit to such restraint as is put upon him. Evil comes from the abyss, but the very Spirit of evil has to submit to being bound there.

LITERATURE.—The Commentaries on the passages above cited ; the art. ‘ Abyss’ in Hastings’ DB and in the Encyc. Biblica.

GEORGE C. WATT. ACCEPTANCE.—The state or relation of being in favour, especially with God. It 15 ἃ common OT conception that has been carried over into the NT. In the former it has both a ceremonial significance, involving the presence of an approved offering or

a state of ceremonial purity, and also an ethical significance, involving divinely approved conduct. The Hebrew expression 0°39 xvi ‘ to lift up or accept the face or person of one,’ becomes in NT πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, ‘to accept the person o7 presence,’ which, however, with its derivatives, προσωπολημπτεῖν and προσωπολήμπτης, always implies the acceptance of the outward presence, without regard to the in- ward or moral qualities; hence, in a bad sense, partiality, as in Lk 207) (cf. Mt 2216 and Mk 1214), In a good sense the idea is expressed by εὐάρεστος, ‘well-pleasing’ (Mt 3” ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’; cf. Mt 17°); cf. also δεκτός, ‘acceptable’ (Lk 4533, Ph 48), used with ἐνιαυτός, ‘acceptable year’ (Lk 41") and with καιρός, ‘acceptable time’ (2 Co 6”), of a period or time when God’s favour is specially manifest. In numerous passages in the Gospels and Epistles acceptance with God comes only through and in Jesus Christ (Jn 145, Eph 1° ‘accepted in the Beloved,’ Ro 14'8, He 13"). So also the disciple’s conduct and ser- vice are to be such as will find acceptance with Christ (Eph 5”, 2 Co 5°; cf. He 12%). See, further, art. ACCESS.

As applied to our Lord Himself, the idea of His acceptance both with God and man is of frequent occurrence in the Gospels. Of Jesus as a growing boy this twofold acceptance on earth and in heaven is expressly affirmed (Lk 2°). His perfect accept- ance with the Father is testified to, not only by a voice from heaven both at the beginning of His ministry (Mt 37||) and towards its close (Mt 17°\i), but by the constant affirmations of His own self- consciousness (Mt 1127||, Mk 12°|, Jn 57° 8% 1017, 15° ete.). The favour with which He was regarded by the people when He first came declaring ‘the acceptable year of the Lord,’ is proved not only by such notices as, ‘The common people heard him gladly’ (Mk 127), but by the crowds which fol- lowed Him constantly all through the period of public favour. So far as acceptance with men is concerned, there is, of course, another side to the picture. ‘No prophet,’ He said, ‘is acceptable in his own country’ (Lk 453). His own brethren did not believe on Him (Jn 73°), His own townsmen thrust Him out of their city (Lk 4° *%), His own people were guilty at last of that great act of re- jection which found utterance in the shouts, ‘ Not this man, but Barabbas’ (Jn 18%), and ‘ Crucify him, crucify him’ (Lk 23”), and was visibly set forth to all coming time when He was nailed to a cross in full sight of Jerusalem (see REJECTION). He who had been accepted for a time was now ‘a root out of a dry ground,’ the ‘despised and re- jected of men’ (Is 53%). And yet it was from this same root of rejection and sorrow that the accept- ance of Christ was to grow into universal forms. Being lifted up from the earth, He drew all men unto Him (Jn 12%). And though as the well- beloved Son He had never for a moment lost favour in His Father’s sight, it was through enduring the cross and despising the shame that He sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (He 12°; cf. PhigsaD) E. B. POLLARD.

ACCESS (rpocaywy7).—No word in the English language expresses the double meaning of προσ- αγωγή. While the AV translates it invariably ‘access,’ the RV more accurately renders ‘ our access’ in Ro 5? and Eph 2”.

The προσαγωγεύς at Eastern courts acted as official introducer in conducting strangers to a king’s presence.* Whether there were any allusion to this or not in the minds of our New Testament writers, the custom tlustrates appropriately one use of the word ‘access.’ Christ as our Introducer obtains admission for us into the favour and

* Tholuck, Rom. l.c., and Usteri, Lehr. τι. i. 1, p. 101.

ἂν. οὐ

ACCESS

ACCESS 13

presence of God. προσαγωγή is ‘aditus ad rem vel personam’ (Grotius). It means (1) ‘ introduction,’ ‘admission’ (see references to classical Greek authors, and to Chrysostom in Ellicott on Eph 9218) ; (2) ‘liberty of approach.’

‘Access’ (προσαγωγή) occurs in three passages in the New Testament, Ro 52, Eph 2'8,and3!2, An ex- amination of these passages will best explain what ‘access’ meant in the thought of St. Paul. Then it will be necessary to consider 1 P 318‘ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us (προσαγάγῃ) to God’; and afterwards, the idea of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews regarding ‘access’ as the act of drawing near to God through the great High Priest must be stated.

1. Ro 5? ‘Through whom we have also [καί, ‘copulat et auget’ (Toletus), ‘answering almost to our ‘‘as might be expected”? (Alf.)] got [ἐσχήκαμεν] our [τήν] access (introduction) by our [τῇ] faith, into this grace wherein we stand.’ The Perfect tense is used in connexion with that justifying act re- ferred to in v.!. Access is not here a second privilege of the justified, but introduction to the very grace of justification itself. We owe to Christ not only peace as the primary blessing of justifi- cation, but admission to that state which is the atmosphere of peace.

This paragraph, beginning with v. and descrip- tive of the life of the justified, is founded on the doctrinal basis just laid down. The Apostle has examined the world of men, as it appeared in the prevalent antithesis of Jew and Gentile. His spiritual diagnosis revealed the fact of universal sin and universal condemnation. A guilty race, a holy God, and a broken law, with its death renalty, were factors in the problem for solution. This problem, insoluble by man, is taken in hand by Christ. Christ provided a solution as effectual as the need for it is clamant. The summary of that solution as contained in 4% is the Divine certificate of its efficacy. It was written not for the sake of Abraham alone (a typical case of its application), but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead ; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Based on this, ch. 5 begins: ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Before getting further, the Apostle ‘harks back’ in v.? to the thonght of justifying grace, access to which is by Christ.

Into the state of justifying grace we have access through Christ’s Passion. His introduction in- cludes, nay, is the starting-point of, liberty of ap- proach. The need of an introduction implies that we were outside the state into which we are introduced. St. Paul himself had experienced transition from the condition of a condemned, to that of a justified, sinner. ‘Barnabas introduced him to the apostles (Ac 957), and there were others “that led him by the hand to Damascus” (v.8) ; but it was Christ that introduced and led him by the hand into this grace’ (M. Henry). Christ itro- duces, ‘ Contigit nobis ut perduceremur’ (Erasmus). He does not drag unwilling followers. Faith is the following foot. If He draws us, we run after Him.

2. Erh 218. ‘For through him we both have our |

access in one Spirit unto the Father.’ 8:3. ‘In whom we have our boldness and our access with confidence by the faith of him.’ The old contro- versy as to whether access means in these verses introduction or liberty of approach, still survives. Among moderns, Alford and Ellicott take opposite sides. Alford contends for the latter as ‘ better

representing the repetition, the present liberty of approach which ἔχομεν implies, but which ‘‘introdue-

tion” does not give.’ While pressing the point that as ‘ boldness’ (παρρησία) is subjective in 3%, ‘access’ there coupled with it must also be subjective, he gives away his case by admitting that the second term (προσαγωγή) is ‘less purely so than the first’ (παρρησία). Ellicott argues for ‘introduction’ on grounds of lexical and classical usage, but also makes the significant admission that the transitive meaning of προσαγωγή is a little less certain in 313 than it is in 2'§, on account of its union with the intransitive παρρησία.

Where equally competent critical authorities thus differ, the context of the passages may be allowed to decide between them. In the paragraph 2t1-22, where ‘access’ (v.18) appears, the Apostle writes of a change in the Ephesians’ relations cor- responding to the change already described as having taken place in their moral and spiritual condition. At one time they were afar off, aliens, strangers, hopeless, godless. A change was effected by the blood of Christ. Those for whom His death procured peace are now declared to be fellow- citizens of the saints, members of the household of God, stones in that living temple in which God dwells through the Spirit. There is surely some- thing more implied by ‘access’ in such a setting than mere liberty of approach to God. The Church is Christ’s body, sharing the privileges of its Head. The reconciliation etfected by His blood isnot amere potential one. Very definite language is used to express change of relationship: ν.}3 ‘were brought nigh’ (historic). To become citizens of a kingdom, members of a household, stones in a building, implies a definite act performed on behalf of the persons or things thus brought into these new relations. Access in the sense of introduction seems to express most fitly the alteration thus con- textually described.

The argument for ‘introduction’ is not quite so strong in 3". In the context preceding, St. Paul has been speaking of his own office as Apostle of the Gentiles. He was made a minister of the gospel in order by its means to bring the Gentiles into the fellowship of the saints, and instruct men as to the eternal purpose of God in Redemp- tion. That purpose, executed in Christ, mani- fested to principalities and powers in heaven the wisdom of God. Had the ‘access’ been used by itself in v." after the above line of thought, that would not point to introduction rather than to liberty of approach. But standing as it does be- tween ‘boldness’ (παρρησίαν) and ‘ with confidence’ (ἐν πεποιθήσει), ‘liberty of approach’ scarcely ex- presses all the author’s thought. The multiplica- tion of terms indicates an attempt to give utterance to something besides this. And so, according to the analogy of Ro 5? and Eph 218, we are warranted here also in translating προσαγωγή, by ‘introdue- tion.’ ‘While the former of the parallel terms (boldness) describes the liberty with which the newborn Church of the redeemed address them- selves to God the Father and the unchecked freedom of their petitions, the latter (admittance) takes us back to the act of Christ by which He introduced us to the Father’s presence and gave us the place of sons in the house’ (Findlay in Expos. Bible, ‘Ephesians’).

Confusion has been created by expositors in- sisting that ‘access’ must, in the three passages where the word occurs, always mean either intro- duction, or liberty of approach exclusively. But the larger concept, ‘introduction,’ includes the lesser, ‘liberty of approach.’ To put it in another way—the latter term follows from the former. Presentation at the Court of Heaven gives one the right to return there. It secures habitual access to God at all times.

3. 1 P 8:8 ‘Because Christ also suffered for sins

14 ACCESS

ACCESS

once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us (προσαγάγῃ) to God.’ The Apostle does not set himself in this Epistle to expound the theology of the Passion. His general purpose is to comfort and sustain Christians who are suffering persecutions. Some of them were slaves, enduring wrongs from cruel masters because of their faith in Christ. These were directed to the exemplary character of Christ’s sufferings. In 3% St. Peter assures them that it is better to suffer for well- doing than for evil-doing. Then in ν. 8 he links them in thought with the suffering Saviour. But it isnot on the exemplary significance of Chbrist’s sufferings that he enlarges. That is left behind. The writer is spellbound by the very mention of the Cross, and tor a moment he forgets his pur- pose of directing some wronged slaves to Christ as the supreme example of sutiering innocence, that he may state again the wider and deeper meaning of his Lord’s Passion. Christ suffered in connexion with sin once for all (ἅπαξ). The unique sienifi- eance of His death consisted in its leing the death of a righteous person for the unrighteous (δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων); and His action had this end in view, that He might conduct us (προσαγάγῃ) to God: ‘ut nos, qui abalienati fueramus, ipse abiens ad Patrem, secum una, justificatos adduceret in ceelum, ν. "5, per eosdem gradus quos ipse emensus est, exinanitionis et exaltationis’ (Bengel). ‘And if the soul bear back still through distrust, He takes it by the hand and draws it forward; leads it unto His Father; presents it to Him, and leaves not the matter till it [the reconciliation between a sinner and God] be made a full and sure agree- ment’ (Leighton).

4. The word προσαγωγή is not found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Access is expressed there in different language from that in the passages con- sidered, because it is associated with somewhat different ideas. The author of Hebrews, writing as a pastor, not as an evangelist, aims at con- serving rather than initiating faith. Instead of the Pauline and Petrine idea of the Saviour leading in a sinner, we have the sinner comine to the Saviour. Introduction (προσαγωγή) becomes access, liberty of approach, approximation. Sinners are represented in the very act of approaching— are exhorted to approach. The worshippers under the law were τοὺς προσερχομένους, ‘the comers’ (He 10!) ; ‘not those that come to the worship, but those who by the worship come to God’ (Owen). Under the gospel (Judaism evolved) their attitude and character remained the same: 7” 11° (singular) or 416 10”, where believers are exhorted to draw near (προσερχώμεθα).

As a Hebrew Christian addressing Hebrew Christians, the writer of Hebrews makes large use of Old Testament conceptions and Old Testament rites familiar to himself and his correspondents. Urging upon them the truth ‘that the faith of Christ is the true and final religion’ (Davidson), he presents a series of contrasts between what was elementary in Judaism and the finished product of Christianity. Modern readers are apt to lose themselves amid unfamiliar details here. But it is possible to set these details in the background, and yet grasp the permanent truths, which are as important for us as for the readers to whom such details became the most effective illustrations. We shall keep this in view when attempting now to summarize the great facts associated with the idea of access in the four Epistles already referred to.

(1) The need of access to implies separation from God—want of fellowship like that enjoyed by those who walk in the hght. We are by nature afar off (Eph 2%), aliens (v.!"). There is an en- mity which must be slain before peace is effected.

The wrath of God is revealed against all ungodli- ness and unrighteousness of men (Ro 118). The Ephesians were by nature children of wrath (Eph 2°). That exhortation used in Hebrews to draw near (416 10%) could be addressed only to those who are at a distance from God. ‘Whereas it is emphatically affirmed that He is able to save unto the uttermost, it is supposed that great oppositions and difficulties do lie in the way of its accomplishment’ (Owen).

(2) The great separating barrier is sim. ΑἹ] have sinned (Ro 3”): and the correlative of uni- versal sin is universal condemnation. Sin and death are so associated as to be completely one (Ro 515: 4. 15.17.21), The Ephesians are represented as dead in trespasses and sins (2').

(3) All three Persons of the Godhead conspired to deal with the problem of sin, in a way corre- sponding to its magnitude. Access is (@) to (πρός) the Father (Eph 2'8)—representing the God to whom we are to be reconciled and introduced, and into whose family we are to be adopted ; (ὁ) through (διά) the Son (Ro 5%, Eph 2"); (ὁ) by (ἐν) the Spirit (Eph 218).

(4) This is the special work of Christ. He bridges the gulf which sin has created between God and man. We have access into the grace of justifica- tion through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- tion through faith in His blood (Ro 5: 92, The double alienation from God and His Church dis- cussed in Ephesians is removed through Christ—by His blood (218), by His flesh (v.!°), by His Cross (veld):

The steps whereby access was effected by Christ are clearly laid down in 1 P 3%. His death has a connexion with sin. He suffered once for all (ἅπαξ), ‘so that to them who lay hold on Him this holds sure, that sin isnever to be suffered for in the way of strict Justice again, as not by Him, so not by them who are in Him?’ (Leighton). The unique significance of Christ’s suffering in connexion with sins is expressed in the words ‘the just for the unjust’ (δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων). In dying, the right- eous One took on Himself the hability of the unrighteous. Access to God was, in St. Peter’s estimation, thus purchased at an unspeakable price. ‘A righteous One has once for all faced, and in death taken up and exhausted, the responsi- bilities of the unrighteous, so that they no more stand between them and God’ (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 102).

The author of Hebrews explains and illustrates by a method sat generis, how Christ obtains access for us. Christ is the great High Priest interceding for men in the heavenly sanctuary, and the function which He discharges in heaven is based on the death which He died on earth. A priest’s duty is to establish and represent fellowship between God and man. Christ found that sin barred the way to this fellowship, and accordinely dealt with sin. He was appointed with a view to this end—to make propitiation for the sins of the people (He 217), In contrast with the Levitical priests and their duties, Christ’s Person and work are perfect (τέλειος). He deals with sin by way of sacrifice. This He did once when He offered up Himself (727). ‘Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of him- self’ (956), ‘Christ was onee offered to bear the sins of many’ (ν.328). ‘ For by one offering he hath

perfected for ever [‘ to perfect,’ τελειοῦν, “15 to bring into the true condition of those in covenant’] them that are sanctified’ [‘to sanctify,’ ἁγιάζειν, ‘is to make to belong to God,’ Davidson]. Associated with the same conception of sacrifice are the references in the Epistle to the blood of He entered into the Holy Place by (διά)

Christ.

ee

e

ACCOMMODATION

ACCOMMODATION 15

His blood (93). The blood of Christ, who offered Himself to God, purges the conscience from dead works (v.14). We have boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Christ (10). Access is therefore dependent on Christ’s Person and work. In reliance on His sacrifice (1015), along a way con- secrated by His death (v.?°), mindful of their High Priest (v.*!) in heaven, believers are exhorted to draw near to God. ‘The exhortation in 4'° to come boldly unte the throne of grace is also founded on Jesus having passed into the heavens as our great High Priest: and it adds the thought of Christ’s sympathy, as having experienced infirmities and temptations Himself, in order to encourage sup- pliants for merey and grace. The truth put hor- tatively in these passages is also taught directly in 7”, where access is linked with intercession. This intercession, of which an example is preserved in Jn 17, is continued in heaven, and derives its power from the sacrifice which Christ offered on earth.

(5) Faith is the subjective condition of those who have access (Ro 3% 57, Eph 31). ‘He who comes to God must believe that he is’ (He 11°). The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is a record of faith in action, faith as illustrated in the lives of saints, who first came to God, and then acted and endured, because sustained by the strength of God.

LITERATURE.—The Commentaries on the passages discussed, especially Sanday-Headlam on Romans ; Ellicott, Meyer, H. ἃ. Miller, and Armitage Robinson on Ephesians; Delitzsch, Davidson, Westcott, and Bruce on Hebrews; also Calvin’s Institutes, Wt. xiii. δ, xx. 12; Cremer’s Biblico-Theol. Lex. ; Denney, The Death of Christ; Expositor, 4th series [1890], li. 131; 2nd series [1882], iv. 321.

ACCOMMODATION. —

i. The Incarnation as the supreme example.

(a) The birth and childhood of Jesus.

(b) The temptations to which He was subjected.

(c) The mental and spiritual sufferings experienced by Him.

ii. Incidents inferentially valuable.

(@) His education in a pious Jewish home.

(0) The deliberate acceptance and public avowal by Him of the limitations conditioning human life.

(c) Revelation of these limitations involved in the spontaneity of His attitude towards (1) His fellow-men, (2) His Father.

111, Jesus’ activity as Teacher.

(a) Repeated assertions as to nature of the authority wielded by Him.

(b) Objective of His message defined by (1) the national characteristics of His fellow countrymen ; (2) their theological and traditional beliefs—

(z) Messianic kingdom.

(8) Doctrine of angel-mediation.

(y) Current conceptions of the power of Satan and of evil spirits.

(c) Methods employed by Jesus in His teaching : (1) parables purposely and economically utilized ; (2) use of popular figurative expressions ; (3) employment of aphorism, allegory, etc. ; (4) ac- ceptance of current conceptions as to—

(χα) Natural phenomena. (8) Anthropology. iv. Attitude of Jesus towards the Messianic hopes of His day.

(a) Assumption of the title ‘Son of Man.’

(b) Attitude towards the Jewish Canon of Scripture observable in His acceptance of (1) its general historicity; (2) the traditional view of the author- ship and interpretation of Ps 110.

y. Summary and practical conclusion. Literature.

D. A. MACKINNON.

The term ‘accommodation’ may be defined as the principle or law aceording to which God adapts His Self-revelation to the capacities and limitations of created intelligences. In every age, from the earliest onwards, this Self-revelation of God has been made, and has its own characteristic features. Between the time when men conceived of God in the rudimentary anthropomorphism of Gn 3° and the time of the highest attainment by the human mind of His Nature and Being (Jn 4°), every conceivable gradation oceurs in the extent and character of God’s revelation of Himself to men.

i. THE INCARNATION AS THE SUPREME EXAMPLE. —This is not the place to enter into a detailed inquiry as to the nature and extent of the self- imposed limitations of Christ, or how far the modern theories of the enosis (wh. see) are justified by revelation, directly or by implication. It will be sufficient here to indicate how far the Gospels, as we have them, point to a real adoption by Him of the conditions of that life which He assumed, and involved Him ex necessitate in the limitations of a real human life.

(a) So complete is the accommodation to the capacities and requirements of infanthood, that St. Luke scruples not to record, as part of the angelic message, the finding by the shepherds of ... ‘a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger’ (Lk 2,2); and St. Matthew makes the safety of His childhood depend on the vigilance and care of Joseph and His mother, their return from enforced exile being conditioned by the fact that ‘they are dead that sought the young child’s life’ (Mt 27°). All this presupposes, of course, His development along the lines of human erowth, which is boldly outlined by St. Luke in the much debated passage, ‘Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men’ (Lk 253). If these words are to be in- terpreted according to their obvious meaning, they imply a moral and spiritual as well as a physical advancement along lines as normal as, for ex- ample, those which marked the growth of the child Samuel. We may say, indeed, that there is a marked reference to the words . . . καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ μετὰ Κυρίου καὶ μετὰ ἀνθρώπων of 18 2°°[LXX). ‘Christ’s growth was from His birth ἃ holy growth’ (Martensen, Christian Deqmatics, Eng. tr. p. 282); but the words ‘the child grew and waxed strong’ (Lk 9:0) point to the essentially human conditions under which that growth was effected.

The sole incident in connexion with His boyhood which has come down to us in our reliable authori- ties is that of His visit to the temple (Lk 2"), Short, however, as it is, it throws a clear light on the nature and reality of the advance ‘in wisdom and favour,’ and its uninterrupted continuity is well expressed in ν. Ὁ, if we give the word πληρού- μενον its proper significance. Day by day He was being filled with wisdom. Even at this age, His marvellous intellectual powers displayed them- selves, and already He exhibited that keen insight which in after life He so frequently showed. The verb used to express the amazement of the learned teachers (ἐξίσταντο) shows how much these men wondered at the Boy’s knowledge and at the depth of His understanding (ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει. Notwith- standing this feature of the narrative, the historian is far from leading us to suppose that there was anything supernatural in the matter. He rather represents Jesus as a boy of a singularly inquiring turn of mind, who deliberately determines to find out for Himself the solution of many problems which puzzled Him during the course of His home education, and for which He could find no satis- factory explanation from His teachers in Nazareth. He sits down (καθιζόμενον) at the feet of these great teachers (διδασκάλων) as a learner (cf. St. Paul’s description of his own education in the Law, Ac 293), Nor are we to look upon the circumstance in the temple as constituting an exhibition of miraculous intellectual acquirements in the ordi- nary sense of that word. All Jewish children from their ‘earliest infancy’ (Jos. 6. Apion. ii. 18) were made to acquire a knowledge of and to prac- tise the precepts of the Law. We have only to compare the Lukan narrative with that given in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy to see how com- pletely natural and human is the whole incident, and how entirely the boyhood of Jesus was subject

16

ACCOMMODATION

to boyhood’s conditions and limitations. In the latter He is represented as cross-examining each of the doctors, and instructing them not only in matters appertaining to the Law and the Prophets, but in astronomy, physics, metaphysics, and other branches of current erudition (see chs. x]vili.-lii.).

Without entering into an examination of the words contained in His answer to His mother’s gentle rebuke, or what relation they bear to His subsequent complete and developed self- consciousness, it may be said that they do not necessarily in- volve all that is sometimes imported into them. Even the im- plied antithesis ὁ πατήρ σου οὗ v.48 and ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου of v.49 probably means nothing more than a reminder that the claims of His heavenly Father take precedence of all others, and bears testimony to a profound appreciation of the transcendent reality of His Divine Sonship (cf. B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 278 ff.). It is true, we have no right to assume that the Boy Jesus had no knowledge of His unique relationship to God (cf. Gore, Diss. p. 78, n. 1). The use of the possessive particle μου points to the probability that His powers of realiza- tion in this respect were as wonderful as the development of His mental faculties in another. This is, however, far from saying that Jesus at this early age possessed the consciousness of His Messiahship, which only came to full maturity at the next turning-point of His life (see Sanday’s art. ‘ JesusChrist’ in Hast- ings’ DB, vol. ii. p. 609); and the short but graphic touch with which St. Luke portrays for us His surprise at His parents’ method of search {τί ors ἐζητεῖτέ we;), and His sustained sub- ordination (ἣν ὑποτασσόμενος αὐτοῖς gives the idea of a continuance of His subjection to the conditions of His home life) to the authority of Joseph and Mary shows how completely the Son of God ‘emptied Himself,’ μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, Ph 27,

One incidental reference to this period of Jesus’ life in the Synoptic narrative further deepens the nnpressiveness of this self-humiliation. St. Mark relates that on the occasion of one of His visits to Nazareth (Mk 61) His teaching was met by His fellow-townsmen with the scornful question, ‘Is not this the carpenter?’ (ὁ τέκτων). ἢ This single question gives point to the more general remark of St. Luke mentioned above, and interprets his use of the analytical or periphrastic tense (ἣν ὑποτασ- oduevos: for the use of this form of the verb the reader is recommended to see Burton’s NT’ Moods and Tenses, Ὁ. 11 f. and p. 16; see also Blass, Gram. of NT Greek, p. 203).

His whole life, then, previous to the events which led to His public ministry, was lived under the simple conditions which obtained in a humble but pious country home, and His answer to the Baptist’s remonstrance, ‘it becometh us (πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν) to fulfil all righteousness’ (Mt 815), is the result of a training characteristic in its naiveté of a house whose inmates ‘waited for the redemption :of Israel’ (Lk 25), and were strict observers of the laws governing the religious life of the Jews. See, further, artt. BoyHoop and CHILDHOOD.

It may not be out of place to note a slight but significant difference in the method of introducing the narrative of Jesus’ baptism between the Lukan and the other two Synoptic versions. The latter speak of Jesus as coming from Galilee for the special purpose of being baptized (see fragment of Gosp. Heb. in Jerome’s adv. Pelag. 8)--τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ (Mt 313), καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ Τωάννου (Δ 19),—and seem to be conscious of a certain amount of astonishment on account of the act. The Lukan narrative, on the other hand, gives the story an incidental character ; and by its uses of the participle, both in describing the act of baptism and also His prayer which im- mediately followed (zai Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου, Lk 321), the Evangelist gives a human touch to the whole scene which harmonizes well with the style of his history in this place.

(5) It is, however, when we come to the scene of His temptation, and study it in connexion with the revelation which He had just received from His Father, that we begin to appreciate the full mean- ing of the words of He 415 that Jesus was One who ‘in all points’ (κατὰ πάντα) was tempted like our- selves. Whatever be the interpretation we are inclined to put upon the nature and method of the temptations (see art. TEMPTATION) to which He was subjected, one thing must be uncompromis-

* This would seem to be the original and correct form of the expression, though the Matthzan record has ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός (Mt 1355), to which the Western text (11) of St. Mark has con- formed (see Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 52 f.).

ACCOMMODATION

ingly insisted on—the struggle was a real one, it was intense, it was necessary (ἔπρεπεν yap αὐτῷ... διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι, He 2), It is necessary that we should be on our guard against falling into the errors which mar, for example, the work of Hilary of Poitiers in his controversy with the Arians (see especially his Libri XII. de Trinitate, Liber x.). To explain away the reality of the sufferings of Jesus arising out of His different temptations, whether these sufferings are mental or physical, is of the essence of Docetism ; and a docetic Christ has never yet appealed, and we are confident never will appeal, to the conscious needs of humanity. Jesus Himself must have been the ultimate source from which the story-of the Temp- tation became known, and it is very evident that the impression made upon His mind by the terrible» ordeal was most profound. He had just received from His Father the revelation of His unique Son- ship.* St. Matthew and St. Luke agree in prefix- ing to two of the temptations the words, ‘If thou art the Son of God,’ the essence of the trial con- sisting in the danger of doubting the truth which had been disclosed to His consciousness, and of testing the fidelity of God by a thaumaturgical exhibition. There is also a subtle psychological and spiritual fitness in the character of the first of the series, which speaks, perhaps, more for its real force than any direct statement could do. The appeal came to Jesus in the hour and on the side of His physical exhaustion, and this is in direct ae- cordance with the general experience of humanity. Temptation becomes infinitely stronger and more dangerous when physical weakness comes to the aid of the external promptings of the Evil One.

That Jesus believed, and led those to whom He recounted His experiences to believe, in the near presence of a personal spirit of evil during this critical period of conflict, is very evident (see Gore, Diss. IS 24 ff.). Moreover, this Evil One (ὁ διάβολος, Mt 45.8. 11, Lk 49. 6. 18... ὁ Σατανᾶς, Mk 113)is a prince standing at the head of a kingdom which is the direct anti- thesis of the kingdom of God. According to the Lukan version of this incident, Jesus expected to meet again in personal con- flict this great spiritual enemy. The devil left Him only till further opportunity for assault should arise (ἄχρι καιροῦ, Lk 413); and towards the end of His ministry we find Him giving expression to the consciousness that the great struggle with His arch-foe was about to recommence—‘The prince of the world (ὁ τοῦ κέσμου ἄρχων, Jn 1480) is (now) coming’ (cf. 121), When His arrest, following upon His betrayal, was about to become an accomplished fact, He recognized the return of the spirit of evil, and that the return was with power (ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους, Lk 2253),

Perhaps there is no more vivid presentation of the profound reality of His subjection to tempta- tion than that afforded by the narrative dealing with the events which occurred in Caesarea Phi- lippi. It is almost possible to see the startled look of Marne on Jesus’ face as He listens to Peter’s well-meant, if indiscreet, remonstrance. In the words of His chief Apostle He hears again the voice of Satan (cf. Mt 1672 and Mk 833), and the almost fierce way in which He rebukes Peter points to the conclusion that this is not the first time the suggestion has whispered itself into His ear, to forego the bitter taste which He knows He must experience before His work is ended.

(c) Before passing from the: consideration of this aspect of the Incarnation viewed as the self- adaptation of the Son of God to the conditions of humanity, we must refer shortly to some of the details of the last, greatest, and most awful of the temptations to which Jesus was exposed. Some have sought to explain away the reality both of the temptations and the sufferings, through a vain desire to exalt His Divine at the expense of

* For our present purpose it is immaterial whether we reject the words of the Textus Receptus Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ ηὐδόκησα in favour of the Western reading of Lk 322 υἱός nov εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά ot, Which Resch and Blass as well as

others seem to prefer (cf. Blass, Hv. secundum Lucam, etc., Prefatio, pp. xxxvi-xxxvii).

ACCOMMODATION

ACCOMMODATION 17

His human nature; but this is not the method of interpreting the life of Christ which brings out of it God’s answer to man’s deepest and most conscious

needs. There can hardly be a doubt in the mind

man ae |

of any unprejudiced reader that the Synoptists

place on record their accounts of the Passion be- lieving the facts detailed to be real and objective. The words of Jesus are the expressions of a mind torn with the mental and spiritual conflict ; and if Lk 9238. # be not a mere Western interpolation, the element of awful fear entered into and height- ened His sufferings. It is only in this way that we can interpret the words ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ. See art. AGONY. The thrice-repeated prayer of Jesus, in which He speaks of His own will as distinct from, but completely subordinate to, His Father’s, adds to the impression, already gained, of the purely human feelings exhibited by Him in His struggle, and recalls to our mind the words in His own form of prayer, ‘ Thy will be done’ (Mt 6) ; thus connecting, in the greatest crisis of His life, His own with our absolute dependence upon the ex- pressed will of His Father.

The writer of the Fourth Gospel records sayings of Jesus which are very similar to this. After the conversation of Jesus with the woman of Samaria, He explains to His disciples the all-absorbing, satisfying character of His life’s work, which is to do the will (τὸ θέλημα) of His Father (Jn 4%). In

other places He distinguishes between His own

θέλημα and that of His Father (Jn 5°° 633). and this is the word used by the Synoptic writers when recording the words of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. On what grounds St. Luke employs the verb fov- λομαι (227) in this connexion we do not know. If the choice is not accident, it is evidence that even in His great aftliction Jesus bowed Himself to the deliberate determination of God (for the connexion between βούλομαι and θέλω see Cremer, pp. 143 ff. and 726 f.).

A very pathetic touch is given by St. Matthew to the por- traiture of this scene in the garden. Both he and St. Mark relate how Jesus expressed a wish that His three disciples should be on their guard. St. Mark, however, leaves the im- pression that He is bidding them watch against the too sudden intrusion of their enemies upon His privacy. Twice He uses the imperative ‘Watch.’ On the other hand, St. Matthew twice adds to this same verb the expression ‘with me,’ as if anxious to show the very buman desire of Jesus to have the companionship of faithful friends in the hour of His need and solitude. The same two writers have recorded a saying of Jesus to His sleeping companions (‘Sleep on now, and take your rest’) which is omitted by St. Luke. In these words it is pos- sible to discover a tinge of bitter sadness and disappointment, as if the reflection were forced upon Him that He was bereft even of that loyal friendship which had left all and followed Him ; and that, too, at a time when it was most precious, and when He stood in sorest need of its help and sympathy. The truth is, He felt the full force of the temptation to leave undone the last and hardest part of the work which He came to do, or to find a way of fulfilling His Father's will other than by tread- ing the path of suffering and death. It was in the very act of submission that He found His most effective weapon of resist- ance ; and we have here αὖ the same time a verification of the reality of His human nature, and an example of Himself carry- ing out to fulfilment the princip!'e which He inculcated as a cuide to others—‘He that humbieth himself shall be exalted’ (Lk 1814 1411),

ii. INCIDENTS INFERENTIALLY VALUABLE.—(@) If we scrutinize carefully the method of resistance which Jesus adopted in His first great conflict, we cannot fail to see the results of that moral and spiritual education which was the characteristic element of His domestic surroundings, and with which we become incidentally acquainted by the tone of His remark to His mother in the temple. The words ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου (Lk 2”) show how

rofoundly He was impressed with the sense of

is Divine Sonship; and, we must believe, they were the outcome of His familiarity with the thought underlying much of the language of the OT. In repelling the Satanie attacks of the Temp-

tation He reveals to us a mind steeped in thie VOL. I.—2

literature of, and full to overflowing with spiritual principles culled from, the Book of Deuteronomy. Nor was it only when He felt the sore stress of temptation that His belief in the truth of Ged’s revelation given in the OT, and His profound knowledge of its contents, came to His aid. In the hour of His intensest bodily and mental agony, the words of Ps 22 leaped instinctively to His mind, and gave expression to the feeling of awful loneliness which then hung over Him like a black cloud. If in moments of deepest feeling, when the soul almost without conscious effort turns to the sources whence it drew its early sustenance, Jesus had recourse to the words of the OT, and was able to extract from that wide field of literature all that was purest and most spiritual, it was not, we feel sure, without long, deep study and pondering over the meaning of the different writers from His childhood onwards. Remembering, then, this feature in the mental and spiritual equipment of Christ, it will not be surprising if we find Him displaying the same habit of mind in almost every variety of circumstance of which He found Him- self the centre. St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us that, at the time of St. Peter’s confession at Ceesarea Philippi, He for the first time spoke to His disciples of the fatal end in store for Him. St. Matthew clearly points out that this was a new departure—da76é τότε ἤρξατο, «.7.d. (167!),—and that He continually reverted to the subject as if desirous of impressing the disciples with the im- possibility of His escape. We do not know at what precise period Jesus was convinced that there could inevitably be only one ending to His work, or whether He knew trom the beginning, and merely waited for a fitting time to prepare His disciples for the shock. We do, however, know that at this period He was convinced not merely by the ‘signs of the times’ (Mt 16%), which all pointed in this direction, but also by His know- ledge and interpretation of the things which were written ‘in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms’ (Lk 2444), concerning Him, that the way of glory was the way of the cross. St. Mark makes a pointed reference to the connexion, which evidently existed in Jesus’ mind, between the death of the Baptist and His own coming end (9!f) ; and we know that the murder of John made a profound impression upon Him (Mt 14:5, οἵ. Jn 6'). Perhaps we may be allowed to conjecture that this circumstance marked an advance in the mind of Christ towards a great synthesis — the identification of the Conquering with the Sutter- ing Messiah.

The question σῶς γέγραπται, z.7.A., of Mk 912, shows what it was that strengthened His resolve to pursue His mission to its consummation. That He dwelt long and deliberately on this aspect of His work is seen by the way in which He again refers to it towards the end of His journey to Jerusalem (Mk 1099, to which St. Luke adds the characteristic formula... terecliceras πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένω διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, Lk 18315 cf. also ΜῈ: χκαθὼ: γέγραπται, Lk 2932 κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον, 24551. 44. 40. Mt 2654,

(6) One οἵ the most widely canvassed, and, in- deed, the most dithcult passage in the Gospel history is that in which Jesus is said to have dis- claimed the knowledge of the time of His glorious Return. St. Matthew and St. Mark record His disavowal in almost identical words, except that the former emphasizes it by the addition of μόνος to the words εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, which are common to both (cf. Mt 9456 and Mk 1393). In both narratives Jesus is represented as speaking in the 3rd person (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, by which we are doubtless to under- stand His usual self-designation ‘Son of Man,’ occurring as this title does in the context of both passages, Mt 24%7-39| Mk 1375). How are we to interpret, then, this self-revelation which emanates from the consciousness of Jesus? Many expedients have been tried to get over the logical conclusion

18 ACCOMMODATION

derivable from a literal exegesis, some even going

so far as to suggest that the passage is an Arian interpolation.

Athanasius would almost dichotomize the Person of Christ in his effort at explanation. Indeed, he plainly asserts that the Son did know ‘the hour of the end of all things.’ But as being the Word (ὡς μὲν Acyos) He knew, though at the same time as man (ὡς δὲ ἀνθρωπο:) He is ignorant of it (ἀγνοεῖ). In the same context he maintains that Jesus acted deliberately in speaking of His ignorance for the sake of ‘economy’ (φανερὸν πετοίηξκεν ὅτι περὶ τῆ: ἀνθρωπίνης αὐτοῦ λειτουργίας ἔλεγεν, " οὐδὲ ὁ Ties’). See his Orations against the Arians, bk. ii. chapters xliii. and xliv., where these passages occur (Bright’s ed.). Cyril of Alex- andria, in his capacity of malleus Arianoruim, speaks in much the same strain, and sometimes more unguardedly, as if he were unwilling, as indeed most of the Fathers were, to face the theological and exegetical difficulties of this whole question. Most of us willsympathize with the strong and vigorous language of Theodoret with respect to the evasions so commonly current. ‘Tf,’ he says, ‘He knew the day, but being desirous to conceal it said He did not know, you see in what blasphemy the infer- ence lands us. For the Truth lies’ (Kepr. XII. capp. Cyril in Anath. IV.). :

There is also a considerable body of modern thought which seems to reject all serious consideration of this aspect of the Incarnation as being dangerous toa right and reverent attitude towards the claims of Christ. We have only to read such a book as Hall’s V’he Kenotic Theory, or several articles in the Ch. Q. Review (e.g. vols. xliv., xlv., and lii.), to see how earnestly men contend against the frank acceptance, in their most obvious meaning, of the words of Jesus.

However mysterious the conclusion at which we are forced to arrive may be, and however incon- sistent the different parts of our Christological system may appear, it is necessary for us candidly to accept this self-revelation of Jesus as being strictly in accord with His personal consciousness, and, moreover, as being an infallible indication of the complete and perfect manner in which the Divine Word accommodated Himself to the con- ditions of the race whose nature He took.

It would, again, be impossible and absurd to treat the incident of the barren fig-tree, related b both St. Matthew (21/8?) and St. Mark (1132-4), as if it were a mere scenic display for the purpose of solemnly inculcating a moral Jesson. Yet this is practically what we are asked to do by writers who refuse to believe that the mind of Jesus was no more exempt from human characteristics than His body was from the sufferings incident to earthly life. On this occasion He felt the pangs of hunger, and He believed He saw the natural means of satisfying His need. We could look for no more convincing example, in His life, of the complete adaptation of Himself to all the laws governing mortal existence. Other instances there are in abundance which point in the same direc- tion, viz. to His complete and willing submission to the limitations which condition the haman mode of life. He hungered, as we have seen (Mt 42, Mk 11”=Mt 218, Jn 4531), and sympathized with those who suffered thus (Mt 15°2=Mk 85, ef. Mt. 12" and 25°"). He suffered the pangs of thirst (Jn 47 and 1958). He experienced physical weariness after prolonged exertion (Jn 4°, cf. Mt S%4= Mk 438), Not- withstanding O. Holtzmann’s interpretation of Lk 955 (= Mt 8) it is very certain that there is a per- sonal reference to His homeless condition in these words, and we notice a quiet sadness, as if He felt the loneliness attaching to a life of continued wandering (cf. O. Holtzmann’s Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. p. 169, note 3, and p. 303f.).

(6) The element of spontaneity discoverable in the words and actions of Jesus, expressive of His attitude either towards His fellow-men or towards God, lends force to what we have been saying about limitations involved in His manhood. (1) He experienced feelings of keen disappointment with the people of His country for their lack of spiritu- ality (Mk 8” 66, Jn 1158. 88. cf. Mk 9, Jn 149, Mk 8118. 64—Lk 4%, Lk 85- ΜᾺ 4°—Mt 835, Mk 35 738 8 107% —Lk 1818-39—Mt 191624). On the other hand, He expressed astonishment at the spiritual

ACCOMMODATION

receptivity of some who had no claim to be amongst the number of the chosen people of God (Mt 8”= Lk 7°, ef. Mt 15%=Mk 739), though He recognizes the fact that this phenomenon was not confined to His own experience (Mt 124 =Lk 11%", Lk 4°"), The legitimate inference to be drawn from the pas- sage last mentioned is not so much that the Divine love flowed over spontaneously towards those who were outside the Abrahamic covenant, as that faith and trust, often found amongst the heathen, drew towards them God’s gracious intervention, just as the lack of these spiritual graces amongst His own people tended to dry up the fountain of God’s active love (Mk 60:6 -- Mt 13°4°8= Lk 4!®4 (ef, Plummer, 77 Joc.]).

One of the methods adopted by Jesus for pur- poses of instruction was that with which the name of Socrates is usually linked. Starting from pre- mises universally recognized as valid, He leads His hearers onwards by question and answer to the result He wishes to establish (Mk 81:5 1:Ξ Μῦ 1672) Mik 1248) Mit 12% 20218) D446 — Milka ce Lk 204'-4). With these examples we may also compare the merciless way in which Jesus em- ployed this method to involve His enemies in an awkward dilemma (Mt 2174-6), driving home His argument against their moral dishonesty by the parable of the Two Sons, and the question arising out of it (Mt 21°31; ef. 214-4, 12?" and 15%). Not all the questions, however, asked by Jesus were of this character. Some are of the nature of ordi- nary inquiry—a demand for some needed informa- tion. Such are the questions addressed to the sisters of Bethany (Jn 11), to the Gerasene de- moniac (Lk 8*=Mk 5%), to the father of the epi- leptic boy (Mk 9*!), to the disciples on the two occasions (if, indeed, they are not different versions of the same occurrence) of His feeding the multi- tude (Mk 6, 8=Mt 1553; cf., however, Jn 6°, which is the author’s gloss).

(2) Not very far removed from this phenomenon in Jesus’ life is the habit of prayer and quiet com- munion with God which He habitually and sedul- ously cultivated (Mt 11°-°=Lk 107%, Lk 3?!, Mk 1%, Mt 143, Lk 518 613 928 29%? 298". — Mt 26% —Mk 14%, with which we may compare Jn 175-15: * 141° 12°7t-), Of the three Synoptists, St. Luke seems to be the one who most appreciates this feature of Jesus’ attitude to His Father. No truer comment has ever been made on it than that of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (57) in referring to His supplications in Gethsemane—the ‘ obedience’ of Christ was slowly fashioned through prayer, which was answered for His reverent devotion (Westcott, Ep. to Heb. in loc.). The two descrip- tive words employed by this writer (δεήσεις τε καὶ ixernpias) illustrate well the intense nature of these supplications (μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς Kal δακρύων), reminding us of the vivid representation of Mk 145, We have here ‘the spectacle of true man, weighted with a crushing burden, the dread of a catastrophe awful and unfathomed’ (Gore, Diss. η. 821.).

: iii. JESUS’ ACTIVITY AS TEACHER.—(a@) When we look at the position of Teacher occupied by Jesus, we not merely see Him assuming tacitly to be the ultimate authority upon the ethical value of OT laws, and giving instruction from that standpoint suitable to the receptive powers of His hearers, we are also confronted with His confessed subordination even in this sphere. His is a dele- gated authority conferred on Him by an unction from God. He was sent with a definite message, the contents of which He identified with that given in Deutero-Isaiah (ch. 42, ef. 6115). We are re-

minded of the words of the Apostle Peter at Cvesarea (Ac 10°8), where he uses the same word to express this unction, and adds as the secret of the

ACCOMMODATION

ACCOMMODATION 19

marvellous power exhibited by the Anointed that God was with Him. This thought is most fre- quently and plainly dwelt on in the Fourth Gospel, and this is the more surprising as it appears along- side of claims the most far-reaching as to the significance of His life and teaching. In His con- versation with Nicodemus, Jesus sets forth His place in the scheme of world-salvation. He is the object of men’s faith and belief. It is through Him that life is brought into the world. At the same time He is the Sent of God (. . . ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς Tov υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, K.T.A., Jn 317, ef. 393 453. 539.

24. 30. 36-38 629- 38. 39. 44. 57 716. 18. 28, 29. 33 816. 18. 26. 29. 42 93

10° 11% 12-49-29 1474 1522 16° 173 and 2071, Lk 1016 9, Mt 10”, οἵ. Mk 997 and Jn 13”).

(6) Not only has He received His commission as a Teacher from God, but there is a limitation de- fined for Him in the scope of the delivery of His message (Jn 11, Mt 15% 21°), (1) This limit He not only observed Himself, but imposed also on His disciples. During His ministry their preach- ing was confined to the borders of Israel by His direct orders (Mt 10%); and this limitation was considered of binding force at the time (Ac 355), though it was abrogated in the light of further development (οἵ. Mt 2818, Mk 1015: Lk 2447, Ac 14), It is important, then, to recognize that Jesus Him- self consciously set national and local bounds to His missionary activity, and was willing to adapt His methods of work to suit the conditions which governed the time and place of His incarnate life. It is difficult to see how He could have approached, with any hope of success, a people so hide-bound in traditionalism as were His countrymen, in any other way than He did. Discrimination in the choice, rather than originality in the creation and presentment of fundamental ideas, characterizes His teaching. And in this we discover His Divine wisdom and greatness. With conscious delibera- tion He refused, so far as His own personal work was concerned, to break with the best and truest tradition as it was embodied in the teaching and institutions of His time. (2) There is a line of development observable in the Jewish mind from the days of the earliest prophets right onwards to the time of Jesus, and He did not break off at a sharp angle from its continuation. He rather set His face towards the direction in which that line travelled, and unswervingly refused to turn aside at the bidding of a childish literalism or of a debased legalism. That He did not confine His recognition of truth to what was overtly taught in the OT is shown by the whole-hearted way m which He accepted the doctrine of individual resurrection, and pressed home the truth of this latter-day Judaistic development upon those who refused to accept it, by a magnificent argumentum ad hom- mem (Lk 20°7-—Mk 1276 —Mt 9251) With this doctrinal disputation between Jesus and the Sad- ducees we may compare that on the same subject between Gamaliel and the ‘scribes of the Saddu- cees’ (see Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 316 n.). This Rabbi bases his argument also on a passage out of the Pentateuch (Dt 18, ef. 11°), but misses the opportunity so well utilized by Jesus of emphasizing the spiritual side of that truth. It is significant in respect of this, that. Jesus very seldom makes a formal declara- tion or revelation of the truth of the resurrection doctrine (Jn 5*-°8); and, except on this occasion when He was challenged to prove it, He never attempts to give any reasons for its acceptance.

He found the belief prevalent amongst the best spirits of His time, and He simply refers to it as a matter of course by taking for granted that His hearers will understand the allusion, and accept the consequences He deduces (Lk 14%, ef. Jn 11%). On the one hand, He lays stress on His own judicial

functions as finding their final scope when that wondrous result is achieved (οἵ. Jn 551: 37. Mt 2481 1677 2528-195 13%, Mk 13%). Then, again, He incidentally refers to the resurrection as a future event of universal significance, to be brought into objective existence by the power of God (Mt 22”) exercised through Himself, who will employ angels as the executors of His final decrees (Mt 13:15. 496 Mk 13”).

(a) In these passages we are able to observe a double object in the teaching of Jesus about two distinct contemporary beliefs. As we have seen, there was a current belief, existent amongst the best religious thought, in the resurrection of the dead. This was, however, intimately connected with Jewish hopes as to the future earthly national Messianic kingdom (ef. Is 26'+ 19. Ezk 3711, Dn 122, where its extent is limited to those who have dis- tinguished themselves on one side or other of the national conflict, mainly with Antiochus Epiphanes [see Driver, Daniel, in loc. and Introd. xcif., and Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality‘, p. 19: Ὁ ΠΕ:

The imperfection and uncertainty of the hold which this doctrine had on the Jewish mind is evidenced by such passages as 2 Mac 79. 14. 23. 36, 2 Es 7(79)-(100) ; Jos. Ant. xvill. i. 3; Bar 217, Sir 1727f 414. In the Apocalypse of Baruch, in answer to the question as to the changes which are to take place (493), the writer affirms his belief in the resurrection of the body, and the subsequent transformation of the bodies of the righteous in order to the enjoyment of unending spiritual happiness (chs. 50 and 51 [ed. by Prof. Charles}). The authors of the Book of Enoch vary as to the extent of the resurrection, but all are agreed as to the restoration of the righteous Israelite to the fulness of a glorious life in the new Messianic kingdom which God shall establish on earth.

Now, as we have just said, Jesus, in His allusions to the doctrine of the resurrection, while accom- modating His language to the received Jewish opinions, emphasizes the truth and discards the excrescences which had deformed the popular belief. In His eschatological references and dis- courses, connexions with current thought are easily discovered, even when He is engaged in contradict- ing the presumptuous expectations of those whom He is addressing. Compare His use of apocalyptic figures when speaking of His Parousia (Mt 81, Lk 13°85 2216, Mt 267%), where the future kingdom is likened to a banquet where the guests recline at the table with the fathers of the Jewish nation (ef. e.g. Mt 22)4 and Lk 14-4). This is the more remarkable that it is accompanied by a stern re- minder that the real heirs of the kingdom shall find themselves outside their heritage. The refer- ence to the judgment of the tribes of Israel is also to benoted in Mt 1055, Lk 22°°, and Rey 20+, remind- ing us of the idea expressed in Dn 7”, 1 Co 6°, Wis 38, Sir 4).

The imagery in which Jesus clothed His description of the events which were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24131=Mk 131-27=Lk 215-3), and His subsequent Return, finds many parallels in Jewish literature (cf. 2 Es 51-15 618-28 91-12 1329-31, 2 Mac 52f, Apoc. Bar 7023; Mishna, Sota, ix. 15; and Jos. BJ vi. v. 3). It is probable that in Mt 2423 we have the quotation of a current proverb which may or may not have had its origin in the detestation in which the symbols of Roman power and authority were held (see Plummer on Lk 1787; and Farrar, Life of Christ, vol. ii. p. 262). In any event we know that the phrase οἱ ἀετοί was known to His hearers as symbolical of God’s judgments wrought by means of heathen enemies and oppressors (see Charles’ ed. of Enoch [92]; cf. Dt 2849, Job 926, Hab 18 etc.). The same may be said of the reference to the trumpet (σάλπιγξ) as the instrument by which the resurrection of the dead is immediately effected (cf. 1 Th 416, 1 Co 15°2, Mt 2431, and 2 Es 622). In this connexion, and intimately related to the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, we may note the simile used by Jesus in His lamentation over that city. The similitude of the hen and her brood (Mt 2327) ‘is not found in the OT, but is frequent in Rabbinical literature’ (Plummer on Lk 1334). Compare, e.g., 2 Es 129, in which context are also to be found very similar references to the righteous wrath of God and its terrible consequences. He will require the blood of all His servants and prophets slain by the hands of those to whom they were sent (2 Es 182). Their house is left unto them desolate (v.93). These words remind us of the language of Jesus in Mt 23°f 35 (cf. Lk 1149), where Wendt

20

ACCOMMODATION

ACCOMMODATION

thinks there is a reference to a Jewish apocalyptic writing (ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν) on the part of Jesus (Lehre Jesu, Eng. tr. ii. 362). See, further, MESSIAN, PARousIA.

(8) The other contemporary belief referred to above had to do with the part played by angels in the Divine economy of revelation and grace. Amongst the Jews of the time of Jesus there was a tendency to emphasize the importance of the functions ascribed to these beings. This tendency arose out of the growing habit of thought which removed God farther and farther from that active participation in the world’s concerns which was characteristic of early Israelitish belief (Ex 37*, Gn 11" 18” (ef. G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the NT, p. 11f.]). To them angels were the necessary media connecting a transcendental God with the world and men. (For the external influences which helped the growth of this development see art. [by Whitehouse] ‘Demon, Devil,’ in Hastings’ DB, vol. i. p. 592). Over against God and His kine- dom, thus conceived, stood Satan and his dominion, ruled after the same method by means of dependent demoniacal beings. It is important te note that, although these dualistic conceptions held a large place in the current thought of His day, Jesus has let fall no hint as to His ideas on the subject of angelology. By Him God is conceived as in direct living contact with men, guiding their affairs, and interesting Himself in their welfare (Mt 5”, Lk 085, Mt 6? 618-82 711), Perhaps in no way does this come out so clearly as in the stress laid by Him on the Fatherhood of God (ef. e.g. Lk 15"). What was halting, spasmodic, and inferential in the OT becomes in the teaching of Jesus a central, illumi- nating truth which He would have His hearers emphasize during the most sacred moments of their lives—IIdrep ἡμῶν (Mt 6°, cf. the Πάτερ of Lk 11°). At the same time the Gospels furnish us with many references by Jesus to angels and their work, all of which are intimately related to con- temporary ideas. It is unimportant for our present purpose whether we interpret these references literally, or, as Beyschlag and others do, meta- phorically ; viz. as poetical and figurative ex- pressions.

From Himself must have come the information noted by the Synoptists as to angelic ministrations (cf. Mt 41.=Mk 113, Lk 2243); and He must have been thinking of these services when He rebuked St. Peter with the question recorded in Mt 265% (cf. Jn 18%6, where of ὑπηρέται of ἐμοί may refer to them also). That He believed in the reality of their existence is, of course, true. That He ascribed to them functions suitable to their state of being is also true. They are described as ‘holy,’ possessed of a knowledge of the ways of God in a higher degree than the sons of men (οὐδὲ of ἄγγελοι), and interested in the spiritual condition of mankind (cf. Mk 888, Mt 1627 2531, Mk 1382, Lk 1510, with which*we may compare 2 Es 1666 and Lk 128). Jesus in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, utilizes the Rabbinical belief that the souls of the righteous are carried to paradise by the angels, but in a way so incidental that we are not justified in affirming or denying His belief in that tenet (Lk 162%, with which may be compared the description of Elijah’s translation in 2K 211), In Mt 1810 there is a deliberate assertion by Jesus that God’s care over the least important of His people is exercised through the media of angels. This is an extension or development of the idea of national guardian angels in Dn 1018-20. He makes an incidental reference to their supersensual nature in His discussion with the Sadducees on the subject of the Resurrec- tion (Mk 122%=Mt 22°0=Lk 2036), where He employs a well- known Jewish opinion (with the Lukan ἰσάγγελοι compare Apoc. Bar 5110 and Eth. Enoch 1044-6) in order to enforce a funda- mental spiritual truth. The same didactic purpose is discover- able in all the references of Jesus to these beings; and we are therefore led to the conclusion that there is, in His attitude towards this question, evidence of that deliberate economy by which He set to Himself the task of accommodation to the limited knowledge of His fellow-men. It seems to the present writer to be very evident that Jesus knowingly refrained from correcting their ideas on this subject because He had an infinitely more important work to perform. To say with Bishop Gore that His ‘language certainly reaches the level of positive teaching’ about good spirits, seems to import more significance into that language than it can bear (cf. Diss. p. 23f.). The work of Jesus lay on a far higher plane than this— the correcting and revealing of details as to the nature, posi- tion, and employment of subordinate spiritual agencies. It was sufficient for His purpose that a general belief existed in the

loving activity of God, though that activity might be somewhat too rigorously conceived of as mediated by certain personal forces—Atitoupyize πνεύματα (He 114), A comparison of one pair of parallel passages may throw some light on the way in which Jesus’ attitude towards this belief was interpreted by those who heard Him. In Mt 1022 we read of those who accept, and are loyal in their adherence to, His Messianic claims, that the Son of Man will confess them before His Father in heaven; while in Lk 128 the words run, ‘Him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God.’ From this it would appear that ‘ the angels of God’ is a popular synonym for the Sacred Presence, and is employed by Jesus as such (cf. also Lk 157-10), But see art. ANGELS, p. 57>f.

(y) On coming to the consideration of the kindred question arising out of Jesus’ language respecting Satan, demons, and demoniacal possession, we are confronted with a more intricate and difficult problem. There can be no doubt, the present writer thinks, that as He believed in the personal existence of good, so He also believed in that of evil angels. How far, on the other hand, we are bound to accept the views which a literal interpre- tation of the passages where reference to them is found would convey, is another question, and one which demands some care in determining. In the first place, there are several instances where the language of Jesus respecting these beings is obviously figurative, and intended to be inter- preted as such. In relating His experiences during the Temptation period, it would certainly seem as if He intended to convey, in language vividly syimbolical, an idea of the tremendous difficulties which beset Him in His choice of two alternatives. The popular Jewish Messianic ex- pectations He embodied in a personified form, and Satan appears in the narrative because of the didactic purpose which He had in view.

A similar interpretation seems necessary in Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the Sower (Mt 1319 ἔρχεται ὁ πονηρός; Mk 415 ἔρχέτα; ὁ Σατανᾶς; Lk 812 ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος), though Plummer (note on Lk 812) insists that Jesus is here emphasizing His belief in the Personality of the evil there described as working. The whole passage, however, is highly figurative, and it seems some- what arbitrary to pick and choose in that way. A very remark- able instance of similar personification is found in the Lukan narrative of the healing of St. Peter’s mother-in-law. Just as St. Luke seems to be the most deeply impressed of the Synop- tists with this aspect of Jesus’ power and work, so he is the only one of the three to note this. By using the verb ἐπετίμησεν (434), which he had employed immediately before (ν.99) in de- scribing the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue, he links the two acts together by an inward connexion. The same verb, indeed, is found in all three Synoptists in their narratives of the stilling of the tempest on the Lake of Gennesaret (cf. Lk 874, Mt 826, Mk 4389), and we cannot resist the conclusion that the disciples saw behind the storm the work of a living personal agent, and that Jesus acted in the spirit of that presupposition (cf. O. Holtzmann’s Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. p. 268). Similarly in His rebuke of St. Peter (Mk 833=Mt 1625), Jesus sees behind the language of His chief Apostle that spirit of evil which all through His work strove to thwart and hinder Him. He addresses him directly and personally as ‘Satan’ (Σατανα), just as He addressed the last and fiercest temptation in the first dangerous crisis of His life (Mt 410). F :

A striking and illustrative example of this figure is discovered in Jesus’ words to His returned missionary disciples (Lk 1018), These, in their report, referred specially to the power over demons, recently conferred upon the Twelve, as being also possessed by themselves, which elicited from Him the following reply, ‘I beheld Satan fallen (AV fall) as lightning from heaven’ (cf. Is 1412). Some see in these words a reference by Jesus to the original Fall of the Angels, and an implied rebuke to the disciples, warning them against the sin which caused that catastrophe. On the other hand, the use of the aorist participle (τεσόντα) in the place of emphasis points to the conclusion that Jesus is speaking of an event occurring during the time of the successful missionary tour (cf. Blass, Gram. of NT Greek, §58, 4, p. 197f.; and Burton, NZ’ Moods and Tenses, ὃ 146ff., p. 67 f.). Be that as it may, the simile is a familiar one to the Jews (cf. Is 1412-15, Rey 127-9), and is used by Jesus to point to the overthrow of the kingdom of evil, as it was foreshadowed by the success which attended His disciples’ first efforts (cf. Jn 1231), ᾿ i

A very remarkable instance of this method is peculiar to the Lukan narrative. Jesus, in warning St. Peter of his coming fall, informs him in solemn language that Satan ‘ obtained him by asking’ (2ar7ca70, Lk 2231) for the purpose of testing him (cf. Job 16-12 and 21-6). He puts Himself in direct personal opposi- tion (ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην) to the Prince of Evil by praying for His Apostle. No less remarkable and instructive is the allegory, common to St. Matthew and St. Luke, by which He teaches the danger of and tendency towards reverting to a former state of

ACCOMMODATION

ACCOMMODATION 21

sin. He speaks of the unclean spirit or demon (τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα) Which, having been cast out of his victim, goes in search of rest through dry and desert regions (δι᾽ ἀνύδρων τόπων). Failing in his quest, he deliberates with himself as to his future line of action, and finally makes up his mind to return to the place whence he was driven. With himself he brings seven other spirits, and they all take up their abode in the empty chamber, which was all too ready to receive them (Lk 1124-26, Mt 1243-45), For the belief that more than one demon might possess ἃ human being, compare Mk 5!f., Mt 825f., Lk 826f, and Lk 82 (ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια). The teaching of Jesus is not only based on the popular belief in the active connexion between evil spirits and the children of men, but there is a reference in it to the generally accepted idea that wild and desert regions are the special habitat of these beings (see art. ‘Demon, Devil’ in Hastings’ DB, vol. i. p. 593»).

Jesus, on more than one occasion, seems to sanction the current conception of the malignant influence of demons on the human body, their activity in this respect being controlled and guided by their chief, Satan (ὁ ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων, Mt 1224), St. Luke’s diagnosis of the woman’s case who was afflicted for eighteen years, is simply that she was possessed of a ‘spirit of infirmity’ (πνεῦμα ἀσθενείαις, Lk 1311); and Jesus apparently countenanced the belief by the words contained in His reproof (ὅν ἔδησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς, v.16), A similar instance of His countenanc- ing popular beliefs occurs in the healing of the deaf and dumb epileptic (Mk 917-27), The boy’s father believes his son to be the victim of demoniac malignity (ἔχοντα πνεῦμα ἄλαλον, v.17); and Jesus addresses the spirit by an authoritative command (τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα, ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι, V.29),

Perhaps the surest evidence we have that Jesus deliberately suited His language to the notions of His day arises out of the way in which He wrought His cures, depending as He did on the moral and spiritual forces inherent in His own Person. A word, a command, a touch of the hand suffices His purpose (cf. Mt 816, Mk 157, Lk 1313). There is no trace of His ever having employed any of the current methods of exorcism—the use of certain magic formule, such as ‘the ineffable Name,’ ete. (see Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, bk. iii. ch. xiv. and Ap. XVI. Cf. the astonishment which Jesus’ method created amongst His countrymen [Lk 436. cf. Ac 19]). That He knew of such methods is evident from the ironical question He put to the Pharisees who accused Him of collusion with Beelzebub (Mt 1227=Lk 1119). For evidence that Jesus believed in power over evil spirits exercised by others not directly com- missioned by Him, οἵ. Mt 72, Mk 98=Lk 9998

On the other hand, signs are not wanting that Jesus recognized an essential difference between the casting out of demons and the curing of bodily disease—‘TI cast out demons and perform cures’ {5 ci. Mt 108, Mk 613, Lk 9! 611:.)., St. Matthew, moreover, records the same distinction in his account of the early Galilean ministry (δαιμονιζομένους καὶ σεληνιαζομένους, 4523, with which οἵ. Mk 155: We may also note in passing that instances are not wanting of references to disease withont mention of these agents (cf. e.g. Mt 9°7-*1, 77, Lk 171-19),

Looking then at this last aspect of the question, and noting the way in which He employed the language current in His day about this mysterious phenomenon, we perceive Jesus’ knowledge to be in advance of that possessed by His countrymen. We see the workings of that love which, while it appeals to man as he is, yet ever strives to draw him upwards by gradually stripping him of the clogging weights of superstition and of false con- ceptions. See artt. DEMON, LUNATIC, POSSESSION.

(6) In harmony with this characteristic habit of Jesus is His general method of imparting definite instruction. It is impossible not to be struck with the way in which He, not content with telling His hearers directly what He wishes them to know, approaches them from another side — the side of reason and its resultant freedom and in- dependence of thought. The Sermon on the

Mount is not a body of precepts like the Mosaic code, so much as a series of paradoxes which arrest and fix the attention, calling out and developing the powers of rational deduction.

The same

feature runs through the parabolic form which His teaching so largely took, and which was so admirably suited to maintain the studied reserve in the content of His communications. Notice the way in which He keeps back, all through the earliest period of His ministry, the revelation of His claims to be the Messiah (Mk 1253! 83°, Lk 441, ef. Mt 1216 8? etc.); and even to the Twelve He does not impart the nature of those claims till they slowly worked out for themselves the con- viction to which St. Peter gave such emphatic expression at Czesarea Philippi (Mk 839-- Mt 1618 = Lk 9°°),

(1) Popularly intelligible and highly impressive, the parables of Jesus have been the wonder and admiration of every age. The OT is not without examples of this mode of teaching (2S 12! 14, 1 K 20%, Is 56), and the Rabbinical writings afford numerous examples of parables (see Eders- heim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 580f.) some of which bear a striking resem- blance to those of Jesus (ef. Midrash on Ca 1!). The object of parabolie teaching was twofold, and was thus purposely employed by Him (Mt 13?%!), By it He meant to conceal the truth ‘from the wise and clever’ (ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν, Mt 11% [see Moffatt’s Histor. NT?, p. 316f.]). By it He at the same time intended to unfold the same truth ‘to babes’ (vnmios). According to the Markan narrative, there was an adaptation to the capaci- ties of His hearers even within the zone of His parabolic teaching. He did not, that is to say, employ this method indiscriminately or harshly, but in a tentative and gentle fashion, proportion- ate to the intelligences of those who heard Him (Mk 4°).

Such was the aim and intention of Jesus; and in connexion with this it will not be unimportant to note how, as His experience widened, and thie stress of opposition increased, and the bitterness of the enmity to which He was exposed intensified, the parable enters more and more largely into His publie teaching, and gradually assumes a more admonitory, controversial, and sometimes a warn- ing judicial tone. It is impossible to draw up any hard and fast rule exemplifying this statement, but a comparison of the parables grouped in Mt 13 With those in Lk 1471! 136-8 1416-24 16118 19-31 1912-27 etc. will show the gradual development of method in the employment of the parable by Jesus to drive home the meaning of His message to the heart and understanding of His hearers. See PARABLE,

(2) Without entering into a discussion as to the ditference between the parable, the fable, the allegory, and other forms of instruction by figure, it is important to note that Jesus never disdains to use popular figurative expressions in order to point the truth He is aiming to disclose. Just as in its outward form and method He conformed to the usages of His time (cf. Mt 51, Lk 4”, Jn 83, Mt 13! ete.), so in His choice of language He did not disdain to employ what He found ready to His hand, though it was manifestly imperfect. Hedid not, for example, correct the popular notions as to the local positions of Heaven and Hades. The one was regarded as being situated at an indefinite height above the earth (see Ac 1°*-), the other ‘as a dark deep underworld in which the deceased continued to exist’ (Salmond, art. ‘ Hades’ in Hastings DB ii. 275). The ethical teaching of Jesus is not disturbed by these erudities. On more than one occasion He uses them as illustra- tions of His meaning. Capernaum, because it rejected the unparalleled opportunities afforded by His presence and works, He addressed with the question, ‘Shalt thou be exalted unto heaven?’ answering it Himself at the same time, ‘Thou

22 ACCOMMODATION

ACCOMMODATION

shalt go down to Hades.’ The idea was that a complete moral and spiritual overthrow awaited her, whereas she might have enjoyed the full and lofty freedom characteristic of the atmosphere of God’s presence (see Mt 11°°=Lk 1015).

The expression ‘gates of Hades’ (Mt 1618) is similarly figura- tive, and in this place has reference to the forces of death and spiritual decay. Here there is an incidental reference to the general belief that’ Hades is an enclosed prison-like (cf. the ἐν φυλακῇ of 1 P319) abode whose inhabitants are locked and detained inside its gates (cf. Rev 118 ‘I have the keys of Hades’), while there is added to this notion the further thought that there is even in Hades a broad impassable line of demarcation (‘ between us and youa great gulf is fixed,’ Lk 1626) between the souls of those who have lived piously here and those whose lives were selfish (cf. Lk 2343 where the former department of Hades is called ‘ Paradise’). In connexion with this subject it is in- structive to note such ideas as are found in Enoch 22, 51. 6310 102° etc., where, with the single exception of the locale of Sheol, the general description is very similar to that we have been discussing.

(3) One of the traditional forms of teaching was by the employment of aphoristic sayings, such as we have before us in the gnomic wisdom of the Son of Sirach, or of the Pirke Aboth in the Mishna (Schiirer, HJP I. iii. pp. 23-32). Jesus uses this method with wondesral effect, as we see especi- ally in the list of utterances grouped in Mt 5-7, which were collected, we may feel sure, from many different periods of His ministry. All four Gospels afford examples of these proverbial expressions. ΟΥ̓ οῖσε ΜΠ 227. O35 Sen Oui 35 ΝΠ οι δ γῆς 1925 1010, and the unrecorded saying in Ac 2055, Jn 80 474 12:5. while, in this Gospel, Jesus refers explicitly to a proverb current in His time (‘ Herein is the saying true,’ Jn 45. Very striking and vivid also are such figures as those by which the doctrine or teaching of the Pharisees is referred to by the word ‘leaven’ (Mk 815), His own suffering by the words ‘cup’ and ‘baptism’ (Mk 10°8, cf. Lk 12*f-), the relative positions of Jew and Gentile in the kingdom of grace by the words ‘ children’ and ‘dogs’ (Mk 7**). In the Fourth Gospel there is a striking frequency in this mode of expression. It is in this writing that Jesus speaks of Himself as ‘the way’ (ἡ ὁδός, Jn 14°), ‘the ight of the world’ (813), ‘the bread of life’ (035), ‘the vine’ (15!), ‘the door’ (107). He speaks of His work as His ‘meat’ (4%), of His body as ‘ this temple’ (219). Cf. also such passages as those which deal with the second birth (3°), the living water (419), the heavenly mansions (147), and soon. In all this we observe a method which is peculiarly adapted to the intelligence of those He meant to instruct; and this is still more emphati- cally the case when, as He sometimes does, He expands these figures and similes until they assume the shape of allegories. We see examples of this in His use of the figure of ‘the shepherd’ (10'f-), <the vine’ (15!™), ‘the light’ (12%), ete. No one who has ever heard these can fail to admire ‘the wonderful art and power of popular eloquence’ which He possessed. It was precisely the power to gain the attention and arouse and retain the interest of the people which Jesus wielded, and we can appreciate the reasons for the willingness and eagerness with which He was listened to by the proletariat (Mk 12°’). See art. WISDOM.

(4) The references in the discourses of Jesus to natural or world-phenomena, and to the psycho- logical features of man’s being, exhibit the same reserve, the same restraint in correcting popular notions, the same frank acceptance of current thought. A few examples will be sufficient to show how completely He adapted His laneuage to the limitations of contemporary knowledge. (a) God makes His sun to rise (Mt 555); lightning comes out of the east and takes its swift journey towards the west (Mt 24°’), or it falls down

straight from heaven (Lk 1018) ; the germ of life in the wheat-grain is brought into active play. only

by the death of the seed (Jn 12%). Even the signs which enabled men to forecast the weather were laid by Him under contribution to emphasize a contrast (Lk 12°4#-), The wind blows hither and thither, but men know neither its beginning nor its ending (Jn 3°), any more than they can point to the origin or the destiny of the mysterious (wy ἄνωθεν, the reality of whose existence He never- theless insists cannot be doubted. The gradual growth of the kingdom of God eludes men’s ob- servation, just as that of the planted seed does, which receives the vital principle of its growth from the earth, and advances steadily though secretly (Mk 45).

It seems to the present writer that in the last two cases Jesus is pointing to the existence of a wider field of knowledge into which man has not as yet entered. At the same time He seems to include Himself in the number of those who ‘know not’ the how or the wherefore. Ages were yet to pass over the world before men discovered the laws which govern the relations of natural phenomena, and which enable them) in some cases at least, to predict with almost infallible certainty their regular sequence. Jesus consciously recognized that it was no part of His work to add to the sum total of human knowledge of these subjects.

(8) The same trait is observable in His refer- ences to the anthropological ideas of His time; but for the illustration of this we must refer the reader to artt. FLESH, HEART, SOUL, SPIRIT.

iv. THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS TOWARDS THE MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS OF HIS TIME. — A dis- cussion of the question of Jesus’ attitude towards Messianic hopes and longings is of the utmost importance, on account of its bearing upon the subject with which we are dealing. The attention of the student is at once arrested by His obvious anxiety during the early periods of His ministry to conceal from the general public His claims to the Messiahship. This He did expressly by for- bidding the open proclamation of the truth not merely by the demoniacally possessed (MI 155 815, Mt 1216. Lk 441), but also by those amongst His circle of disciples who grasped the purport of His teaching and the secret of His Personality (Mt 16°=Mk 8®=Lk9"; Mt 179=Mk 9°=Lk 9%). For the same reason He courted secrecy in the performance of miraculous cures, and enjoined silence on those who were healed (Mk 142% 54 76 8*- 26, Mt 9%° 84). Indeed, there is no part of the message which Jesus came to deliver where the words of Mk 4° (‘He spake the word unto them as they were able to hear it’) are more appropriate. The declaration of His Messiahship was gradual ; and even those who were nearest His Person, and in closest touch with His teaching, were left by Him to work out the truth slowly and by degrees.

(a) Perhaps the self-chosen title ‘Son of Man,’ by which He is styled early in His first Galilaean ministry, might at first sight contradict this state- ment (οἷ: Mikj210 = Miti9s=ikeh22i ΝΠ 2-5 Mit a5 =Lk 6°; Mt 12°°=Lk 12”). On further considera- tion, however, it will be seen that Jesus, by this designation of Himself, had a twofold object in view—the concealment of His Messiahship from the many who were not ready to accept His inter- pretation of its meaning and purpose; and at the same time, the unfolding to the few who could bear the revelation, of the character of His Person and His work as shadowed by the title ‘Son of Man.’ See art. SON oF MAN.

(6) The attitude of Jesus to the Jewish Canon of the OT must not be left out of account when con- sidering the methods of His public teaching. Frankly, the belief is at once confessed that here also He ‘used the common language of His con- temporaries in regard to the OT’ (Sanday, Bampton Lect. p. 414), and in accordance with this we can explain the words which St. Luke puts into the mouth of the risen Jesus, where the tripartite divi-

t { | {

ACCOMMODATION

sion of the Hebrew Bible is recognized—the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (24+). With this we may compare the division given in the Prologue of the grandson of Jesus ben Sirach. Other divisions were also current, as ‘Moses and the Prophets’ (Lk 1659- *! 2457), ‘the Law and the Prophets’ (Lk 16°, Mt 7°), where the idea is the same, namely, the entire OT as then existing. In perfect harmony with this is the acceptance by Jesus of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch {Ππ||.. 1059. 5 2477- Mt 19°=Mk 109-58, Mk 12°=Lk 207, Jn 5-47 719. 521.) and the Davidie authorship, if not of the whole Jewish Psalter, at least of many of the Psalms contained therein (Mk 12*f = Ils ee He 20:5).

(1) Several other indications there are which show that He accepted not only the general popular belief in the authenticity ot the OT books as a whole, but also the literal genuineness of the stories with which they abound. The details of the narratives of the Flood and Noah (Mt 24°7 = Lk 17*-), the story of Jonah and his adventures by sea as well as in Nineveh (Mt 12% 164, Lk 11°-), are utilized by Jesus on the assumption of their genuine historicity. The glory of Solomon’s reign, that heyday ot Israelitish prosperity, is incidentally mentioned by Him without any re- serve (Mt 6%=Lk 12%). The question is not, as Dr. Sanday puts it (The Oracles of God’, p. 111), whether Jesus ‘accommodated His language to current notions, knowing them to be false,’ but rather, was His ‘accommodation’ or ‘ condescen- sion’ so complete that He never entertained any other idea as to the character of these narratives than the one currently held? It certainly seems that it never entered into His mind to question their historical truth; and if we seek for the estimation in which He held ‘the Law and the Prophets,’ we find it expressed in words which, if

enuine,* are as emphatic as any that are to be nad. Not ‘one jot or one tittle’ (ἰῶτα ὃν ἢ μία κεραία) was to be done away with until all was fulfilled (Mt 518). Into this Jewish idea of the abiding nature of the Law, Jesus characteristically imported a depth of meaning which, while it did not destroy, transmuted