FABLE.—For the definition of a fable, as distinct from parable, allegory, etc., see Trench, Parables, p. 2 ff. Its main feature is the introduction of beasts or plants as speaking and reasoning, and its object is moral instruction. As it moves on ground common to man and lower creatures, its teaching can never rise to a high spiritual level. Worldly prudence in some form is its usual note, or it attacks human folly and frailty, sometimes in a spirit of bitter cynicism. Hence it has only a small place in the Bible. See PARABLE.
1. In OT.—There are two fables in the OT, though the word is not used; it is perhaps significant that neither is in any sense a message from God. (1) Jotham’s fable of the trees choosing their king illustrates the folly of the men of Shechem ( Jg 9:8). (2) Jehoash’s fable of the thistle and the cedar (2 K 14:9) is his rebuke of Amaziah’s presumption—a rebuke in itself full of haughty contempt, however well grounded. Ezk 17:3–10 is not a fable, but an allegory. In Bar 3:23 ‘authors of fables’ occurs in the list of wise men of the earth who have not yet found Wisdom. Sir 13:17 would seem to be a reference to Æsop’s fables; so Mt 7:15. This type of literature was freely used by later Jewish teachers, and Æsop’s and other fables are frequently found in the Talmud.
2. In NT.—‘Fable’ occurs in a different sense. It is used to translate the Gr. ‘myth,’ which has lost its better sense as an allegorical vehicle for truth, whether growing naturally or deliberately invented, as in Plato’s Republic, and has come to mean a deluding fiction of a more or less extravagant character. The ‘cunningly devised fables’ of 2 P 1:16 are apparently attempts to allegorize the Gospel history, and the belief in the Second Advent. The word occurs four times in the Pastoral Epp., with a more definite reference to a type of false teaching actually in vogue at Ephesus and in Crete. These fables are connected with ‘endless genealogies which minister questionings’ (1 Ti 1:4); they are described as ‘profane and old wives’ fables’ (4:7), and contrasted with ‘sound doctrine’ (2 Ti 4:4). They are ‘Jewish,’ ‘the commandments of men’ (Tit 1:14), and the ‘genealogies’ are connected with ‘fightings about law’ (3:9). The exact nature of the teaching referred to is disputed, but the following points are fairly established, (a) The references do not point to 2nd century Gnosticism, which was strongly anti-Jewish, but to an earlier and less developed form, such as is necessarily implied in the more elaborate systems. The heresies combated are no indication of the late date of these Epistles. (b) The heresy may be called Gnostic by anticipation, and apparently arose from a mixture of Oriental and Jewish elements (perhaps Essene). Its views on the sinfulness of matter led on the one hand to an extreme asceticism (1 Ti 4:3), on the other to unbridled licence (Tit 1:15, 16). (c) There is much evidence connecting this type of teaching with Asia Minor—Col., Tit., Rev., Ignatian Letters, and the career of Cerinthus. Ramsay points out that Phrygia was a favourable soil, the Jews there
being particularly lax. (d) The fables may be specially the speculations about æons and emanations, orders of angels, and intermediary beings, which are characteristic of all forms of Gnosticism; the passages are so applied by 2nd cent. Fathers. But we are also reminded of the legendary and allegorical embellishments of the narratives of the OT, which were so popular with the Jewish Rabbis. SemiChristian teachers may have borrowed their methods, and the word ‘myth’ would be specially applicable to the product.
C. W. EMMET.
FACE is used freely of animals, as well as of men; also of the surface of the wilderness (Ex 16:4), of the earth, of the waters or deep, of the sky. It is used of the front of a house (Ezk 41:14), of a porch (40:15, 41:25), of a throne (Job 26:9). Covering the face in 2 S 19:4 is a sign of mourning (cf. covering the head); it is also a mark of reverence (Ex 3:6, 1 K 19:13, Is 6:2). In Gn 24:65 it indicates modesty. Otherwise it is used simply of blindfolding, literal (Mk 14:65), or metaphorical (Job 9:24). To fall on the face is the customary Eastern obeisance, whether to man or to God. Spitting in the face is the climax of contempt (Nu 12:14 , Dt 25:9, Mt 26:67). The Oriental will say, ‘I spit in your face,’ while he actually spits on the ground. The face naturally expresses various emotions,—fear, sorrow, shame, or joy. The ‘fallen face’ (Gn 4:5) is used of displeasure; ‘hardening the face’ of obstinate sin (Pr 21:29, Jer 5:3). The face was ‘disfigured’ in fasting ( Mt 6:16). It may be the expression of favour, particularly of God to man (Nu 6:25, Ps 31:16), or conversely of man turning his face to God (Jer 2:27, 32:33); or of disfavour, as in the phrase ‘to set the face against’ (Ps 34:16, Jer 21:10, and often in Ezk.), or ‘to hide the face.’ [N.B. In Ps 51:9 the phrase is used differently, meaning to forget or ignore, cf. Ps 90:8]. Closely related are the usages connected with ‘beholding the face.’ This meant to be admitted to the presence of a potentate, king, or god (Gn 33:10, 43:3, 5, 2 K 25:19, Est 1:14, 4:11, 16; cf. ‘angel (s) of the face or presence,’ Is 63:9, To 12:15, Rev 8:2, and often in apocalyptic literature). So ‘to look upon the face’ is to accept (Ps 84:9), ‘to turn away the face’ is to reject (Ps 132:10, 1 K 2:16 RVm). To ‘behold the face’ of God may be used either literally of appearing before His presence in the sanctuary or elsewhere (Gn 32:30 [Peniel is ‘the face of God’], Ex 33:11, Ps 42:2; the ‘shew-bread’ is ‘the bread of the face or presence’), or with a more spiritual reference to the inward reality of communion which lies behind (Ps 17:15); so ‘seeking the face’ of God (Ps 24:6 , 27:8). On the other hand, in 2 K 14:8 ‘see face to face’ is used in a sinister sense of meeting in battle.
The Heb. word for ‘face’ is used very freely, both alone and in many prepositional phrases, as an idiomatic periphrasis, e.g. ‘honour the face of the old man’ (Lv 19:32), ‘grind the face of the poor’ (Is 3:15), or the common phrase ‘before my face’ (Dt 8:20, Mk 1:2), or ‘before the face of Israel’ (Ex 14:25). Many of these usages are disguised in our versions, not being in accordance with English idioms; the pronoun is substituted, or ‘presence,’ ‘countenance’ are used, ‘face’ being often indicated in AVm or RVm (Gn 1:20, 1 K 2:16); so in the phrase
‘respect persons’ (Dt 1:17). On the other hand, ‘face’ is wrongly given for ‘eye’ in
AV of 1 K 20:38, 41, where ‘ashes on face’ should be ‘headband over eye’; in 2 K
9:30, Jer 4:30, the reference is to painting the eye; in Gn 24:47 RV substitutes ‘nose,’ in Ezk 38:18 ‘nostrils.’
C. W. EMMET.
FAIR HAVENS.—A harbour on the south coast of Crete, near Lasea, where St. Paul’s ship took shelter on the voyage to Rome (Ac 27:8). It still retains its name.
A. J. MACLEAN.
FAITH.—Noun for believe, having in early Eng. ousted ‘belief’ (wh. see) from its ethical uses. By this severance of noun and vb. (so in Lat. fides—credere, French foi—croire) Eng. suffers in comparison with German (Glaube—glauben) and Greek (pistis—pisteuō). But ‘faith’ has a noble pedigree; coming from the Latin fides, through Norman-French, it connotes the sense of personal honour and of the mutual loyalty attaching to the pledged word.
1. In OT.—This word, the normal NT expression for the religious bond, is found but twice in the OT (EV)—in Dt 32:20, signifying steadfastness, fidelity; and in Hab 2:4, where a slightly different noun from the same Heb. stem (contained in amen and denoting what is firm, reliable), may carry a meaning identical with the above—‘the just shall live by his faithfulness’ (RVm). The original term has no other sense than ‘faithfulness’ or ‘truth’ elsewhere—so in Ps 37:3 (RV) 96:13, Dt 32:4 (RV), Is 11:5 etc.; the context in Hab., however, lends to it a pregnant emphasis, suggesting, besides the temper of steadfastness, its manifestation in steadfast adherence to Jehovah’s word; under the circumstances, passive fidelity becomes active faith—‘the righteous’ Israel ‘shall live’ not by way of reward for his loyalty, but by virtue of holding fast to Jehovah’s living word ( cf. 1:12). If so, St. Paul has done no violence to the text in Ro 1:17, Gal 3:11. The corresponding vb. (from the root amen: in active and passive, to rely on, and to have reliance or be reliable) occurs above 20 times with God, His character, word, or messengers, for object. More than half these examples (in Ex., Dt., Ps.) refer to faith or unbelief in the mission of Moses and Jehovah’s redemptive acts at the foundation of the national Covenant. The same vb. supplies two of Isaiah’s watchwords, in 7:9 and 28:16. The former sentence is an untranslatable epigram— ‘If you will not hold fast, you shall have no holdfast!’, ‘No fealty, no safety!’; the latter leads us into the heart of OT faith, the collective trust of Israel in Jehovah as her Rock of foundation and salvation, which, as Isaiah declared (in 8:12–15), must serve also for ‘a stone of stumbling and rock of offence’ to the unfaithful. This combination of passages is twice made in the NT (Ro 9:33 and 1 P 2:6–8), since the new house of God built of Christian believers rests on the foundation laid in Zion, viz. the character and promise of the Immutable, to whom now as then faith securely binds His people. In Hab 1:5 (cited Ac 13:41) Israel’s unbelief in threatened judgment, in Is 53:1 (Jn 12:38, Ro 10:16) her unbelief in the promised salvation, coming through Jehovah’s humiliated Servant, are charged upon her as a fatal blindness. Thus the cardinal import of faith is marked at salient points of Israelite history, which NT interpreters seized with a sure instinct. At the head of the OT sayings on this subject stands Gn 15:6, the text on which St. Paul founded his doctrine of justification by faith (see Ro 4:9, 22, Gal 3:6; also Ja 2:23); ‘and Abraham believed Jehovah, and he counted it to him for righteousness’ (JE)—a crucial passage in Jewish controversy. St. Paul recognized in Abraham the exemplar of personal religion, antedating the legal system—the faith of the man who stands in direct heart-relationship to God. Gn 15:6 supplies the key to his character and historical position: his heart’s trustful response to Jehovah’s promise made Abraham all that he has become to Israel and humanity; and ‘the men of faith’ are his children (Gal 3:6–8). Only here, however, and in Hab 2:4, along with two or three passages in the Psalms (27:13, 116:10—quoted 2 Co 4:13, and possibly 119:66), does faith ipso nomine (or ‘believe’) assume the personal value which is of its essence in the NT. The difference in expression between the OT and NT in this respect discloses a deep-lying difference of religious experience. The national redemption of Israel (from Egypt) lay entirely on the plane of history, and was therefore to be ‘remembered’; whereas the death and rising of our Lord, while equally historical, belong to the spiritual and eternal, and are to be ‘believed.’ Under the Old Covenant the people formed the religious unit; the relations of the individual Israelite to Jehovah were mediated through the sacred institutions, and the Law demanded outward obedience rather than inner faith—hearing the voice of
Jehovah, ‘keeping his statutes,’ ‘walking in his way’; so (in the language of Gal 3:23) the age of faith was not yet. Besides this, the Israelite revelation was consciously defective and preparatory, ‘the law made nothing perfect’; when St. Paul would express to his fellow-countrymen in a word what was most precious to himself and them, he speaks not of ‘the faith’ but ‘the hope of Israel’ (Ac 28:20 etc.), and the writer of He 11 defines the faith of his OT heroes as ‘the assurance of things hoped for’; accordingly, Hebrew terms giving to faith the aspect of expectation—trusting, waiting, looking for Jehovah—are much commoner than those containing the word ‘believe.’ Again, the fact that oppression and suffering entered so largely into the life of OT believers has coloured their confessions in psalm and prophecy; instead of believing in Jehovah, they speak of cleaving to Him, taking refuge under His wings, making Him a shield, a tower, etc. In all this the liveliness of Eastern sentiment and imagination comes into play; and while faith seldom figures under the bare abstract term, it is to be recognized in manifold concrete action and in dress of varied hue. Under the Old Covenant, as under the New, faith ‘wrought by love’ (Dt 6:5, Ps 116:1 etc., Lv 19:18 etc.), while it inspired hope.
2. In NT.—The NT use of pistis, pisteuō, is based on that of common Greek, where persuasion is the radical idea of the word. From this sprang two principal notions, meeting in the NT conception: (a) the ethical notion of confidence, trust in a person, his word, promise, etc., and then mutual trust, or the expression thereof in troth or pledge—a usage with only a casual religious application in non-Biblical Greek; and (b) the intellectual notion of conviction, belief (in distinction from knowledge), covering all the shades of meaning from practical assurance down to conjecture, but always connoting sincerity, a belief held in good faith. The use of ‘faith’ in Mt 23:23 belongs to OT phraseology (see Dt 32:20, quoted above); also in Ro 3:3, Gal 5:22, pistis is understood to mean good faith, fidelity ( RV ‘faithfulness’), as often in classical Greek. In sense (b) pistis came into the language of theology, the gods being referred (e.g. by Plutarch as a religious philosopher) to the province of faith, since they are beyond the reach of senseperception and logical demonstration.
(1) In this way faith came to signify the religious faculty in the broadest sense,—a generalization foreign to the OT. Philo Judæus, the philosopher of Judaism, thus employs the term; quoting Gn 15:6, he takes Abraham for the embodiment of faith so understood, viewing it as the crown of human character, ‘the queen of the virtues’; for faith is, with Philo, a steady intuition of Divine things, transcending sense and logic; it is, in fact, the highest knowledge, the consummation of reason. This large Hellenistic meaning is conspicuous in He 11:1b, 6, 27 etc., and appears in St. Paul (2 Co 4:18, 5:7 ‘by faith not by appearance’). There is nothing distinctively Christian about faith understood in the bare significance of ‘seeing the invisible’—‘the demons believe, and shudder’; the belief that contains no more is the ‘dead faith,’ which condemns instead of justifying (Ja 2:14–26). As St. James and St. Paul both saw from different standpoints, Abraham, beyond the ‘belief that God is,’ recognized what God is and yielded Him a loyal trust, which carried the whole man with it and determined character and action; his faith included sense (a) of pisteuō (which lies in the Heb. vb. ‘believe’) along with (b). In this combination lies the rich and powerful import of NT ‘believing’: it is a spiritual apprehension joined with personal affiance; the recognition of truth in, and the plighting of troth with, the Unseen; in this twofold sense, ‘with the heart (the entire inner self) man believeth unto righteousness’ ( Ro 10:10). Those penetrated by the spirit of the OT could not use the word pistis in relation to God without attaching to it, besides the rational idea of supersensible apprehension, the warmer consciousness of moral trust and fealty native to it already in human relationships.
(2) Contact with Jesus Christ gave to the word a greatly increased use and heightened potence. ‘Believing’ meant to Christ’s disciples more than hitherto, since they had Him to believe in; and ‘believers,’ ‘they that had believed,’ became a standing name for the followers of Christ (Ac 2:44, Ro 10:4, 1 Co 14:22, Mk 16:17). A special endowment of this power given to some in the Church seems to be intended by the ‘faith’ of 1 Co 12:9 (cf. Mt 17:19f., Lk 17:5f.). Faith was our Lord’s chief and incessant demand from men; He preaches, He works ‘powers,’ to elicit and direct it—the ‘miracle-faith’ attracted by ‘signs and wonders’ being a stepping-stone to faith in the Person and doctrine of God’s Messenger. The bodily cures and spiritual blessings Jesus distributes are conditioned upon this one thing— ‘Only believel’ ‘All things are possible to him that believeth.’ There was a faith in Jesus, real so far as it went but not sufficient for true discipleship, since it attached itself to His power and failed to recognize His character and spiritual aims (see Jn 2:23ff., 4:48, 6:14ff., 7:31, 8:30ff., 11:45, 12:11ff., 14:11), which Jesus rejected and affronted; akin to this, in a more active sense, is the faith that ‘calls’ Him ‘Lord’ and ‘removes mountains’ in His name, but does not in love do the Father’s will, which He must disown (Mt 7:21ff., 1 Co 13:2). Following the Baptist, Jesus sets out with the summons, ‘Repent, and believe the good news’ that ‘the kingdom of God is at hand’ (Mk 1:15); like Moses, He expects Israel to recognize His mission as from God, showing ‘signs’ to prove this (see Jn 2:11, 23, 3:2 etc.; cf. Ac
2:22, He 4:2). As His teaching advanced, it appeared that He required an unparalleled faith in Himself along with His message, that the Kingdom of God He speaks of centres in His Person, that in fact He is ‘the word’ of God He brings, He is the light and life whose coming He announces, ‘the bread from heaven’ that He has to give to a famished world (Jn 6:33ff., 8:12, 11:25, 14:6 etc.). For those ‘who received him,’ who ‘believed on his name’ in this complete sense, faith acquired a scope undreamed of before; it signified the unique attachment which gathered round the Person of Jesus—a human trust, in its purity and intensity such as no other man had ever elicited, which grew up into and identified itself with its possessor’s belief in God, transforming the latter in doing so, and which drew the whole being of the believer into the will and life of his Master. When Thomas hails Jesus as ‘My Lord and my God!’ he ‘has believed’; this process is complete in the mind of the slowest disciple; the two faiths are now welded inseparably; the Son is known through the Father, and the Father through the Son, and Thomas gives full affiance to both in one. As Jesus was exalted, God in the same degree became nearer to these men, and their faith in God became richer in contents and firmer in grasp. So sure and direct was the communion with the Father opened by Jesus to His brethren, that the word ‘faith,’ as commonly used, failed to express it:
‘Henceforth ye know (the Father), and have seen him,’ said Jesus (Jn 14:7); and St. John, using the vb. ‘believe’ more than any one, employs the noun ‘faith’ but once in Gospel and Epp. (1 Jn 5:4)—‘knowing God, the Father,’ etc., is, for him, the Christian distinction. Their Lord’s departure, and the shock and trial of His death, were needful to perfect His disciples’ faith (Jn 16:7), removing its earthly supports and breaking its links with all materialistic Messianism. As Jesus ‘goes to the Father,’ they realize that He and the Father ‘are one’; their faith rests no longer, in any degree, on ‘a Christ after the flesh’; they are ready to receive, and to work in, the power of the Spirit whom He sends to them ‘from the Father.’ Jesus is henceforth identified with the spiritual and eternal order; to the faith which thus acknowledges Him He gives the benediction, ‘Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed’ (Jn 20:29; cf. 1 P 1:8). To define this specific faith a new grammatical construction appears in NT Greek: one does not simply believe Jesus, or believe on Him, one believes into or unto Him, or His name (which contains the import of His person and offices)—so in Mt 18:6, and continually in Jn. (2:11, 23 , 3:18, 36, 4:39, 6:29, 35, 7:38f., 9:35, 11:25f., 12:36f., 14:1, 12, 17:20 etc.; also in Paul)—which signifies so believing in Him as to ‘come to Him’ realizing what He is. By a variety of prepositional constructions, the Greek tongue, imperfectly followed in such refinements by our own, strives to represent the variety of attitude and bearing in which faith stands towards its Object. That the mission of Jesus Christ was an appeal for faith, with His own Person as its chief ground and matter, is strikingly stated in Jn 20:31: ‘These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life in his name.’ Christian faith is the decisive action of the whole inner man— understanding, feeling, will; it is the trustful and self-surrendering acknowledgment of God in Christ.
(3) Further, Jesus called on the world to ‘believe the good news’ of His coming for redemption. This task, marked out by OT prophecy, and laid on Him at His birth (Lk 1:68–79, 2:38) and baptism (Jn 1:29), from an early period of His ministry Jesus connected with His death (see Jn 2:19–22, 3:14f.: and later, Mt 16:16–28, 20:28, Lk 9:31, 12:50, Jn 12:23–25). The words of Mt 26:28, which must be vindicated as original, make it clear that Jesus regarded His death as the culmination of His mission; at the Last Supper He is ready to offer His ‘blood’ to seal ‘the new covenant’ under which ‘forgiveness of sins’ will be universally guaranteed (cf. Jer 31:33f.). Having concentrated on Himself the faith of men, giving to faith thereby a new heart and energy, He finally fastens that faith upon His death; He marks this event for the future as the object of the specifically saving faith. By this path, the risen Lord explained, He had ‘entered into his glory’ and ‘received from the Father the promise of the Spirit,’ in the strength of which His servants are commissioned to ‘preach to all the nations repentance and remission of sins’ (Lk 24:46–48; cf. Ac 2:22–38). Taught by Him, the Apostles understood and proclaimed their Master’s death as the hinge of the relations between God and man that centre in Christ; believing in Him meant, above all, believing in that, and finding in the cross the means of deliverance from sin and the revelation of God’s saving purpose toward the race (Ac 3:18f., 20:28, 1 Co 1:18–25, 2 Co 5:14–21, 1 P 3:18, Rev 1:4–6, etc.). Faith in the resurrection of Jesus was logically antecedent to faith in His sacrificial death; for His rising from the dead set His dying in its true light (Ac 4:10–12), revealing the shameful crucifixion of Israel’s Messiah as a glorious expiation for the guilt of mankind (He 2:9, Ro 4:25, 1 P 1:21). To ‘confess with one’s mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in one’s heart that God raised him from the dead,’ was therefore to fulfil the essential conditions of the Christian salvation (Ro 10:9), since the Lord’s resurrection, including His ascension which completes it, gives assurance of the peace with God won by His accepted sacrifice (He 7:25, 9:11–14, 10:19, 22); it vindicates His Divine Sonship and verifies His claims on human homage (Ro 1:4, Ac 2:36, 1 P 1:21); it guarantees ‘the redemption of the body,’ and the attainment, both for the individual and for the Church, of the glory of the Messianic Kingdom, the consummated salvation that is in Christ Jesus (1 Co 15:12–28, Ro 8:17–23, Eph 1:17–23, Ac 17:31, Rev 1:5, 17 f., etc.). In two words, the Christian faith is to ‘believe that Jesus died and rose again’ (1 Th 4:14)—that in dying He atoned for human sin, and in rising He abolished death. St. Paul was the chief exponent and defender of this ‘word of the cross,’ which is at the same time ‘the word of faith’ (Ro 10:8); its various aspects and issues appear under the terms JUSTIFICATION, ATONEMENT,
PROPITIATION, GRACE, LAW (in NT), etc. But St. Peter in his 1st Ep., St. John in his 1st Ep. and Rev., and the writer of Hebrews, each in his own fashion, combine with St. Paul to focus the redeeming work of Jesus in the cross. According to the whole tenor of the NT, the forgiving grace of God there meets mankind in its sin; and faith is the hand reached out to accept God’s gifts of mercy proffered from the cross of Christ. The faculty of faith, which we understood in its fundamental meaning as the spiritual sense, the consciousness of God, is in no wise narrowed or diverted when it fixes itself on ‘Jesus Christ, and him crucified’; for, as St. Paul insists, ‘God commendeth his own love to us in that Christ died for us,’ ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.’ ‘The glory of God’ shines into men’s hearts, His true character becomes for the first time apparent, and calls forth a full and satisfied faith, when beheld ‘in the face of Christ’ (Ro 5:8, 2 Co 4:6, 5:18–21).
G. G. FINDLAY.
FAITHLESS.—Wherever this word occurs in AV, it means, not untrustworthy, but unbelieving, just as in the Merchant of Venice Shylock is called ‘a faithless Jew,’ simply because he was an unbeliever in Christ.
FALCON.—RV tr. of ’ayyāh, Lv 11:14, Dt 14:13 (AV ‘kite’), Job 28:7 ( AV ‘vulture’). See KITE, VULTURE.
FALL.—The story of the Fall in Gn 3 is the immediate sequel to the account of man’s creation with which the Jahwistic document opens (see CREATION). It tells how the first man and woman, living in childlike innocence and happiness in the Garden of Eden, were tempted by the subtle serpent to doubt the goodness of their Creator, and aim at the possession of forbidden knowledge by tasting the fruit of the one tree of which they had been expressly charged not to eat. Their transgression was speedily followed by detection and punishment; on the serpent was laid the curse of perpetual enmity between it and mankind; the woman was doomed to the pains of child-bearing: and the man to unremitting toil in the cultivation of the ground, which was cursed on account of his sin. Finally, lest the man should use his newly-acquired insight to secure the boon of immortality by partaking of the tree of life, he was expelled from the garden, which appears to be conceived as still existing, though barred to human approach by the cherubim and the flaming sword.
It is right to point out that certain incongruities of representation suggest that two slightly varying narratives have been combined in the source from which the passage is taken (J). The chief difficulty arises in connexion with the two trees on which the destiny of mankind is made to turn. In 2:9 the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grow together in the midst of the garden; in 2:17 the second alone is made the test of man’s obedience. But ch. 3 (down to v. 22) knows of only one central tree, and that obviously (though it is never so named) the tree of knowledge. The tree of life plays no real part in the story except in 3:22 , 24; and its introduction there creates embarrassment; for if this tree also was forbidden, the writer’s silence regarding the prohibition is inexplicable, and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose that the Divine prerogative of immortality was placed within man’s reach during the period of his probation? The hypothesis of a twofold recension of the Paradise story, while relieving this difficulty, would be of interest as showing that the narrative had undergone a development in Hebrew literature; but it does not materially aid the exegesis of the passage. The main narrative, which is complete, is that which speaks of the tree of knowledge; the other, if it be present at all, is too fragmentary to throw light on the fundamental ideas embodied in the story.
That this profoundly suggestive narrative is a literal record of a historic occurrence is an opinion now generally abandoned even by conservative theologians; and the view which tends to prevail amongst modern expositors is that the imagery is derived from the store of mythological traditions common to the Semitic peoples. It is true that no complete Babylonian parallel has yet been discovered; the utmost that can be claimed is that particular elements or motives of the Biblical story seem to be reflected in some of the Babylonian legends, and still more in the religious symbolism displayed on the monuments (tree of life, serpent, cherubim, etc.). These coincidences are sufficiently striking to suggest the inference that a mythical account of man’s original condition and his fall existed in Babylonia, and had obtained wide currency in the East. It is a reasonable conjecture that such a legend, ‘stripped of its primitive polytheism, and retaining only faint traces of what was probably its original mythological character, formed the material setting which was adapted by the [Biblical] narrator for the purpose of exhibiting, under a striking and vivid imaginative form, the deep spiritual truths which he was inspired to discern’ (Driver). These spiritual truths, in which the real significance of the narrative lies, we must endeavour very briefly to indicate.
(1) The story offers, on the face of it, an explanation of the outstanding ills that flesh is heir to: the hard, toilsome lot of the husbandman, the travail of the woman and her subjection to man, the universal fate of death. These evils, it is taught, are inconsistent with the ideal of human life, and contrary to the intention of a good God. Man, as originally created, was exempt from them; and to the question, Whence came they? the answer is that they are the effect of a Divine curse to which the race is subject; though it is to be noted that no curse is pronounced on the first pair, but only on the serpent as the organ of temptation, and the ground which is cursed for man’s sake.
(2) The consequences of the curse are the penalty of a single sin, by which man incurred the just anger of God. The author’s conception of sin may be considered from two points of view. Formally, it is the transgression of a Divine commandment, involving distrust of the wisdom and goodness of the Almighty, and breaking the harmony which had subsisted between man and his Maker. The process by which these evil thoughts are insinuated into the mind of the woman is described with a masterly insight into the psychology of temptation which is unsurpassed in literature. But it is a mistake to suppose that the essence of the sin consists in the merely formal disobedience to a command arbitrarily imposed as a test of fidelity. There was a reason for the Divine injunction, and a reason for man’s transgression of it; and the reasons are unambiguously indicated. To eat of the tree would make man like God, knowing good and evil; and God does not wish man to be like Himself. The essence of the sin is therefore presumption,—an overstepping of the limits of creaturehood, and an encroachment on the prerogatives of Deity.
(3) What, then, is meant by the ‘knowledge of good and evil,’ which was acquired by eating of the tree? Does it mean simply an enlargement of experience such as the transition from childhood to maturity naturally brings with it, and of which the feeling of shame (3:7) is the significant index? Or is it, as has generally been held, the experimental knowledge of moral distinctions, the awaking of the conscience, the faculty of discerning between right and wrong? It is very difficult to say which of these interpretations expresses the thought in the mind of the writer. It is in accordance with Hebrew idiom to hold that knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to knowledge in general; though it is of course not certain that that is the sense in which the phrase is here used. On the other hand, there is nothing to show that it refers to the moral sense; and the fact that neither of the ways in which the newly acquired faculty manifests itself (the perception of sex, and insight into the mystic virtue of the tree of life, v. 22) is a distinctively ethical cognition, rather favours the opinion that the knowledge referred to is the power to discern the secret meanings of things and utilize them for human ends, regardless of the will and purpose of God—the knowledge, in short, which is the principle of a godless civilization. The idea may be that succinctly expressed by the writer of Ecclesiastes: ‘God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions’ (Ec 7:29).
(4) One specific feature of the story remains to be considered, namely, the rôle assigned to the serpent, and his character. The identification of the serpent with the devil appears first in the Apocryphal literature (Wis 2:24); in the narrative itself he is simply the most subtle of the creatures that God has made (3:1), and there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he is there regarded as the mouthpiece of the evil spirit. At the same time it is impossible to escape the impression that the serpent is conceived as a malevolent being, designedly insinuating suspicion of God into the minds of our first parents, and inciting them to an act which will frustrate the Divine purpose regarding mankind. There is thus a certain ambiguity in the representation of the serpent, which may have its source in some more primitive phase of the legend; but which also points the way, under the influence of a deeper apprehension of the nature of moral evil than had been attained in the time of the writer, to that identification of the serpent with the Evil One which we find in the NT (Ro 16:20, Rev 12:9, 20:2). In the same way, and with the same justification, the reflexion of later ages read into the curse on the serpent (v. 15) the promise of ultimate redemption from the power of evil through the coming of Christ. Strictly interpreted, the words imply nothing more than a perpetual antagonism between the human race and the repulsive reptiles which excite its instinctive antipathy. It is only the general scope of the passage that can be thought to warrant the inference that the victory is to be on the side of humanity; and it is a still higher flight of religious inspiration to conceive of that victory as culminating in the triumph of Him whose mission it was to destroy the works of the devil.
J. SKINNER.
FALLOW-DEER.—This word occurs in the AV among the clean animals ( Dt 14:5), and in the list of game furnished for Solomon’s daily table (1 K 4:23). In each list ’ayyāl, zĕbī, and yachmūr occur in the same order. The first is correctly translated, in both AV and RV, ‘hart’ (see HART). The second is incorrectly tr. in AV ‘roebuck,’ and correctly in RV ‘gazelle’ (see GAZELLE). The third is incorrectly tr. in AV ‘fallow-deer,’ and correctly in RV ‘roebuck’ (see ROE, ROEBUCK).
FAMILIAR.—The expression ‘familiar spirit’ was taken into the AV from the Geneva Version, as the trans. of Heb. ’obh. See MAGIC, etc. The word is also used as a subst. in Jer 20:10 ‘All my familiars watched for my halting’ ( RV ‘familiar friends,’ Heb. ‘men of my place’).
FAMILY
1. Character of the family in OT.—‘Family’ in the OT has a wider significance than that which we usually associate with the term. The word tr. ‘house’ (Gn 7:1) approaches most nearly to our word ‘family’: but a man’s ‘house’ might consist of his mother; his wives and the wives’ children; his concubines and their children; sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, with their offspring; illegitimate sons (Jg 11:1); dependents and allens; and slaves of both sexes. Polygamy was in part the cause of the large size of the Hebrew household; in part the cause of it may be found in the insecurity of early times, when safety lay in numbers, and consequently not only the married sons and daughters dwelt, for the sake of protection, with their father, but remote relatives and even foreigners (‘the stranger within thy gates’) would attach themselves, with a similar object, to a great household. The idea of the family sometimes had an even wider significance, extending to and including the nation, or even the whole race of mankind. Of this a familiar illustration is the figure of Abraham, who was regarded as being in a very real sense the father of the nation. So also the same feeling for the idea of the family is to be found in the careful assigning of a ‘father’ to every known nation and tribe (Gn 10). From this it is easily perceived that the family played an important part in Hebrew thought and affairs. It formed the base upon which the social structure was built up; its indistinguishable merging into the wider sense of clan or tribe indicates how it affected the political life of the whole nation.
Polygyny and bigamy were recognized features of the family life. From the
Oriental point of view there was nothing immoral in the practice of polygamy. The female slaves were in every respect the property of their master, and became his concubines; except in certain cases, when they seem to have belonged exclusively to their mistress, and could not be appropriated by the man except by her suggestion or consent (Gn 16:2–3). The slave-concubines were obtained as booty in time of war (Jg 5:30), or bought from poverty-stricken parents (Ex 21:7); or, possibly, in the ordinary slave traffic with foreign nations. In addition to his concubines a man might take several wives, and from familiar examples in the OT it seems that it was usual for wealthy and important personages to do so; Abraham,
Jacob, David, Solomon, occur as instances. Elkanah, the husband of Hannah and Peninnah, is an interesting example of a man of no particular position who nevertheless had more than one wife; this may be an indication that bigamy, at least, if not polygamy, was not confined to the very wealthy and exalted. At all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution from the earliest times. The gradual evolution in the OT of monogamy as the ideal is therefore of the highest interest. The earliest codes attempt in various ways to regulate the custom of polygyny. The Deut. code in particular actually forbids kings to multiply wives (Dt 17:17); this is the fruit, apparently, of the experience of Solomon’s reign. In the prophetic writings the note of protest is more clearly sounded. Not only Adam but also Noah, the second founder of the human race, represents monogamy, and on that account recommends it as God’s ordinance. It is in the line of Cain that bigamy is first represented, as though to emphasize the consequences of the Fall. Reasons are given in explanation of the bigamy of Abraham (Gn 16) and of Jacob (29:23). Hosea and other prophets constantly dwell upon the thought of a monogamous marriage as being a symbol of the union between God and His people; and denounce idolatry as unfaithfulness to this spiritual marriage-tie.
2. Position of the wife.—Side by side with the growth of the recognition of monogamy as the ideal form of marriage, polygamy was practised even as late as NT times. The natural accompaniment of such a practice was the insignificance of the wife’s position: she was ordinarily regarded as a piece of property, as the wording of the Tenth Commandment testifies. Also her rights and privileges were necessarily shared by others. The relative positions of wives and concubines were determined mainly by the husband’s favour. The children of the wife claimed the greater part, or the whole, of the inheritance; otherwise there does not seem to have been any inferiority in the position of the concubine as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected with her children.
The husband had supreme authority over the wife. He was permitted by the
Deut. code to divorce her with apparently little reason. The various passages ( Dt 22:13, 19, 28, 29, Is 50:1, Jer 3:8, Mal 2:16) referring to and regulating divorce, indicate that it was of frequent occurrence. Yet wives, and even concubines who had been bought in the first place as slaves, might not be sold (Ex 21:7–11, Dt 21:14). Indeed, the Law throughout proves itself sympathetic towards the position of the wife and desirous of improving her condition (Ex 21:2, 12, Dt 21:10–17). This very attitude of the Law, however, indicates that there was need of improvement. The wife seems to have had no redress if wronged by the husband; she could not divorce him; and absolute faithfulness, though required of the wife, was not expected of the husband, so long as he did not injure the rights of any other man.
The wife, then, was in theory the mere chattel of her husband. A woman of character, however, could improve her situation and attain to a considerable degree of importance and influence as well as of personal freedom. Thus we read not only of Hagars, who were dealt hardly with and were obliged to submit themselves under the hands of their masters and rivals, but also of Sarahs and Rebekahs and Abigails, who could act independently and even against the wishes of their husbands in order to gain their own ends. And the Book of Proverbs testifies to the advantage accruing to a man in the possession of a good wife (19:14, 31:10ff.), and to the misery which it is in the power of a selfish woman to inflict (19:13 etc.).
3. Children.—In a household consisting of several families, the mother of each set of children would naturally have more to do with them than the father, and the maternal relationship would usually be more close and affectionate than the bond between the father and his children. Although it was recognized to be disastrous for a household to be divided against itself, yet friction between the various families could hardly have been avoided. ‘One whom his mother comforteth’ (Is 66:13) must have been a sight common enough—a mother consoling her injured son for the taunts and blows of her rivals’ children. Thus the mother would have the early care and education of her children under her own control. The father, on the other hand, had complete power over the lives and fortunes of his children, and would represent to them the idea of authority rather than of tenderness. He it was who arranged the marriage of his sons (Gn 24:4 , 28:2, Jg 14:2), and had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7). The father seems even to have had powers of life and death over his children (Jg 11:39): and the Law provided that an unworthy son might be stoned to death upon the accusation of his parents (Dt 21:18–21). See also art. CHILD.
4. Family duties.—The claims of the family upon the various members of it were strongly felt. Many laws provide for the vengeance and protection of the injured and defenceless by their next-of-kin. Brothers were the guardians of their sisters (Gn 34). A childless widow could demand, though not enforce, re-marriage with her brother-in-law (Dt 25:5–10). Boaz, as the nearest relation, performed this duty towards Ruth. In spite of the prohibition of the later code (Lv 20:21), levirate marriage seems to have been practised at the time of Christ (Mt 22:25ff.). Its purpose was perhaps rather for the preservation of the particular branch of the family than for the advantage of the widow herself: in any case it illustrates the strong sense of duty towards the family as a whole.
Children owed obedience and respect to their parents. Even a married man would consider himself still under the authority of his father, whether living with him or not; and his wife would be subject to her father-in-law even after her husband’s death.
To an Israelite, ‘family’ conveyed the notions of unity, security, order, and discipline. These conceptions were nourished by the religious customs and observances in the home, the most conspicuous instance of which was the keeping of the Passover. Such observances no doubt helped to bind the members of the family in close religious and spiritual sympathies. The common longing to love and to serve God was the base of the family affection and unity—from patriarchal times when the head of each family would offer sacrifice upon his own altar, until the hour in which Mary’s Son asked in tender surprise of her and Joseph: ‘Wist ye not that I must he in my Father’s house?’ (Lk 2:49).
E. G. ROMANES.
FAMINE.—In Palestine, famine is usually due to failure of the rainfall ( Lv 26:19, Am 4:6, 7). Both crops and pasturage depend on the proper amount falling at the right time, the ‘early rain’ in Oct.–Nov., the ‘latter’ in March–April. Its importance and uncertainty caused it to be regarded as the special gift of God ( Dt 11:11, 14). Accordingly famine is almost always a direct judgment from Him (1 K 17:1, Ezk 5, and continually in the Prophets; Ja 5:17). Hence we find it amongst the terrors of the eschatological passages of NT (Mk 13:8, Rev 18:8). The idea is spiritualized in Am 8:11 ‘a famine of hearing the words of the Lord.’ In Egypt, famine is due to the failure of the annual inundation of the Nile, which is ultimately traceable to lack of rain in the Abyssinian highlands of the interior.
Crops may be destroyed by other causes—hail and thunder-storms. (Ex 9:31, 1 S 12:17); locusts and similar pests (Ex 10:15, Jl 1:4, Am 4:9). Further, famine is the usual accompaniment of war, the most horrible accounts of famines being connected with sieges (2 K 6:25, 25:3, Jer 21:9, La 4:10).
These passages should be compared with the terrible description of Dt 28:49–
57, and with Josephus’ account of the last siege of Jerusalem (BJ V. x. 3). So in Rev 6:5 scarcity, connected with the black horse, follows on bloodshed and conquest; but a maximum price is fixed for wheat and barley, and oil and wine are untouched, so that the full horrors of famine are delayed. A natural result of famine is pestilence, due to improper and insufficient food, lack of water, and insanitary conditions. The two are frequently connected, especially in Ezk. and Jer. (1 K 8:37 , Jer 21:9, Lk 21:11 [not Mt 24:7]).
Famines are recorded in connexion with Abraham (Gn 12:10) and Isaac (26:1). There is the famous seven years’ famine of Gn 41 ff., which included Syria as well as Egypt. It apparently affected cereals rather than pasturage, beasts of transport being unharmed (cf. per contra 1 K 18:5). The device by which Joseph warded off its worst effects is illustrated by Egyptian inscriptions. In one, Baba, who lived about the time of Joseph, says: ‘I collected corn, as a friend of the harvest-god, and was watchful at the time of sowing. And when a famine arose, lasting many years, I distributed corn to the city each year of famine’ (see Driver, Genesis, p. 346).
Other famines, besides those already referred to, are mentioned in Ru 1:1, 2 S 21:1.
The famine of Ac 11:28 is usually identified with one mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XX. ii. 5, v. 2), which is dated A.D. 45. But famines were characteristic of the reign of Claudius (Suetonius mentions ‘assiduae sterilitates’), so that the exact reference remains uncertain.
C. W. EMMET.
FAN.—The fan of Scripture (Is 30:24, Mt 3:12, Lk 3:17) is the five- or sixpronged wooden winnowing-fork, for which see AGRICULTURE, § 3. The corresponding verb is rendered ‘winnow,’ Is 30:24, Ru 3:2, but ‘fan’ elsewhere (Amer. RV has ‘winnow’ throughout); the fanners of Jer 51:2 (AV, RVm and Versions) are the ‘winnowers,’ as Amer. RVm. Fanning or winnowing is a frequent figure for the Divine sifting and chastisement, Jer 4:11, 15:7 etc.
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FARTHING.—See MONEY, § 7.
FASTING
1. In the OT.—‘To afflict the soul’ Is the term by which fasting is usually mentioned (cf. Lv 16:29–31, 23:27, 32, Nu 29:7, 30:13; the two terms are combined in Ps 35:13, Is 58:3, 5). In the period preceding the Captivity we find no universal fast prescribed. The institution of the Day of Atonement—the only fast ordained in the Law—was traditionally ascribed to this period; but there is no certain reference to it before Sir 50:5ff. Zechariah does not allude to it, and Ezk 40–48 prescribes a more simple ceremonial for such an occasion, whence it may be inferred that the elaborate ritual of Lv 16 was not yet customary. Neh 7:73–9:38 records a general fast on the 24th day of the 7th month, and therefore the 10th day of that month—the proper date for the Day of Atonement—was probably not yet set apart for this purpose. Moreover, the characteristic ideas of the fast—its public confession, its emphasis on sin and atonement—are late, and can be compared with post-exilic analogies (Ezr 9, Neh 1:4–11, 9:3). See ATONEMENT [DAY OF]. Previously to the Captivity fasting was observed by individuals or the whole
people on special occasions (cf. 2 S 12:16, 1 K 21:27, Jg 20:26, 1 S 7:6, 2 Ch
20:3).
After the Captivity this type of fasts of course continued (cf. Ezr 8:21–23, Neh 1:4, 9:1). But in Zec 7:3–5, 8:19 we hear of four general fasts which were observed with comparative regularity. On 17th Tammuz (July) a fast was ordained to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 39:2, 52:6). This was celebrated on the 17th day of the 4th month, and not on the 9th, because, according to the Talmudic tradition, the 17th was the day on which Moses broke the tables of the Law, on which the daily offering ceased owing to the famine caused by the Chaldæan siege, and on which Antiochus Epiphanes burnt the Law and introduced, an idol into the Holy Place. On the 9th day of the 5th month ( Ab ) was celebrated a fast in memory of the burning of the Temple and city (2 K 25:8 , Jer 52:12). The 9th, and not the 7th or 10th, was the prescribed day, because tradition placed on the 9th the announcement that the Israelites were not to enter Canaan, and the destruction of the Second Temple. On the 3rd of Tishri ( October ) the murder of Gedaliah was commemorated by a fast (Jer 41:1), and on the 10th of Tebeth (January) another fast recalled the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldæans (2 K 25:1, Jer 52:4). Besides these, we hear of a Fast of Esther being observed; on this see PURIM.
Fasting probably meant complete abstinence, though the Talmud allowed lentils to be eaten during the period of mourning. No work was done during a fast ( Lv 16:29, 31, 23:32, Nu 29:7), and sackcloth and ashes were sometimes used (Dn 9:3 , Jon 3:6, 7). The usual reasons for a fast were either mourning (1 S 31:13) or a wish to deprecate the Divine wrath (2 S 12:16, 17).
2. In the NT.—We hear that frequent additional fasts were imposed by tradition, and that strict observers kept two weekly fasts (Lk 18:12)—on Thursday and Monday—commemorating, as it seems, the days on which Moses ascended and came down from the Mount. After the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a huge system of fasts was instituted, and the present Jewish calendar prescribes 22 , besides the Day of Atonement, the Fast of Esther, and the four fasts of Zec 8:19.
3. Christianity and fasting.—Jesus refused to lay down any specific injunctions to fast. To prescribe forms was not His purpose; all outward observance was to be dictated by an inward principle. He Himself probably kept the usual fasts, and individual ones, as during the Temptation. But He laid emphasis in His teaching on the inutility of fasting except as a part of personal godliness, and gave plain warnings of its possible abuse by hypocrisy (Mt 6:16–18 , 9:14–17, Mk 2:18–22, Lk 5:33–39). The early Church used to fast before solemn appointments (Ac 13:2, 14:23); and St. Paul alludes to his fastings, whether voluntary or compulsory, in 2 Co 6:5, 11:27. In time a greater stress was put on the value of fasting, as is shown by the probable insertion of an allusion to it in Mt 17:21, Mk 9:29, Ac 10:30, 1 Co 7:5.
A. W. F. BLUNT.
FAT.—See FOOD, § 10, SACRIFICE AND OFFERING.
FAT.—The same word as vat, a large vessel for holding liquids, but in OT and NT only in connexion with the making of wine. See WINE AND STRONG DRINK, § 2.
FATHER.—See FAMILY, GENEALOGY, 1.
FATHERHOOD OF GOD.—See GOD, § 7.
FATHOM.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
FAUCHION (Jth 13:6 AV; RV ‘scimitar’).—The Eng. word denoted originally ‘a broad sword more or less curved on the convex side’; but in later use and in poetry it signified a sword of any kind.
FAVOUR.—The Eng. word ‘favour’ is used in AV in the mod sense of ‘goodwill’; but in ‘well-favoured’ and ‘ill-favoured’ we see the older meaning of personal appearance. In Jos 11:20 the word seems to be used in the old sense of ‘mercy’—‘that he might destroy them, and they might have no favour’—as in Elyot, The Governour, ii. 298: ‘And they, which by that lawe were condemned, were put to dethe without any favour.’ For the theology of the word see GRACE.
FAWN.—See ROE. § 3.
FEAR.—In the OT ‘the fear of the Lord’ is frequently a definition of piety. The purpose of the giving of the Law is the implanting of this fear in the hearts of men (Dt 4:10); it is the sum of religious duty (6:13) and prompts to obedient and loving service (10:12). ‘Fear cannot be appraised without reference to the worth of the objects feared’ (Martinean, Types of Ethical Theory, ii. 184); hence it is on the revelation of the Divine nature as ‘holy and to be feared’ (Ps 111:9) that this fundamental principle of religion rests: those who know His name have learnt that to fear Him is true wisdom (v. 10) and true blessedness (Ps 112:1). In the NT mention is made of a fear which has high moral quality and religious value. ‘The fear of the Lord’ was the rule by which the early Christians walked (Ac 9:31), and when an uncircumcised foreigner became a devout worshipper of the God of Israel he was known as ‘one that feareth God’ (10:2; cf. 2 Co 7:1, Ph 2:12, 1 P 1:17 , 2:17, Rev 14:7, 15:4, 19:5). Although the usual Gr. word for ‘fear’ is not used in He 5:7, the reference to the ‘godly fear’ of the perfect Son emphasizes the contrast between reverent awe and slavish terror.
The fear which ‘hath punishment’ (1 Jn 4:18) is the result of sin (Gn 3:10). The sinner, under condemnation of the Law, is in ‘bondage unto fear’ (Ro 8:15), and inasmuch as ‘the sting of death is sin’ (1 Co 15:56), he is also through fear of death … subject to bondage’ (He 2:15). Transgression may so completely deceive him that he has ‘no terror of God’ (Ps 36:1); the climax of human wickedness is the loss of any dread of God’s judgments, though the Gr. and Eng. translations of the Heb. word for ‘terror’ (pachadh, cf. Is 2:10, 19, 21 RV) fail to bring out this thought in St. Paul’s quotation of this verse (Ro 3:18). To rouse men from this callous indifference to God’s threatenings is the purpose of the appeal to fear, which is a primary and self-regarding emotion and a powerful spring of human action. This appeal is warranted by our Lord’s words (Mt 10:28) as well as by Apostolic example (He 4:1, 10:31, 1 Ti 5:20, Jude 23). The spirit in which this appeal should be made is that which inspired St. Paul, when he declares that, ‘knowing the fear of the Lord,’ before whose judgment-seat all must be made manifest, he is constrained by the love of Christ to persuade men to be ‘reconciled to God’ (2 Co 5:11 ff. ).
J. G. TASKER.
FEARFULNESS.—The adj. ‘fearful’ is often used in AV in the sense, not of causing fear, but of feeling it: and ‘fearfulness’ always denotes the emotion of fear. Thus Mt 8:26 ‘Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?’; Ps 55:5 ‘Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me.’ In the RV of the NT the only meaning of ‘fearful’ is full of fear, the Revisers, Westcott tells us, having purposely retained this use in order that ‘fear,’ ‘fearful,’ and ‘fearfulness’ might all agree in meaning. They have accordingly changed ‘fearful sights’ in Lk 21:11 into ‘terrors.’ The Revisers of the OT, however, had no such thought, and they have left the word unchanged.
FEASTS.—Introductory.—The sacred festivals of the Jews were primarily occasions of rejoicing, treated as a part of religion. To ‘rejoice before God’ was synonymous with ‘to celebrate a festival.’ In process of time this characteristic was modified, and a probably late institution, like the Day of Atonement, could be regarded as a feast, though its prevalent note was not one of joy. But the most primitive feasts were marked by religious merriment; they were accompanied with dances (Jg 21:21), and, as it seems, led to serious excesses in many cases (1 S 1:13 , Am 2:7, 2 K 23:7, Dt 23:18). Most of the feasts were only local assemblies for acts and purposes of sacred worship; but the three great national festivals were the occasions for general assemblies of the people, at which all males were supposed to appear (Ex 23:14, 17, 34:23, Dt 16:16).
I. FEASTS CONNECTED WITH THE SABBATH.—These were calculated on the basis of the sacred number 7, which regulated all the great dates of the Jewish sacred year. Thus the 7th was the sacred month, the feasts of Unleavened Bread
and Tabernacles each lasted for 7 days, Pentecost was 49 days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Passover and Tabernacles each began on the 14th day of their respective months, and there were 7 days of holy convocation in the year.
1. The Sabbath and the observances akin to it were lunar in character (cf. Am
8:5, Hos 2:11, Is 1:13, 2 K 4:23). The Sabbath ordinances are treated in Ex 20:11 , 31:17 as designed to commemorate the completion of creation, but Dt 5:14, 15 connects them with the redemption from Egypt, and Ex 23:12 ascribes them to humanitarian motives. On this day work of all sorts was forbidden, and the daily morning and evening sacrifices were doubled. Sabbath-breaking was punishable with death (Nu 15:32–36, Ex 31:14, 15). No evidence of Sabbath observance is traced in the accounts of the patriarchal age, and very little in pre-exilic records ( Is 56:2, 6, 58:13, Jer 17:20–24, Ezk 20:12, 13, 16, 20). But after the Captivity the rules were more strictly enforced (Neh 13:15, 22), and in later times the Rabbinical prohibitions multiplied to an inordinate extent. See art. SABBATH.
2. At the New Moon special sacrifices were offered (Nu 28:11–15), and the silver trumpets were blown over them (Nu 10:10). All trade and business were discontinued, as well as work in the fields (Am 8:5). It appears also that this was the occasion of a common sacred meal and family sacrifices (cf. 1 S 20:5, 6, 18 , 24), and it seems to have been a regular day on which to consult prophets (2 K
4:23).
3. The Feast of Trumpets took place at the New Moon of the 7th month, Tishri (October). See TRUMPETS.
4. The Sabbatical year.—An extension of the Sabbath principle led to the rule that in every 7th year the land was to be allowed to lie fallow, and fields were to be neither tilled nor reaped. See SABBATICAL YEAR.
5. By a further extension, every 50th year was to be treated as a year of
Jubilee, when Hebrew slaves were emancipated and mortgaged property reverted to its owners. See SABBATICAL YEAR.
II. GREAT NATIONAL FESTIVALS.—These were solar festivals, and mostly connected with different stages of the harvest; the Jews also ascribed to them a commemorative significance, and traditionally referred their inauguration to various events of their past history. They were:—
1. The Passover, followed immediately by the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
These two feasts were probably distinct in origin (Lv 23:5, 6, Nu 28:16, 17), and Josephus distinguishes between them; but in later times they were popularly regarded as one (Mk 14:12, Lk 22:1). The Passover festival is probably of great antiquity, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread, being agricultural in character, can scarcely have existed before the Israelites entered Canaan. For the characteristic features of the two festivals, see PASSOVER.
2. Pentecost, on the 50th day after 16th Nisan (April), celebrated the completion of the corn harvest. See PENTECOST.
3. The Feast of Tabernacles, the Jewish harvest-home, took place at the period when the harvests of fruit, oil, and wine had been gathered in. See TABERNACLES.
III. MINOR HISTORICAL FESTIVALS
1. The Feast of Purim, dating from the Persian period of Jewish history, commemorated the nation’s deliverance from the intrigues of Haman. See PURIM.
2. The Feast of the Dedication recalled the purification of the Temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes. See DEDICATION.
3. The Feast of the Wood-offering or of the Wood-carriers, on the 15th day of Abib (April), marked the last of the nine occasions on which offerings of wood were brought for the use of the Temple (Neh 10:34, 13:31).
Besides these there were certain petty feasts, alluded to in Josephus and the Apocrypha, but they seem never to have been generally observed or to have attained any religious importance. Such are: the Feast of the Reading of the Law (1 Es 9:50, cf. Neh 8:9); the Feast of Nicanor on the 13th day of Adar (March) (1 Mac 7:49; see PURIM); the Feast of the Captured Fortress (1 Mac 13:50–52); the Feast of Baskets.
A. W. F. BLUNT.
FELIX, ANTONIUS.—Procurator of Judæa (Ac 23:24ff.); according to
Josephus, he had been sent to succeed Cumanus in A.D. 52; but this contradicts Tacitus, who makes Cumanus governor of Galilee and Felix of Samaria simultaneously; and this suits Ac 24:10 (‘many years’). Both historians give 52 as the year of Cumanus’ disgrace, so that we may probably take that as the date of Felix’ accession to office in Judæa. Felix was brother of Pallas, Claudius’ powerful freedman, whose influence continued him in office under Nero, and on his disgrace (due to a riot at Cæsarea) procured him his life. He is described by Tacitus as a very bad and cruel governor. He was somewhat touched by St. Paul’s preaching (24:25f.), but kept him in prison, first in hope of a bribe,—one of many details showing that St. Paul was a prisoner of social importance,—and, finally, to please the Jews. He is called ‘most excellent’ (23:26, 24:3; cf. 26:25, Lk 1:3), a title given him as governor, but more properly confined to those of equestrian rank. He married thrice, each time to a person of royal birth; see DRUSILLA.
A. I. MACLEAN.
FELLOW.—This Eng. word is used in AV with the meaning either of (1) companion, or (2) of person. Thus (1) Ps 45:7 ‘God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows’; (2) Mt 26:71 ‘This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth’ (RV ‘man’; there is no word in the Gr.). Cf. Tindale’s trans. of Gn 39:2 ‘And the LORDE was with Joseph, and he was a luckie fellowe.’ Although the word when used in AV for person may have a touch of disparagement, nowhere is it used to express strong contempt as now.
FELLOWSHIP.—See COMMUNION.
FENCE.—Ps 62:3 is the only occurrence of the subst., and probably the word there has its modern meaning (Coverdale ‘hedge’). But the participle ‘fenced’ (used of a city) always means ‘fortified’ (which Amer. RV always substitutes). See FORTIFICATION.
FERRET (anāqah).—An unclean animal, Lv 11:30, RV ‘gecko.’ Rabbinical writers suggest the bedgehog, but this is unlikely. For gecko see LIZARD.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FESTUS, PORCIUS.—Procurator of Judæa after Felix. His short term of office was marked by a much better administration than that of Felix or of Albinus his successor (Jos. Ant. XX. viii. f.). He is addressed with respect by St. Paul ( Ac 26:24ff.), whom he would not give up to the Jews untried; it was, however, from fear of being eventually given up that St. Paul made his appeal to Cæsar, in consequence of which he was sent to Rome. Festus was a friend of king Agrippa II., whose visit to him is described in Ac 25:13ff., and took his side in a dispute with the Jewish priests. His accession to office is one of the puzzles of NT chronology; Eusebius gives A.D. 56, but this is probably some three years too early.
A. J. MACLEAN.
FETTER.—See CHAIN.
FEVER.—See MEDICINE.
FIERY SERPENT.—See SERPENT, SERAPHIM.
FIG.—(te’ēnāh).—The common fig, fruit of the Ficus carica, is cultivated from one end of Palestine to the other, especially in the mountainous regions, occupying to-day a place as important as it did in Bible times. The failure of the fig and grape harvest would even now bring untold distress (Jer 5:17, Hab 3:17 etc.). Although the figs are all of one genus, the fellahīn distinguish many varieties according to the quality and colour of the fruit.
The summer foliage of the fig is thick, and excels other trees for its cool and grateful shade. In the summer the owners of gardens everywhere may be seen sitting in the shadow of their fig trees. It is possible the references in Mic 4:4, Zec 3:10 may be to this, or to the not uncommon custom of having fig trees overhanging rural dwellings. Although fig trees are of medium height, some individual trees (e.g. near Jenin reach to over 25 feet high. Self-sown fig trees are usually barren, and are known to the natives as wild or ‘male’ fig trees. The fruiting of the fig is very interesting and peculiar. Though earlier in the plains, the annual occurrence in the mountain regions, e.g. round Jerusalem, is as follows: The trees, which during the winter months have lost all their leaves, about the end of March begin putting forth their tender leaf buds (Mt 24:32, Mk 13:28–32, Lk 21:29–33), and at the junction of the old wood with these leaves appear at the same time the tiny figs. These little figs develop along with the leaves up to a certain point, to about the size of a small cherry, and then the great majority of them fall to the ground, carried down with every gust of wind. These immature figs are known as the taksh, and are eaten by the fellahīn as they fall; they may indeed sometimes be seen exposed for sale in the market in Jerusalem. They are the paggim ( ‘green figs’) of Ca 2:13, and the olynthoi (‘untimely figs’) of Rev 6:13. In the case of some trees, especially the best varieties, a certain proportion of these little green figs continue to develop, and reach ripeness in June. These are then known as the dafūr or early figs, mentioned in Is 28:4, Jer 24:2, Hos 9:10, Mic 7:1, as bikkūrāh, ‘the figs first ripe.’ They are to-day, as of old, specially esteemed for their delicate flavour. As the dafūr are ripening, the little buds of the next crop begin to appear higher up the branches. These steadily develop and form the second and great crop of figs, which comes about August.
In the much-discussed miracle of our Lord (Mt 21:18–20, Mk 11:12, 13, 20–21) we may dismiss at once the theory that He came looking for figs from the previous season, as He would certainly not have found any such survivors, and such fruit would not have been eatable. On the other hand, at the Passover season, about April, when the young leaves are on the fig trees, every tree which is going to bear fruit at all will have some taksh on it, and so, though it is a true statement that ‘the time of figs,’ i.e. of ordinary edible figs, ‘was not yet’ (Mk 11:13), yet there would be fruit which could be, and is to-day, eaten, and fruit, too, which would be a guarantee of a harvest to come later on. It was the want of promise of future fruitfulness in the Jewish nation for which they were condemned in the acted parable of the barren fig tree. It may be noted, however, that in May many fig trees may be found round Jerusalem which have dropped all their ‘green figs’ ( none ripening to dafūr) and have not yet put forth the buds of the late summer crop.
Figs are eaten in Palestine not only fresh but dried, the fruit being often threaded on to long strings for convenience of carriage. They are also pressed into a solid cake which can be cut in slices with a knife. These are the fig-cakes of 1 S 25:18, 30:12, 1 Ch 12:40. A lump of such was used as a poultice for Hezekiah’s boil, 2 K 20:7, Is 28:21.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FILE.—Only 1 S 13:21, but the passage is very corrupt; see the larger commentaries.
FINE.—The verb ‘to fine’ (mod. ‘refine’) is used in Job 28:1 ‘Surely there is a vein for silver, and a place for gold where they fine it’ (RV ‘which they refine’). ‘Fining’ occurs in Pr 17:3, 27:21; and ‘finer’ in Pr 25:4 ‘a vessel for the finer’ (Amer. RV ‘refiner’). See REFINER.
FINES.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 8.
FIR (berōsh, RVm cypress [wh. see], 2 S 6:5, 1 K 5:8, 10, 6:15, 34 etc.).—It was a tree of large growth (2 K 19:23, Ezk 31:8); evergreen (Hos 14:8); a chief element in the glory of Lebanon (Is 60:13); associated with cedars (Ps 104:16, 17 , Is 14:8, Zec 11:2). The timber of the berōsh ranked with the cedar for house- and ship-building (1 K 5:8, 10 etc.). Cypress is accepted by most modern authorities, but berōsh may have also included several varieties of pine. ‘Fir’ is also RV tr. of ōren in Is 44:14 (AV and RVm wrongly ‘ash’).
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FIRE.—See HOUSE, § 7, and next article.
FIREPAN.—1. A pan of bronze (Ex 27:3 etc.), silver (Mishna, Yōma, iv. 4), or gold (1 K 7:50 etc.), for removing charcoal, and probably ashes also, from the altar of burnt-offering. According to the Mishna (loc. cit.), the firepans or coal-pans were of various sizes, there given, and were each furnished with a long or a short handle. They seem, therefore, to have resembled ladies, or the now obsolete bedwarmers.
When used to hold live charcoal for the burning of incense the coal-pan becomes a censer (Lv 10:1, 16:12 etc.). Hence in Nu 4:14, 1 K 7:50, 2 Ch 4:22, RV has ‘firepans’ for AV ‘censers,’ there being no reference in these passages to incense. The same utensil was used for removing the burnt portions of the lampwicks of the golden ‘candlestick’ or lamp-stand, although rendered snuff dishes (which see—Tindale has rightly ‘firepans’).
2. In Zec 12:6 RV there is mention of ‘a pan (AV hearth) of fire’; in other words, a brasier. See COAL; HOUSE, § 7.
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FIRKIN.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
FIRMAMENT.—See CREATION.
FIRSTBORN.—1. The dedication of the firstborn of men and beasts was probably a primitive nomadic custom, and therefore earlier than the offering of first-fruits, which could not arise until the Israelites had settled into agricultural life in Canaan. The origin of the belief that a peculiar value attached to the firstborn cannot be definitely traced; but it would be a natural inference that what was valuable to the parent would be valuable to his God. And thus the word ‘firstborn’ could be used figuratively of Israel as the firstborn of J″ among the nations ( Ex 4:22, cf. Jer 31:9), and the seed of David among dynasties (Ps 89:28). The law of the dedication of the firstborn is found in JE (Ex 13:11–16, 22:29b, 30, 34:19f.), D (Dt 15:19–23), P (Ex 13:1f., Nu 3:11–13, 40–51, 18:15–18). It is not impossible that in very primitive times firstborn sons were sometimes actually sacrificed (cf. 2 K 3:27, Mic 6:7), but the practice would soon grow up of ‘redeeming’ them by money or payments in kind.
2. The firstborn (bekhōr) enjoyed the birthright (bekhōrāh). He succeeded his father as head of the family, and took the largest share of the property; this was fixed in Dt 21:17 as a ‘double portion.’ [In 2 Ch 21:3 the principle of the birthright is extended to the succession to the throne. But this is a late passage, and it is not certain that the firstborn was necessarily the heir apparent]. If a man died without children, the heir was the firstborn of his widow by his brother or next-of-kin ( Dt 25:5–10). The right of the firstborn, however, was often disturbed, owing to the jealousies and quarrels arising from the polygamy practised in Israel. The law in Dt 21:15–17 is directed against the abuse. Reuben, although the son of Leah, the less favoured of Jacob’s two wives, was considered the firstborn, and lost the right only because of his sin (Gn 49:3f., 1 Ch 5:1). But Ishmael was allowed no share at all in the father’s property (Gn 21:10); and the superiority of Jacob over Esau (symbolizing the superiority of Israel over Edom) is described as having been foretold before their birth (25:23), and as brought about by Esau’s voluntary surrender of the birthright (vv. 29–34). And other instances occur of the younger being preferred to the elder, e.g. Ephraim (48:13–20), Solomon (1 K 1), Shimri (1 Ch 26:10).
3. The death of the firstborn was the last of the punishments sent upon Egypt for Pharaoh’s refusal to let the Israelites go. Moses gave him due warning ( Ex 11:4–8), and on his continued refusal the stroke fell (12:29f.). The event is referred to in Ps 78:51, 105:36, 135:8, 136:10, He 11:28. It is probable (see PLAGUES OF EGYPT) that the stories of all the other plagues have been founded on historical occurrences, and that the Egyptians suffered from a series of ‘natural’ catastrophes. If this is true of the first nine, it is reasonable to assume it for the last, and we may suppose that a pestilence raged which created great havoc, but did not spread to the Israelite quarter. The growth of the tradition into its present form must be explained by the ‘ætiological’ interest of the Hebrew writer—the tendency to create idealized situations in a remote past for the purpose of explaining facts or institutions whose origin was forgotten. Thus the Feast of Booths was accounted for at a late date by the dwelling of the Israelites in booths after the Exodus ( Lv 23:43), the Feast of Unleavened Cakes by the haste with which they departed from Egypt (Ex 12:34, 13:7f.), the Feast of the Passover by the passing over of the houses marked with blood at the destruction of the firstborn (12:12f., 23, 27). And similarly the singling out of the firstborn for destruction was itself connected with the ancient practice of offering to God annually in spring the firstlings of beasts. Moses demanded release in order to offer the sacrifice (10:25f.), and because Pharaoh refused to allow them to offer their firstlings, J″ took from the Egyptians their firstborn. This explanation, though not explicitly given, is implied in the close connexion of the dedication of the firstborn with the Passover (13:11–13, Dt 15:19 , 16:1–8). In a redactional passage (Ex 4:22f.) a different explanation is offered. The death of the firstborn would be a punishment for refusal to release Israel, who was J″’s firstborn.
4. In the NT the term ‘firstborn’ (prōtotokos) is used of Christ (Ro 8:29, Col 1:15, 18, He 1:6, Rev 1:5), and of Christians who have died (He 12:23); see the commentaries.
A. H. M‘NEILE. FIRST-FRUITS.—See SACRIFICE AND OFFERING.
FISH would appear to have always been a favourite article of diet among the Hebrews (Nu 11:5 and references in the Gospels), as it is to-day. Fish are found in enormous numbers in all the inland waters of Palestine, and especially in the Lake of Galilee, Lake Huleh, and the ‘meadow lakes’ of Damascus. The extraordinary feature of these fish is the number of species peculiar to the Jordan valley. Out of a total of 43 species found in the region, no fewer than 14 are peculiar to this district. Many of these are quite small. The chief edible fish are members of the Chromides and of the Cyprinidæ (carps). The cat-fish, Clarias macracanthus, not being a scaly fish, cannot be eaten by the Jews (Dt 14:9), though considered a delicacy by the Christians of Damascus. It is thought by some to be the ‘bad fish’ of Mt 13:47 , 48. In NT times fish-curing was extensively carried on at Taricheæ on the Lake of Tiberias. Some of the native fish is still salted to-day. The ‘fish-pools’ of Ca 7:4 and the ‘ponds for fish’ in Is 19:10 are both mistranslations. See also FOOD, § 6.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FITCHES.—1. qetsach (Is 28:25, 27), RVm ‘black cummin,’ the seeds of the aromatic herb Nigella sativa, commonly used to-day in Palestine as a condiment, especially on the top of loaves of bread. The contrast between the staff for the ‘fitches’ and the rod for the cummin is the more instructive when the great similarity of the two seeds is noticed. 2. kussemeth, Ezk 4:9, in AVm and RV ‘spelt,’ and in Ex 9:32, Is 28:25 AV ‘rie’ and RV ‘spelt.’ Spelt (Triticum spelta) is an inferior kind of wheat, the grains of which are peculiarly adherent to the sheath.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FLAG.—1. āchū (Job 8:11), prop. ‘reed-grass’ (cf. Gn 41:2, 18). 2. sūph ( Ex 2:3, 6, Is 19:6), sedgy plants by the Nile and its canals.
FLAGON occurs five times in AV, but in only one of these instances is the tr. retained by RV, namely, Is 22:24, ‘vessels of flagons.’ Here it is perhaps an earthenware bottle. On the other hand, RV introduces ‘flagons’ in two instances where it is not found in AV, namely, Ex 25:39, 37:16. This tr. is probably correct, although RV gives ‘cups’ for the same Heb. word in Nu 4:7. In all these three passages AV has ‘covers.’ In the remaining four instances where AV gives
‘flagons’ (2 S 6:19, 1 Ch 16:3, Hos 3:1, Ca 2:5), the meaning of the Heb. word is a ‘pressed cake … composed of meal, oil, and dibs’ (W. R. Smith, OTJC1 434, n. 7). Hence in 2 S 6:19, 1 Ch 16:3, RV gives ‘cake of raisins’ for AV ‘flagon [of wine],’ in Hos 3:1 ‘cakes of raisins’ for ‘flagons of wine,’ and in Ca 2:5 ‘raisins’ ( RVm
‘cakes of raisins’) for ‘flagons.’
FLAX (pishtah).—The plant Linum usitatissimum, and the prepared fibres used for making linen. It was early cultivated in Palestine (Jos 2:6); the failure of the flax was one of God’s judgments (Hos 2:9). The plant is about two to three feet high, with pretty blue flowers; the flax is said to be ‘bolled’ (Ex 9:31) when the seed vessels reach maturity and the plant is ready for gathering. The stalks were dried on the housetops (Jos 2:6), and then soaked in water and the fibre combed
out (Is 19:9 RV). The ‘tow’ of Is 43:17 is teased-out flax. The oil of the seeds is the well-known linseed oil.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FLEA (par‘ōsh, 1 S 24:14, 26:20).—The common flea, Pulex irritans, is a universal pest in Palestine. Fleas are present in incredible numbers in the dust of caves to which goats resort. RVm has ‘fleas’ for ‘lice’ in Ex 8:16.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FLESH.—This word is used in Scripture to express: (1) the substance of the animal body, whether of man or of beast (Gn 41:2). (2) The whole human body ( Ex 4:7). (3) Relationship by birth or marriage (Gn 2:24, 37:27, Neh 5:5), for which also the further phrase ‘flesh and bones’ is found (Gn 2:23, 2 S 19:12)—a phrase which is also used to describe the reality of the humanity of Jesus after His resurrection (Lk 24:39). (4) The finite earthly creature, in contrast with God and His Spirit (Is 31:3, Gn 7:21)—a use of the term to emphasize man’s frailty and dependence on God (Job 34:15, Is 40:6–8), but without any moral disparagement, as it is applied to the whole human race without reference to its sin (Jl 2:28), and to the human nature of Christ (Jn 1:14, Ro 1:3). We have the equivalent phrase ‘flesh and blood’ in the NT (1 Co 15:50 ||‘corruption,’ He 2:14 = human nature [cf. Jn 1:13]). (5) One element of the nature of man in combination or contrast with the others, such as ‘soul’ (Ps 63:1), ‘heart’ (73:26), ‘soul’ and ‘heart’ (84:2); while it is the lower element, it is recognized even in man’s relation to God (Job 19:26). In the NT ‘flesh’ is, without suggestion or moral defect, either combined or contrasted with ‘spirit’ (Mt 26:41, 1 Co 5:5). As a necessary element in human nature under present conditions, it is in no way condemned (Gal 2:20); the duality is ascribed to Christ Himself (Ro 1:3, 4); and sin is represented as infecting the other elements in man as well as the body (2 Co 7:1, Eph 2:3). (6) The seat and vehicle of sin, as contrasted with the ‘mind’ which approves and serves the law of God (Ro 7:25), and the ‘spirit’ which is the gift of God (Ro 8:4ff., Gal 5:16. A similar use is made of the adjective ‘fleshly’ or ‘carnal,’ in contrast with ‘spiritual’ (Ro 7:14, 1 Co 3:1, Col 2:18). It is to be noted, however, that in this use the ‘flesh’ is not conceived as exclusively material substance, for among the works of the flesh are included idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strifes, jealousies, etc. (Gal 5:20). The explanation usually given of this use of the term ‘flesh’ is that, man having fallen, sin comes by natural inheritance (flesh), whereas goodness is given by supernatural grace (spirit). Whatever be the explanation of the Pauline use, that the term gets a distinctly ethical content, and is used with reference to sin as dwelling in human nature, cannot be denied.
Pfleiderer endeavours to show how from the Hebraic use of the term for creaturely weakness, St. Paul passed to the Hellenic use for moral defect. His conclusion is that ‘from the opposition of physically different substances results the dualism of antagonistic moral principles’ (Paulinism, i. p. 54). The usual explanation of the depravity of human nature is rejected—‘there seems to be no allusion,’ says Usteri, quoted by Pfleiderer (p. 61), ‘in the writings of Paul to a change in the moral nature of man, or of his bodily constitution in consequence of the fall, i.e. of the first actual sin of Adam.’ St. Paul is supposed to leave us with two explanations of the origin of sin. Against the assumption of this dualism Bruce offers the following arguments: (1) It is un-Hebrew, and St. Paul’s culture is Rabbinic rather than Hellenistic; (2) the body is capable of sanctification as well as the spirit (1 Th 5:23, 1 Co 6:19, 20, 2 Co 7:1); (3) the body as well as the soul will be raised from the dead, although it will be changed (1 Co 15:44–50); (4) the Christian salvation is in the present life, and not only after the death of the body (St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, 269 ff.). It may be added that flesh is ascribed to Christ, and St. Paul’s phrase ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Ro 8:3) is intended to deny sinfulness, not a similar body in Christ (see Comm. in loc.).
ALFRED E. GARVIE.
FLESH-HOOK.—The flesh-hook used by the priest’s servant at Shiloh was a three-pronged fork (1 S 2:13), as were probably those of bronze and gold mentioned in connexion with the Tabernacle (Ex 27:3, 38:3) and Temple (1 Ch 28:17, 2 Ch 4:16) respectively.
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FLESHLY, FLESHY.—There is a distinction preserved in the AV between these words. ‘Fleshly’ is that which belongs to the flesh, carnal, as Col 2:18 ‘fleshly mind,’ as opposed to ‘spiritually minded’ (cf. Ro 8:6). ‘Fleshy’ is that which is made of flesh, tender, as 2 Co 3:3 ‘written … not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.’
FLESH POTS (Ex 16:3).—See HOUSE, § 9.
FLINT.—See MINING AND METALS.
FLOCK.—See SHEEP.
FLOOD.—See DELUGE. And notice that the word is used generally for a stream or river, as Is 44:3 ‘I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground’ (RV ‘streams’). Sometimes a particular river is meant, the Euphrates, the Nile, or the Jordan. (1) The Euphrates is referred to in Jos 24:2
(‘your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood,’ RV ‘beyond the River’) 24:14 ,
15, 2 Es 13:44, 1 Mac 7:8. (2) The Nile in Ps 78:44, Am 8:8–9:5, Jer 46:7, 8. (3)
The Jordan in Ps 66:6 (‘they went through the flood on foot’). The word is also frequently used in AV as now, of a torrent, as Ps 69:2 ‘I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me’ (Heb. shibboleth, the word which the Ephraimites pronounced sibboleth).
FLOOR.—Used in AV (a) in the primary sense of a house-floor, and (b) in the secondary sense of a threshing-floor, the Heb. words for which are quite distinct. Under (a) we have the earthen floor of the Tabernacle, Nu 5:17, and the wooden floor of the Temple, 1 K 6:15 (see HOUSE, § 4.) By ‘from floor to floor,’ 7:7 RV, is meant ‘from floor to ceiling,’ a sense implied in the better reading ‘from the floor to the rafters’; cf. 6:15, wherefor ‘walls’ read ‘rafters’ of the ceiling. In Am
9:3 our EV has obscured the figure ‘the floor of the sea.’
(b) Where ‘floor’ occurs in the sense of ‘threshing-floor’ (see AGRICULTURE,
§ 3), the latter has been substituted by RV except in three passages (Gn 50:11, Is 21:10, Jl 2:24). The same word (goren) appears as barnfloor (2 K 6:27, RV ‘threshing-floor’) and cornfloor (Hos 9:1 AV and RV).
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FLOUR.—See BREAD, FOOD, § 2, MILL.
FLOWERS.—1. nizzān, only Ca 2:12. 2. ziz, Is 28:1, 4, 40:6, Job 14:2 , ‘blossoms’ Nu 17:8. 3. nizzah—used of the inconspicuous flowers of vine and olive, Is 18:5, Job 15:33. 4. perach, Ex 25:33, Is 18:5, AV ‘bud,’ RV ‘blossom,’ Nah 1:4. Flowers are one of the attractive features of Palestine: they come in the early spring (Ca 2:12), but fade all too soon, the brilliant display being a matter of but a few short weeks. Hence they are an appropriate symbol of the evanescence of human life (Job 14:2, Ps 103:15 etc.). The ‘lilies of the field’ of Mt 6:28 may have been a comprehensive term for the brilliant and many-coloured anemones, the irises, the gladioli, etc., which lend such enchantment to the hillsides in March and April.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN. FLUTE.—See MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.
FLUX.—The expression ‘a bloody flux’ (1611 ‘bloody-flixe’) is used in AV for Gr. dysenterion (RV ‘dysentery’). This trans. is first found in Wyclif, who offers the alternative ‘dissenterie, or flix.’ See MEDICINE.
FLY.—1. zebūb, Ec 10:1, Is 7:18: also Baal-zebub [wh. see]. 2. ‘arōb, Ex 8:21 etc., the insects of one of the plagues of Egypt, thought by some to have been cockroaches. Flies of many kinds, mosquitoes, ‘sand-files,’ etc., swarm in Palestine and Egypt. In summer any sweet preparation left uncovered is at once defiled by flies falling into it (Ec 10:1). Flies carry ophthalmia and infect food with the micro-organisms of other diseases, e.g. cholera, enteric fever, etc. They frequently deposit their eggs in uncleanly wounds and discharging ears, and these eggs develop into maggots. Special flies, in Africa at any rate, carry the trypanosoma, which produce fatal disease in cattle and ‘sleeping sickness’ in man.
Mosquitoes, which may have been included in the ‘arōb (the ‘swarms of flies’) in Egypt, are now known to be the carriers of the poison of malaria, the greatest scourge of parts of Palestine.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FODDER (belīl, Job 6:5 and Jg 19:21 RV). See PROVENDER.
FOLK.—This Eng. word is used in the NT indefinitely for ‘persons,’ there being no word in the Gr. (Mk 6:5, Jn 5:3, Ac 5:16). But in the OT the word has the definite meaning of nation or people, even Pr 30:26 ‘The conies are but a feeble folk,’ having this meaning. In the metrical version of Ps 100:3, ‘flock’ should be ‘folk,’ corresponding to ‘people’ in the prose version. So the author wrote—
‘The Lord ye know is God in dede With out our aide, he did us make:
We are his folek, he doth us fede,
And for his shepe, he doth us take.’
FOLLOW.—This Eng. verb means now no more than to come after, but in older Eng. it was often equivalent to pursue. Now it states no more than the relative place of two persons, formerly it expressed purpose or determination. Tindale translates Lv 26:17 ‘ye shal flee when no man foloweth you,’ and Dt 28:22 ‘they [the diseases named] shall folowe the, intyll thou perishe.’ In AV to follow is sometimes to imitate, as 2 Th 3:7 ‘For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us.’
FOOD.—This article will deal only with food-stuffs, in other words, with the principal articles of food among the Hebrews in Bible times, the preparation and serving of these being reserved for the complementary article MEALS.
1. The food of a typical Hebrew household in historical times was almost exclusively vegetarian. For all but the very rich the use of meat was confined to some special occasion,—a family festival, the visit of an honoured guest, a sacrificial meal at the local sanctuary, and the like. According to the author of the Priests’ Code, indeed, the food of men and beasts alike was exclusively herbaceous in the period before the Deluge (Gn 1:29f.), permission to eat the flesh of animals, under stipulation as to drawing off the blood, having been first accorded to Noah (9:3ff.). In Isaiah’s vision of the future, when ‘the lion shall eat straw like the ox’ (11:7), a return is contemplated to the idyllic conditions of the first age of all.
The growth of luxury under the monarchy (cf. Am 6:4f. and similar passages) is well illustrated by a comparison of 2 S 17:28f. with 1 K 4:22f. In the former there is brought for the entertainment of David and his followers ‘wheat and barley and meal and parched corn and beans and lentils and parched pulse [see p. 266, § 3] and honey and butter and sheep and cheese of kine’; while, according to the latter passage, Solomon’s daily provision was ‘thirty measures of fine flour and threescore measures of meal; ten fat oxen and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, besides harts and gazelles and roebucks and fatted fowl.’
2. The first place in the list of Hebrew food-stuffs must be given to the various cereals included under the general name of ‘corn’—in Amer. RV always ‘grain’— the two most important of which were wheat and barley. Millet (Ezk 4:9) and spelt (see FITCHES, RIE) are only casually mentioned. The most primitive method of using corn was to pluck the ‘fresh ears’ (Lv 23:14 RV, 2 K 4:42) and remove the husk by rubbing in the hands (Dt 23:25, Mt 12:1 etc.). When bruised in a mortar these ears yielded the ‘bruised corn of the fresh ear’ of Lv 2:14–16 RV. A favourite practice in all periods down to the present day has been to roast the ears on an iron plate or otherwise. The result is the parched corn so frequently mentioned in OT. Parched corn and bread with a light sour wine furnished the midday meal of Boaz’s reapers (Ru 2:14). The chief use, however, to which wheat and barley were put was to supply the household with bread (wh. see). Wheaten and barley ‘meal’ (RV) were prepared in early times by means of the primitive rubbing-stones, which the excavations show to have long survived the introduction of the quern or hand-mill (for references to illustrations of both, see MILL). The ‘fine flour’ of our EV was obtained from the coarser variety by bolting the latter with a fine sieve. Barley bread (Jg 7:13, Jn 6:9, 13) was the usual bread, indeed the principal food, of the poorer classes. (For details of bread-making, see
BREAD.) The obscure word rendered ‘dough’ in Nu 15:20, Neh 10:37, Ezk 44:30 denoted either coarse meal (so RVm) or a sort of porridge made from wheat and barley meal, like the polenta of the Romans.
3. Next in importance to wheat and barley as food-stuffs may be ranked the seeds of various members of the pulse family (Leguminosœ), although only two leguminous plants (lentils and beans) are mentioned by name in OT. The pulse of Dn 1:12, 16 denotes edible herbs generally (so RVm); the ‘parched (pulse)’ of 2 S 17:28, on the other hand, is due to a mistaken rendering of the word for ‘parched corn,’ here repeated by a copyist’s slip. Of red lentils Jacob made his fateful pottage (Gn 25:29ff.), probably a stew in which the lentils were flavoured with onions and other ingredients, as is done at the present day in Syria. Lentils and beans were occasionally ground to make bread (Ezk 4:9).
Next to its fish, the Hebrews in the wilderness looked back wistfully on the
‘cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick’ of Egypt (Nu 11:5), all of them subsequently cultivated by them in Palestine. It is to the agricultural treatises of the Mishna, however, that the student must turn for fuller information regarding the rich supplies available either for a’ dinner of herbs’ (Pr 15:17) alone, or for supplementing a meat diet. At least four varieties of bean, for example, are named, also the chickpea (which the Vulgate substitutes for the ‘parched pulse’ above referred to), various species of chicory and endive—the bitter herbs of the Passover ritual (Ex 12:8)—mustard (Mt 13:31), radish, and many others.
4. Passing now to the ‘food-trees’ (Lv 19:23), we may follow the example of Jotham in his parable (Jg 9:8ff.), and begin with the olive, although, as it happens, the ‘olive berry’ (Ja 3:12 AV) is never expressly mentioned in Scripture as an article of diet. Apart, however, from their extensive use in furnishing oil (wh. see), itself an invaluable aid in the preparation of food, olives were not only eaten in the fresh state, but were at all times preserved for later use by being soaked in brine. Such pickled olives were, and still are, used as a relish with bread by rich and poor alike.
Next to the olive in rank, Jotham’s parable places the fig-tree, whose
‘sweetness’ and ‘good fruit’ it extols (Jg 9:11). The great economic importance of the fig need not be emphasized. From Is 28:4, Jer 24:2 it appears that the ‘first ripe fig,’ i.e. the early fig which appears on last year’s wood, was regarded as a special delicacy. The bulk of the year’s fruit was dried for use out of the season, as was the case also among the Greeks and Romans, by whom dried figs were the most extensively used of all fruits. When pressed in a mould they formed ‘cakes of figs’ (1 S 25:18, 1 Ch 12:40). A fig-cake, it will be remembered, was prescribed by Isaiah as a poultice (EV ‘plaister’) for Hezekiah’s boil (Is 38:21 = 2 K 20:7 RV).
With the fig Hebrew writers constantly associate the grape, the ‘fruit of the vine’ (Mt 26:29 and parallels). Like the former, grapes were not only enjoyed in their natural state, but were also, by exposure to the sun after being gathered, dried into raisins, the ‘dried grapes’ of Nu 6:3. In this form they were better suited for the use of travellers and soldiers (1 S 25:18, 1 Ch 12:40). What precisely is meant by the word rendered ‘raisin-cake,’ ‘cake of raisins,’ by RV (2 S 6:19, Is 16:7 , Hos 3:1; AV wrongly ‘flagon of wine’) is still uncertain. By far the greater part of the produce of the vineyards was used for the manufacture of wine (wh. see). For another economic product of the grape, see HONEY.
Dates are only once mentioned in AV, and that without any justification, as the marginal alternative of ‘honey,’ 2 Ch 31:5; yet Joel includes ‘the palm tree’ in his list of fruit-trees (1:12), and from the Mishna we learn that dates, like the fruits already discussed, were not only eaten as they came from the palm, but were dried in clusters and also pressed into cakes for convenience of transport.
For other less important fruits, such as the pomegranate, the much discussed tappūach—the ‘apple’ of AV, according to others the quince (see APPLE),—the fruit of the sycomore or fig-mulberry, associated with Amos the prophet, and the husks (Lk 15:16), or rather pods of the carob tree, reference must be made to the separate articles. To these there fall to be added here almonds and nuts of more than one variety.
5. As compared with the wide range of foods supplied by the cereals, vegetables, and fruits above mentioned, the supply of flesh-food was confined to such animals and birds as were technically described as ‘clean.’ For this important term, and the principles underlying the distinction between clean and unclean, see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN. The clean animals admitted to the table according to the ‘official’ lists in Lv 11:23, Dt 14:4–20 (conveniently arranged in parallel columns for purposes of comparison in Driver’s Deut. ad loc.), may be ranged under the two categories, domestic animals, which alone were admitted as sacrifice to the ‘table of J″’ (Mal 1:7, 12), and game. The former comprised the two classes of ‘the flock,’ i.e. sheep and goats, and ‘the herd.’
The flesh of the goat, and especially of the’ kid of the goats,’ was more relished by the Hebrews than by the present inhabitants of Palestine, by whom the goat is reared chiefly for its milk. A kid, as less valuable than a well-fleeced lamb, was the most frequent and readiest victim, especially among the poor, a fact which gives point to the complaint of the Elder Son in the parable (Lk 15:29). The original significance of the thrice-repeated injunction against seething a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19 and parallels) is still uncertain.
Regarding the sheep as food, it may be noted that in the case of the fat-tailed breed the tail was forbidden as ordinary food by the Priests’ Code at least, and had to be offered with certain other portions of the fat (see § 10 p. 267) upon the altar (Ex 29:22, Lv 3:9, both RV). Of the neat cattle, the flesh of females as well as of males was eaten, the Hebrews not having that repugnance to cow’s flesh which distinguished the Egyptians of antiquity, as it does the Hindus of to-day. Calves, of course, supplied the daintiest food, and might be taken directly from the herd, as was done by Abraham (Gn 18:7, cf. 1 K 4:23), or specially fattened for the table. The ‘fatted calf’ of Lk 15:23 will be at once recalled, also the ‘fatlings,’ and the ‘stalled,’ i.e. stall-fed, ox (Pr 15:17) of OT. ‘One ox and six choice sheep’ were Nehemiah’s daily portion (Neh 5:18); Solomon’s has been already given (§ 1). From the females of the herd and of the flock (Dt 32:14), especially from the shegoat (Pr 27:27), probably also from the milch-camel (Gn 32:15), came the supply of milk and its preparations, butter and cheese, for which see MILK.
Of the seven species of game mentioned in Dt 14:5, it is evident from 12:15 that the gazelle and the hart were the typical animals of the chase hunted for the sake of their flesh. They are also named along with the roebuck in Solomon’s list, 1 K 4:23. One or more of these, doubtless supplied the venison from which Esau was wont to make the ‘savoury meat’ which his father loved (Gn 25:28, 27:5f.). Among the unclean animals which were taboo to the Hebrews the most interesting are the swine (Lv 11:7, Dt 14:8: cf. Mt 8:30ff. and parallels), the camel, the hare, and the ass (but see 2 K 6:25).
6. In the Deuteronomic list above cited, the permitted and forbidden quadrupeds are followed by this provision regarding fish: ‘These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters, whatsoever hath fins and scales shall ye eat: and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat, it is unclean unto you’ (Dt 14:9f. RV; cf. Lv 11:9– 12). No particular species of fish is named in OT, either as food or otherwise, although no fewer than thirty-six species are said to be found in the Jordan system alone. Yet we may be sure that the fish which the Hebrews enjoyed in Egypt ‘for nought’ (Nu 11:5 RV) had their successors in Canaan. Indeed, it is usual to find in the words of Dt 33:19, ‘they shall suck the abundance of the seas,’ a contemporary reference to the fisheries possessed by the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar. In the days of Nehemiah a considerable trade in cured fish was carried on by Tyrian, i.e. Phœnician, merchants with Jerusalem (Neh 13:16). where a market must have been held at or near the Fish-gate (3:3 etc.). In still later times, as is so abundantly testified by the Gospels and Josephus, the Sea of Galilee was the centre of a great fishing industry. In addition to the demand for fresh fish, a thriving trade was done in the salting and curing of fish for sale throughout the country. The fishes of our Lord’s two miracles of feeding were almost certainly of this kind, fish cleaned, split open, salted, and finally dried in the sun, having been at all times a favourite form of provision for a journey.
7. Regarding the ‘clean’ birds, all of which were allowed as food (Dt 14:11), no definite criterion is prescribed, but a list of prohibited species is given (Lv 11:13– 19, Dt 14:11–18), mostly birds of prey, including the bat. In the ritual of various sacrifices, however, pigeons and turtle doves, and these only, find a place, and are therefore to be reckoned as ‘clean’ for ordinary purposes as well. The early domestication of these birds is shown by the reference to the ‘windows’ of the dovecots in Is 60:8, while the Mishna has much to say regarding various breeds of domestic pigeons, their ‘towers,’ feeding, etc. The ordinary domestic fowl of the present day seems to have been first introduced into Palestine from the East in the Persian period (2 Es 1:30, Mt 23:37, 26:34 and parallels). The fatted fowl for Solomon’s table (1 K 4:23) are generally supposed to be geese, which with poultry and house-pigeons are frequently named in the Mishna. Roast goose was a favourite food of the Egyptians, and has, indeed, been called their national dish.
Among the edible game birds mention is made of the partridge and the quail (see these articles). Most or all of these were probably included in the ‘fowls’ ( lit. birds) which appeared on Nehemiah’s table (5:18). The humble sparrow ( Mt 10:29, Lk 12:6) would have been beneath the dignity of a Persian governor. The eggs of all the clean birds were also important articles of food (Dt 22:6, Is 10:14 , Lk 11:12; Job 6:6 is doubtful, see RVm). Ostrich eggs have recently been found in an early grave at Gezer (PEFSt 1907, 191).
8. Under the head of animal food must also be reckoned the various edible insects enumerated, Lv 11:22f., apparently four species of the locust family ( see LOCUST). Locusts were regarded as delicacies by the Assyrians, formed part of the food of John the Baptist (Mt 3:4, Mk 1:6), and are still eaten by the Arabs. By the latter they are prepared in various ways, one of the commonest being to remove the head, legs, and wings, and to fry the body in samn or clarified butter. Locusts may also be preserved by salting. This is the place, further, to refer to the article HONEY for information regarding that important article of diet.
9. Nothing has as yet been said on the subject of condiments. Salt, the chief of condiments, will be treated separately (see SALT). Of the others it has been said that, ‘before pepper was discovered or came into general use, seeds like cummin, the coriander, etc., naturally played a more important rôle.’ Of these the greyishwhite seeds of the coriander are named in Ex 16:31, Nu 11:7; these are still used in the East as a spice in bread-making and to flavour sweetmeats. Similarly the seeds of the black cummin (Is 28:25 RVm) are sprinkled on bread like caraway seeds among ourselves. For the other condiments, mint, anise, cummin, and rue, see the separate articles. To these may be added mustard, of which the leaves, not the seed, (Mt 13:31), were cut up and used as flavouring. Pepper is first mentioned in the Mishna. The caper-berry (Ec 12:5 RV) was eaten before meals as an appetizer, rather than used as a condiment.
10. Reference has already been made to the restrictions laid upon the Hebrews in the matter of animal food by the all-important distinction between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean,’ as applied not only to quadrupeds, but to fish, birds, and winged
creatures generally. All creatures technically ‘unclean’ were taboo, to use the
modern term (see ABOMINATION, CLEAN AND UNCLEAN). There were other food taboos, however, which require a brief mention here. The chief of these was the absolute prohibition of the blood even of ‘clean’ beasts and birds, which occupies a prominent place in all the stages of the Hebrew dietary legislation ( Dt 12:16, 23, 25, 15:23; Lv 17:10ff. [H], 3:17, 7:26f. [P], etc.). Its antiquity is attested by the incident recorded 1 S 14:32ff. According to P, indeed, it is coeval with the Divine permission to eat animal food (Gn 9:4). All sacrificial animals had therefore to be drained of their blood before any part could be offered to God or man, and so with all animals slaughtered for domestic use only (Dt 12:15f.), and with all game of beast and bird taken in the chase (Lv 17:13).
Closely associated with the above (cf. Lv 3:17) is the taboo imposed upon certain specified portions of the intestinal fat of the three sacrificial species, the ox, the sheep, and the goat (Lv 3:3ff., 7:22ff. etc.), to which, as we have seen, the fat tail of the sheep was added. There was forbidden, further, the flesh of every animal that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21, Lv 17:15), or had been done to death by a beast of prey (Ex 22:31, Lv 17:15); in short, all flesh was rigidly taboo except that of an animal which had been ritually slaughtered as above prescribed. For another curious taboo, see Gn 32:32. The Jews of the present day eat only such meat as has been certified by their own authorities as kosher, i.e. as having been killed in the manner prescribed by Rabbinic law.
The intimate association in early times between flesh-food and sacrifice explains the abhorrence of the Hebrew for all food prepared by the heathen, as illustrated by Daniel (Dn 1:8), Judas Maccabæus (2 Mac 5:27), Josephus (Vita 3) , and their associates (cf. also Ac 15:20, 29, 1 Co 8:1–10, 10:19, 28).
11. A word finally as to the sources of the Hebrew food-supply. Under the simpler conditions of early times the exclusive source of supply was the householder’s own herd (Gn 18:7) or flock (27:9), his vineyard and oliveyard or his ‘garden of herbs’ (1 K 21:2). As the Hebrews became dwellers in cities their food-stuffs naturally became more and more articles of commerce. The bakers, for example, who gave their name to a street in Jerusalem (Jer 37:21), not only fired the dough prepared in private houses, as at the present day, but, doubtless, baked and sold bread to the public, as did their successors in the first and second centuries (see Mishna, passim). An active trade in ‘victuals’ is attested for Nehemiah’s day (13:15f.), when we hear of the ‘fish-gate’ (3:3) and the ‘sheep gate’ (3:1), so named, doubtless, from their respective markets. The disciples were accustomed to buy provisions as they journeyed through the land (Jn 4:8; cf. 13:29); and Corinth, we may be sure, was not the only city of the time that had a provision-market (1 Co 10:25, EV shambles). In Jerusalem, again, cheese was to be bought in the Cheese-makers’ Valley (Tyropœon), and oil at the oil-merchants (Mt 25:9), and so on. In the early morning especially, the streets near the city gates on the north and west, which led to the country, were doubtless then, as now, transformed into market-places, lined with men and women offering for sale the produce of their farms and gardens. Even the outer court of the Temple itself had in our Lord’s day become a ‘house of merchandise’ (Jn 2:16).
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FOOL.—The Heb. language is rich in words which express various kinds of folly. 1. The kesīl is glib of tongue, ‘his mouth is his destruction’ (Pr 18:7; cf. 9:13 , 14:33); in Ec 5:1f. ‘the sacrifice of fools’ is offered by him who is rash with his mouth. But such an one is ‘light-hearted, thoughtless and noisy rather than vicious.’ 2. The sākhāl manifests his folly not in speech, but in action; it was after David had numbered the people that he reproached himself for acting ‘very foolishly’ (2 S 24:10). Consequences prove that fools of this class have blundered in their calculations (Gn 31:28, 1 S 13:13, Is 44:25). 3. The ’evīl is stupid, impatient of reproof, often sullen and quarrelsome. He despises wisdom and instruction (Pr 1:7, cf. 15:5), is soon angry (Pr 12:16, 27:3), and may sometimes be described as sinful (Pr 5:22f., 24:9). 4. The folly of the nābhāl is never mere intellectual deficiency or stupidity; it is a moral fault, sometimes a crime, always a sin. ‘To commit folly’ is a euphemism for gross unchastity (Dt 22:21, Jer 29:23) ; the word is used also of sacrilege (Jos 7:15), of blasphemy (Ps 74:18), as well as of impiety in general (Dt 32:6, Ps 14:1). These words are sometimes employed in a more general sense; to determine the shade of meaning applicable in any passage, a
study of the context is essential. For further details see Kennedy, Hebrew Synonyms, p. 29 ff.
In the NT the Gr. words for ‘fool’ describe him as ‘deficient in understanding’ (Lk 24:25), ‘unwise’ (Eph 5:16), ‘senseless’ (Lk 12:20), ‘unintelligent’ (Ro 1:21). The Gr. word which corresponds to the ‘impious fool’ of the OT is found in Mt 5:22: Raca expresses ‘contempt for a man’s head = you stupid!’ But ‘fool’ (mōre) expresses ‘contempt for his heart and character = you scoundrell’ (Bruce, EGT, in loc.). If mōre were ‘a Hebrew expression of condemnation’ (RVm), it would ‘enjoy the distinction of being the only pure Hebrew word in the Greek Testament’ (Field, Notes on the Translation of NT, p. 3). A ‘pure Hebrew word’ means a word not taken from the LXX and not Aramaic.
J. G. TASKER.
FOOT.—Is 3:18, 18 refers to the ornaments of women’s feet. Most of the metaphorical or figurative usages are connected with the idea of the feet as the lowest part of the body, opposed to the head; hence falling at a man’s feet, as the extreme of reverence or humility, kissing the feet (Lk 7:38), sitting at the feet, as the attitude of the pupil (Lk 10:39, Ac 22:3). The foot was literally placed on the neck of conquered foes (Jos 10:24), as may be seen in Egyptian monuments. Hence ‘under foot’ is used of subjection (Ps 8:6, 1 Co 15:27). In Dt 11:10 the reference is to some system of irrigation in vogue in Egypt, either to the turning of a waterwheel by the foot, or to a method of distributing water from a canal ‘by making or breaking down with the foot the small ridges which regulate its flow’ (Driver, ad loc.). Other usages arise from the feet as stained or defiled in walking. The shaking of dust from the feet (Mt 10:14, Ac 13:51) was the sign of complete rejection; the land was as a heathen land, and its dust unclean. So the sandals were removed as a sign of reverence (Ex 3:5, Jos 5:15; cf. covering the feet, Is 6:2). To remove the sandal was also the sign of the renunciation of a right (Dt 25:9, Ru 4:8). To walk barefoot was the symbol of mourning (2 S 15:30) or slavery (Is 20:2). Jer 2:25 ‘Withhold thy foot from being unshod,’ i.e. do not wear the shoes off your feet in running after strange gods.
Washing the feet stained with the dust of the road was part of the regular duty of hospitality (Gn 18:4, Ex 30:19, 2 S 11:8, Ca 5:3, Lk 7:44). The use of ointment for this purpose was the sign of the penitent’s lavish love (Lk 7:38, Jn 12:3). The washing of the feet at the Last Supper is primarily connected with this custom (Jn 13). Christ ‘the Lord and Master’ assumes the garb and does the work of a slave (13:4). The lesson is not merely one of humility (cf. the dispute in Lk 22:24) , but of ready and self-sacrificing service. An interesting Rabbinic parallel is quoted on Ezk 16:9: ‘Among men the slave washes his master; but with God it is not so.’ Edersheim further sees in the act a substitute for the washing of hands which was part of the Paschal ceremonial; and there may be a reference to the proverb, connected with the Greek mysteries, that a great undertaking must not be entered upon ‘with unwashed feet.’ The service of the Kingdom of heaven (or in particular the crisis of that night) is not to be approached in the spirit of unthinking pride shown in the dispute about precedence (see D. Smith, The Days of His Flesh, p. 440). Besides the lesson of humility, there is also the symbolism of purification. St. Peter, at first protesting, afterwards characteristically accepts this as literal. Christ’s reply takes up the figure of one who has walked from the bath to his host’s house, and needs only to have the dust of his journey removed. Broadly, they are clean by their consecration to Him, but they need continual cleansing from the defilements of daily life. ‘It seems impossible not to see in the word “bathed” a foreshadowing of the idea of Christian baptism’ (Westcott, ad loc.). The same or other commentaries should be consulted for later imitations of the ceremony (cf. 1 Ti 5:10).
C. W. EMMET.
FOOTMAN.—This word is used in two different senses: 1. A foot-soldier, always in plur. ‘footmen,’ foot-soldiers, infantry. Footmen probably composed the whole of the Isr. forces (1 S 4:10, 15:4) before the time of David. 2. A runner on foot: 1 S 22:17 (AVm ‘or guard, Heb. runners’; RV ‘guard,’ RVm ‘Heb. runners’). ‘Runners’ would be the literal, and at the same time the most appropriate, rendering. The king had a body of runners about him, not so much to guard his person as to run his errands and do his bidding. They formed a recognized part of the royal state (1 S 8:11, 2 S 15:1); they served as executioners (1 S 22:17, 2 K 10:25); and, accompanying the king or his general into battle, they brought back official tidings of its progress or event (2 S 18:18). In Jer 12:5 both the Heb. and the Eng. (footmen) seem to be used in the more general sense of racers on foot.
FOOTSTOOL.—See HOUSE, § 8.
FORBEARANCE.—See LONGSUFFERING.
FORD.—Of the numerous ‘fords’ or passages of the Jordan, two in ancient times were of chief importance: that opposite Jericho near Gilgal (Jos 2:7, Jg 3:28) , and that at Bethabara (mod. ‘Abarah), at the junction of the Jalud (which drains the Jezreel valley) and the Jordan. Bridges are now used in crossing the Jordan. In 2 S 15:28, 17:18 the AV has ‘plain’ for ‘fords,’ and in Jg 12:5, 6 ‘passages.’ Other fords were those of the Jabbok (Gn 32:22) and the Arnon (Is 16:2).
G. L. ROBINSON.
FOREHEAD.—In Jer 3:3 a whore’s forehead is a type of shamelessness; in Ezk 3:8, 8 the forehead stands for obstinacy. In 9:4 the righteous receive a mark, probably the letter Taw, on their forehead. Hence the symbolism in Rev 7:3, etc., where the mark is the Divine signet. It is doubtful what is the mark of the beast (Rev 13:15); see Swete, ad loc. 17:5 is a probable allusion to a custom of Roman harlots. Shaving the forehead in sign of mourning is forbidden (Dt 14:1). For Ezk 16:12, see RV. See also MARKS.
C. W. EMMET.
FOREIGNER.—See NATIONS, STRANGER.
FOREKNOWLEDGE.—See PREDESTINATION.
FORERUNNER.—The English word gives the exact sense of the Greek prodromos, which, in its classical usage, signifies ‘one who goes before’; it may be as a scout to reconnoitre, or as a herald to announce the coming of the king and to make ready the way for the royal journey.
1. John the Baptist was our Lord’s ‘forerunner.’ The word is never applied to him in the NT, but he was the ‘messenger’ sent ‘before the face’ of the Lord ‘to prepare his way’ (Mt 11:10, Mk 1:2, Lk 7:27; cf. Mal 3:1), and to exhort others to ‘make his paths straight’ (Mk 1:2; cf. Is 40:3 ff. ).
2. Only in He 6:20 is the word ‘forerunner’ found in the EV (Wyclif ‘the bifor goer,’ Rheims ‘the precursor’). Instead of the AV ‘whither the forerunner has for us entered, even Jesus,’ the RV rightly renders: ‘whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us.’ The change is important. To the readers of this Epistle it would be a startling announcement that Jesus had entered the Holy of Holies as a forerunner. Thither the Jewish high priest, one day in the year, went alone ( He 9:7). He was the people’s representative, but he was not their forerunner, for none might dare to follow him. The key-note of the Epistle is that all believers have access with boldness to the presence of the Most Holy God ‘in the blood of Jesus’; they have this boldness because their High Priest has inaugurated for them a fresh and living way (10:19ff.). Already within the veil hope enters with assurance, for Jesus has ‘gone that we may follow too.’ As the Forerunner of His redeemed He has inaugurated their entrance, He makes intercession for them, and He is preparing for them a place (Jn 14:2). Commenting on the significance of this ‘one word,’ Dr. A. B. Bruce says that it ‘expresses the whole essential difference between the Christian and the Levitical religion—between the religion that brings men nigh to God, and the religion that kept or left men standing afar off’ (Expositor, III. vii. [1888], p. 167 f.).
J. G. TASKER.
FOREST.—1. ya‘ar (root meaning a ‘rugged’ place), Dt 19:5, 2 K 2:24, Jer 46:23, Mic 3:12 etc. 2. horesh, 2 Ch 27:4 etc.; tr. ‘wood,’ 1 S 23:15 (perhaps a proper name). 3. pardēs, Neh 2:3 AV ‘king’s forest,’ RVm ‘park’; also tr. ‘orchards,’ Ca 4:13, Ec 2:5, RV ‘parks.’ From the many references it is clear that Palestine had more extensive forests in ancient times than to-day,—indeed, within living memory there has been a vast destruction of trees for fuel. Considerable patches of woodland still exist, e.g. on Tabor and Carmel, in parts of N. Galilee, around Banias, and specially in Gilead between es-Salt and the Jabbok.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FORGETFULNESS.—Ps 88:12 ‘Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?’ The meaning is general, as Coverdale ‘the londe where all thinges are forgotten,’ but probably more passive than active, that the person is forgotten rather than that he forgets. So Wis 17:3; but in Wis 14:26, 16:11, Sir 11:25 the word expresses the tendency to forget.
FORGIVENESS.—Like many other words employed to convey ideas connected with the relations of God and man, this covers a variety of thoughts. In both OT and NT we have evidences of a more elastic vocabulary than the EV would lead us to suppose. 1. The OT has at least three different words all tr.
‘forgiveness’ or ‘pardon,’ referring either to God’s actions with regard to men ( cf.
Ex 34:7, Ps 86:5, Neh 9:17) or to forgiveness extended to men by each other ( cf. Gn 50:17, 1 S 25:28). At a very early period of human, or at least of Jewish, history, some sense of the need of forgiveness by God seems to have been felt. This will be especially evident if the words of despairing complaint put into the mouth of Caln be tr. literally (see Driver, The Book of Genesis, on 4:13, cf. RVm). The power to forgive came to be looked on as inherent in God, who not only possessed the authority, but loved thus to exhibit His mercy (Dn 9:9, Neh 9:17, Jer
36:3). In order, however, to obtain this gift, a corresponding condition of humiliation and repentance on man’s part had to be fulfilled (2 Ch 7:14, Ps 86:5) , and without a conscious determination of the transgressor to amend and turn towards his God, no hope of pardon was held out (Jos 24:19, 2 K 24:4, Jer 5:1, 7). On the other hand, as soon as men acknowledged their errors, and asked God to forgive, no limit was set to His love in this respect (1 K 8:36, 50, Ps 103:3; cf. Dt 30:1–10). Nor could this condition be regarded as unreasonable, for holiness, the essential characteristic of the Divine nature, demanded an answering correspondence on the part of man made in God’s image. Without this correspondence forgiveness was rendered impossible, and that, so to speak, automatically (cf. Lv 19:2, Jos 24:19; see Nu 14:18, Job 10:14, Nah 1:3).
According to the Levitical code, when wrong was done between man and man, the first requlsite in order to Divine pardon was restitution, which had to be followed up by a service of atonement (Lv 6:2–7). Even in the case of sins of ignorance, repentance and its outward expression in sacrifice had to precede forgiveness (Lv 4:13ff., Nu 15:23ff. etc.). Here the educative influence of the Law must have been powerful, inculcating as it did at once the transcendent holiness of God and the need of a similar holiness on the part of His people (Lv 11:44). Thus the Pauline saying, ‘The law hath been our tutor to bring us to Christ’ (Gal 3:24), is profoundly true, and the great priestly services of the Temple, with the solemn and ornate ritual, must have given glimpses of the approach by which men could feel their way and obtain the help indispensable for the needs adumbrated by the demands of the Mosaic institutions. The burden of the prophetic exhortations, ‘Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?’ (Ezk 33:11; cf. Is 44:22, Jer 35:15, 18:11, Hos 14:1, Jl 2:13 etc.), would be meaningless if the power to obey were withheld, or the way kept hidden. Indeed, these preachers of moral righteousness did not hesitate to emphasize the converse side of this truth in dwelling on the ‘repentance’ of God and His returning to His afflicted but repentant people (Jon 3:9, Mal 3:7 etc.). The resultant effect of this mutual approach was the restoration to Divine favour, of those who had been alienated, by the free act of forgiveness on the part of God ( Ps 85:4, Is 55:7, 59:20, Jer 13:17, 24 etc.).
2. We are thus not surprised to learn that belief in the forgiveness of sins was a cardinal article of the Jewish faith in the time of Jesus (Mk 2:7 = Lk 5:21, cf. Is 43:25). Nor was the teaching of Jesus in any instance out of line with the national belief, for, according to His words, the source of all pardon was His Father ( Mk 11:25f., Mt 6:14f.; cf. His appeal on the cross, ‘Father, forgive them,’ Lk 23:34). It is true that ‘the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins’ (Mk 2:10 = Mt 9:6 = Lk 5:24), but the form of the expression shows that Jesus was laying claim to a delegated authority (cf. Lk 7:43, where, as in the case of the palsied man, the words are declaratory rather than absolute; see Plummer, ICC, in loc.). This is more clearly seen by a reference to NT epistolary literature, where again and again forgiveness and restoration are spoken of as mediated ‘in’ or ‘through’ Christ ( Eph 4:32, Col 2:12ff., 1 P 5:10; cf. Eph 1:7, Rev 1:5, 1 Jn 2:12 etc.). Here, as in OT, only more insistently dwelt on, the consciousness of guilt and of the need of personal holiness is the first step on the road to God’s forgiveness (1 Jn 1:9, cf. Ps 32:5, 51:3 etc.); and the open acknowledgment of these feelings is looked on as the natural outcome of their existence (Ac 19:18; cf. Ro 10:10, 1 Jn 1:9). The hopelessness which at times seemed to have settled down on Jesus, when confronted by Pharisaic opposition, was the result of the moral and spiritual blindness of the religious teachers to their real position (Jn 9:40f.).
3. Again, following along the line we have traced in the OT, only more definitely and specifically emphasized, the NT writers affirm the necessity for a moral likeness between God and man (cf. Mt 5:48). It is in this region, perhaps, that the most striking development is to be seen. Without exhibiting, in their relations to each other, the Divine spirit of forgiveness, men need never hope to experience God’s pardon for themselves. This, we are inclined to think, is the most striking feature in the ethical creations of Jesus’ teaching. By almost every method of instruction, from incidental postulate (Mt 6:12=Lk 11:4, Mk 11:25) to deliberate statement (Mt 18:21ff., 6:15, Mk 11:25, Lk 17:4) and elaborate parable (Mt 18:23– 35), He sought to attune the minds of His hearers to this high and difficult note of the Christian spirit (cf. Col 3:13, 1 Jn 4:11). Once more, Jesus definitely asserts the limitation to which the pardon and mercy even of God are subjected. Whatever may be the precise meaning attaching to the words ‘an eternal sin’ (Mk 3:29), it is plain that some definite border-line is referred to as the line of demarcation between those who may hope for this evidence of God’s love and those who are outside its scope (Mt 12:32). See art. SIN, III. 1.
4. We have lastly to consider the words, recorded only by St. John, of the risen Jesus to His assembled disciples (Jn 20:23). It is remarkable that this is the only place in the Fourth Gospel where the word tr. ‘forgive’ (RV) occurs, and we must not forget that the incident of conferring the power of absolution on the body of believers, as they were gathered together, is peculiar to this writer. At the same time, it is instructive to remember that nowhere is St. John much concerned with a simple narrative of events as such; he seems to be engaged rather in choosing those facts which he can subordinate to his teaching purposes. The choice, then, of this circumstance must have been intentional, as having a particular significance, and when the immediately preceding context is read, it is seen that the peculiar power transmitted is consequent upon the gift of the Holy Spirit. On two other occasions somewhat similar powers were promised, once personally to St. Peter as the great representative of that complete faith in the Incarnation of which the Church is the guardian in the world (Mt 16:19), and once to the Church in its corporate capacity as the final judge of the terms of fellowship for each of its members (Mt 18:18). In both these instances the words used by Jesus with regard to this spiritual power differ from those found in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, and the latter is seen to be more definite, profound, and far-reaching in its scope than the former. The abiding presence of the living Spirit in the Church is the sure guarantee that her powers in judging spiritual things are inherent in her (cf. 1 Co 2:12–15) as the Body of Christ. Henceforth she carries in her bosom the authority so emphatically claimed by her Lord, to declare the wondrous fact of Divine forgiveness ( Ac 13:38) and to set forth the conditions upon which it ultimately rests (see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, in loc.). Closely connected with the exercise of this Divinely given authority is the rite of Baptism, conditioned by repentance and issuing in ‘the remission of sins’ (Ac 2:38). It is the initial act in virtue of which the Church claims to rule, guide, and upbuild the life of her members. It is symbolic, as was John’s baptism, of a ‘death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness’ ( Mk 1:4=Lk 3:3; cf. Ro 6:4, Col 2:12). It is more than symbolic, for by it, as by a visible channel, the living and active Spirit of God is conveyed to the soul, where the fruition of the promised forgiveness is seen in the fulness of the Christian life ( Ac 2:38, cf. 10:43, 47, 19:5f.).
5. On more than one occasion St. Paul speaks of the forgiveness of sins as constituting the redemption of the human race effected by the death of Christ (‘through his blood’ Eph 1:7, cf. Col 1:14); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes this aspect of the atoning work of Jesus by showing its harmony with all with which previous revelation had made us familiar, for ‘apart from shedding of blood there is no remission’ (9:22). The same writer, moreover, asserts that once this object has been accomplished, nothing further remains to be done, as ‘there is no more offering for sin’ (10:18) than that which the ‘blood of Jesus’ (10:19) has accomplished. The triumphant cry of the Crucified, ‘It is finished’ (Jn 19:30), is for this writer the guarantee not only that ‘the Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted’ (Dale, The Atonement, p. 430 f.); it is also the assurance that forgiveness of sin is the goal of the life and death of Him whose first words from the cross breathed a prayer for the forgiveness of His tormentors.
J. R. WILLIS.
FORNICATION.—See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3.
FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT.—At the date of the Hebrew
invasion of Canaan its inhabitants were found to be in possession of ‘cities great and fenced up to heaven’ (Dt 9:1; cf. Nu 13:28, Jos 14:12), most of them, as is now known, with a history of many centuries behind them. The inhabited places, then as always, were of two classes, walled and unwalled (Dt 3:5), the latter comprising the country villages, the former the very numerous ‘cities,’ which though small in area were ‘fenced,’ i.e. fortified (the modern term everywhere adopted by Amer. RV), ‘with high walls, gates, and bars.’ In this article it is proposed to indicate the nature of the walls by which these cities were fenced in OT times, and of the fortresses or ‘strong holds’ so frequently mentioned in Hebrew history, and finally, to describe the methods of attack and defence adopted by the Hebrews and their contemporaries.
1. The earliest fortification yet discovered in Palestine is that erected, it may be, as far back as B.C. 4000 by the neolithic cave-dwellers of Gezer. This consisted of a simple bank of earth, between six and seven feet in height, the inside face of which is vertical, the outside sloping, and both cased with random stones (PEFSt, 1903, 113, with section plan 116; 1904, 200; for date see 1905, 29). A similar ‘earth rampart’ was found at Tell el-Hesy, the ancient Lachish.
The Semitic invaders, who appeared in Canaan about the middle of the third millennium, were able with their tools of bronze to carry the art of fortification far beyond this primitive stage. Their cities were planted for the most part on an outlying spur of a mountain range, or on a more or less isolated eminence or tell. In either case the steep rock-faces of nature’s building may be said to have been the city’s first line of defence. The walls, of crude brick or stone, with which art supplemented nature, followed the contours of the ridge, the rock itself being frequently cut away to form artificial scarps, on the top of which the city wall was built. Consequently the walls were not required to be of uniform height throughout the enceinte, being lowest where the rock scarp was steepest, and highest on that side of the city from which approach was easiest and attack most to be feared. In the latter case, as at Jerusalem, which was assailable only from the north, it was usual to strengthen the defences by a wide and deep trench. Where, on the other hand, the city was perched upon an elevated tell, as at Gezer, Lachish, and in the Shephēlah generally, a trench was not required.
The recent excavations in Palestine have shown that the fortifications of Canaanite and Hebrew cities were built, like their houses, of sun-dried bricks, or of stone, or of both combined. When brick was the chief material it was usual to begin with one or more foundation courses of stone as a protection against damp. After the introduction of the hattering-ram (§ 6) it was necessary to increase the resistance of brick walls by a revetment or facing of stone, or less frequently of kiln-burnt bricks, more especially in the lower part of the wall. At Tell el-Hesy or Lachish the lower face of the north wall ‘had been preserved by a strengthening wall on the outside, consisting of large rough stones in a parallel line about three feet away, with the intervening space filled in with pebbles’ (Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, 29). At Tell es-Safi, again—perhaps the ancient Gath—the lower part of the city wall ‘shows external and internal facings of rubble with a packing of earth and small field stones,’ while the upper part had been built of large mud bricks (Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine, 30—to be cited in the sequel as BM. Exc. In this work will be found detailed descriptions, with plans and illustrations, of the walls of the various cities of Southern Palestine excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1898–1900).
The treatment of the stone used for fortifications and other masonry of importance varied considerably in the successive periods, gradually advancing from that of the imposing but primitive ‘cyclopean’ walls characteristic of the early architecture of the Levant, to the carefully dressed stones with drafted margins, laid in perfect courses, of the Herodian period. There was also a great variety in the size of the stones employed. Some of those still in situ in the wall of the Temple enclosure at Jerusalem are ‘over 30 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 31/2 feet high, weighing over 80 tons’ (Warren), and even these are exceeded by the colossal stones, over 60 feet in length, still to be seen in the temple wall at Baalbek.
2. The thickness of the walls varied from city to city, and even in the same city, being to a certain extent dependent on the required height at any given point. The outer wall of Gezer, of date cir. B.C. 1500, was 14 feet in thickness. At one period the north wall of Lachish was ‘at least 17 feet thick,’ while a thickness of 28 ft. is reached by a wall which is regarded as the oldest fortification of Megiddo. The foot of this wall, according to a well-known practice, was protected by a glacis of beaten earth.
To increase the strength of a wall, the earliest builders were content to add to its thickness by means of buttresses, which, by increasing the projection, gradually pass into towers. The latter were indispensable at the corners of walls (cf. 2 Ch 26:15, Zeph 1:16, both RVm; see the plans of the walls and towers of Tell Zakariya etc. in BM. Exc.). Besides strengthening the wall, the projecting towers were of the first importance as enabling the defenders to command the portion of the walls, technically the ‘curtain,’ between them.
Col. Billerbeck, a recognized authority on ancient fortifications, has shown that the length of the curtain between the towers was determined by the effective range of the bows and slings of the period, which he estimates at 30 metres, say, 100 feet
(Der Festungsbau im Alten Orient, 4f.). This estimate receives a striking confirmation from the earlier of the two walls of Gezer, of date cir. B.C. 2900. This wall is provided with ‘long narrow towers, of small projection, at intervals of
90 feet,’ which is precisely the distance between the towers of Sargon’s city at Khorsabad. The most famous towers in later Hebrew history are the three ‘royal towers’ of Herod’s Jerusalem—Hippicus, Phasaelus, and Mariamne.
3. The height of the fortifications, as we have seen, varied with the nature of the site. The minimum height, according to Billerbeck (op. cit. 6), was about 30 feet, this being the maximum length of the ancient scaling-ladders. No Canaanite city wall, however, has yet been found intact, and we can only calculate roughly from the breadth what the height may have been in any particular case. The former, according to the authority just quoted, had for reasons of stability to be from onethird to two-thirds of the height. From the numerous representations of city walls on the Assyrian sculptures, and from other sources, we know that the walls were furnished with a breastwork or battlements, generally crenellated—probably the pinnacles of Is 54:12 RV. The towers in particular were provided with projecting battlements supported on corbels springing from the wall.
When the site was strongly protected by nature, a single wall sufficed; otherwise it was necessary to have an outer wall, which was of less height than the main wall. This is the chēl frequently mentioned in OT, generally rendered rampart (1 K 21:23) or bulwark) Is 26:1). At Tell Sandahannah—probably the ancient Mareshah—were found two walls of the same period, the outer being in some places 15 feet in advance of the inner (BM. Exc. 54). It was on a similar outer wall (chēl) that the ‘wise woman of Abel of Beth-maacah’ held parley with Joab (2 S 20:15; for the reading see Cent. Bible, in loc.). Jerusalem, as is well known, was latterly ‘fenced’ on the N. and N. W. by three independent walls ( see JERUSALEM).
4. In addition to its walls, every ancient city of importance possessed a strongly fortified place, corresponding to the acropolis of Greek cities, which served as a refuge from, and a last defence against, the enemy when the city itself had been stormed (cf. Jg 9:51). Such was the ‘strong tower’ of Thebez (Jg. loc. cit.), the castle in Tirzah (1 K 16:18 RV), and the tower of Jezreel (2 K 9:17). The most frequent designation in EV, however, is hold or strong hold, as the ‘strong hold’ of Zion (2 S 5:7), the acropolis of the Jebusite city, which AV in 5:9 terms ‘the fort,’ and in 1 Ch 11:5 ‘the castle of Zion.’ In the later struggles with the Syrians and Romans, respectively, two Jerusalem forts played an important part: the citadel (RV) of 1 Mac 1:32, 3:45 etc. (in the original the Acra, built by Antiochus IV.); and the castle of Antonia, on the site of the earlier ‘castle’ of Nehemiah’s day (Neh 2:8, 7:2 RV), and itself the ‘castle’ of Ac 21:34, 22:24 etc.
Apart from these citadels there is frequent mention in OT of fortresses in the modern sense of the word,—that is, strong places specially designed to protect the frontier, and to command the roads and passes by which the country might be invaded. Such were most of the places built, i.e. fortified, by Solomon (1 K 9:15 , 17f.), the ‘strong holds’ fortified and provisioned by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:11), the ‘castles and towers’ built by Jotham (27:4), and many more. A smaller isolated fort was named ‘the tower of the watchmen’ (2 K 17:9, 18:8). Among the more famous fortresses of later times may be named as types: the Idumæan fortress of Bethsura, conspicuous in the Maccabæan struggle; Jotapata, the fortress in Galilee associated with the name of the historian Josephus; Machærus, said by Pliny to have been the strongest place in Palestine, next to Jerusalem; and Masada, the scene of the Jews’ last stand against the Romans.
While there is Egyptian evidence for the existence of fortresses in Southern
Palestine or the neighbourhood as early as B.C. 3600, and while a statue of Gudea (cir. B.C. 3000), with the tracing of an elaborate fortress, shows that the early Babylonians were expert fortress builders, the oldest actual remains of a Canaanite fortress are those discovered by Schumacher on the site of Megiddo in 1904, and dated by him between B.C. 2500 and 2000. Its most interesting feature is a fosse 8 ft. wide and from 6 to 10 ft. deep, with a counter-scarp lined with stone. At the neighbouring Taanach Dr. Sellin laid bare several forts, among them the now famous ‘castle of Ishtar-Washshur,’ in which was found ‘the first Palestinian library yet discovered,’ in the shape of a series of cuneiform tablets containing this prince’s correspondence with neighbouring chiefs.
It is impossible within the limits of this article to give details of those interesting buildings. The student is referred to Sellin’s Tell Ta‘anek in vol. 50 (1904), and his Nachless in vol. 52 (1905), of the Denkschriften of the Vienna Academy. An excellent résumé, with plans and photographs, both of the Taanach and the Megiddo fortresses, is given by Father Vincent in his Canaan d’après l’exploration récente, pp. 47–65. More easily accessible to the ordinary student is the detailed account, with measurements and plans, of the citadel of Tell Zakariya—perhaps the ancient Azekah fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:9, cf. Jer 34:7)—given by Bliss and Macalister in their Excavations, etc., pp. 14–23, and plates 2–5.
5. No mention has as yet been made of an important element in the line of a city’s defences, namely, the gates. These were as few as possible, as being the weakest part of the defence, and for the same reason the strongest towers are found on either side of the gates (cf. 2 Ch 26:9). The most effective arrangement was to make the gateway a passage through a single gate-tower, which projected beyond both the outer and inner faces of the wall. In such cases two gates were provided, an outer and an inner, at either end of the passage, as was the case at Mahanaim, where David is found sitting ‘between the two gates’ (2 S 18:24). Here we further learn that it was usual to have a stair leading up to an upper storey in the gatetower (v. 33), the roof of which was apparently on a level with the top of the city wall (v. 24). In place of a straight passageway through the tower, a passage bent at a right angle like the letter L increased the possibilities of defence. In most cases the base of the L would be on the inside, towards the city, but in one of the Taanach forts above referred to the outer gate is in the side of an outer tower, and it is the inner gate that is in line with the walls (see restored plan in Vincent, op. cit. 59). The average width of the numerous gateways laid bare by recent excavation is about nine feet.
The gate itself, called the ‘door of the gate’ in Neh 6:1, consisted ordinarily of two parts or leaves (Is 45:1) of wood. For greater security against fire these were often overlaid with bronze, the ‘gates of brass’ of Ps 107:16, Is 45:2. The leaves were hung on pivots which turned in sockets in the sill and lintel, and were fastened by bolts let into the former. A strong bar or bars of wood, bronze (1 K 4:13), or iron (Job 40:18) secured the whole gate, passing transversely into sockets in the gate-posts, as we learn from Samson’s exploit at Gaza (Jg 16:1–3). ‘To have the charge of the gate’ (2 K 7:17) was a military post of honour, as this passage shows. In war time, at least, a sentinel was posted on the roof of the gate-house or tower (2 S 18:24, cf. 2 K 9:17).
6. It remains to deal briefly with the siegecraft of the Hebrews and their contemporaries. A ‘fenced’ or fortified place might be captured in three ways: (a) by assault or storm, (b) by a blockade, or (c) by a regular siege. (a) The first method was most likely to succeed in the case of places of moderate strength, or where treachery was at work (cf. Jg 1:23ff.). The assault was directed against the weakest points of the enceinte, particularly the gates (cf. Is 28:6). Before the Hebrews learned the use of the battering-ram, entrance to an enemy’s city or fortress was obtained by setting fire to the gates (Jg 9:49, 52), and by scaling the walls by means of scaling-ladders, under cover of a deadly shower of arrows and sling-stones. According to 1 Ch 11:6, Joab was the first to scale the walls of the Jebusite fortress of Zion, when David took it by assault. Although scaling-ladders are explicitly mentioned only in 1 Mac 5:30—a prior reference may be found in Pr 21:22—they are familiar objects in the Egyptian representations of sieges from an early date, as well as in the later Assyrian representations, and may be assumed to have been used by the Hebrews from the first. In early times, as is plain from the accounts of the capture of Ai (Jos 8:10ff.) and Shechem (Jg 9:42ff.), a favourite stratagem was to entice the defenders from the city by a pretended flight, and then a force placed in ambush would make a dash for the gate.
(b) The second method was to completely surround the city, and, by preventing ingress and egress, to starve it into surrender. This was evidently the method adopted by Joab at the blockade of Rabbath-ammon, which was forced to capitulate after the capture of the ‘water fort’ (for this rendering see Cent. Bible on 2 S 12:26f.), by which the defenders’ main water-supply was cut off.
(c) In conducting a regular siege, which of course included both blockade and assault, the first step was to ‘cast up a bank’ (AV 2 S 20:15, 2 K 19:32, Is 37:33) or mount (AV Ezk 4:2, 17:17—RV has ‘mount,’ Amer. RV ‘mound’ throughout). This was a mound of earth which was gradually advanced till it reached the walls, and was almost equal to them in height, and from which the besiegers could meet the besieged on more equal terms. The ‘mount’ is first met with in the account of Joab’s siege of Abel of Beth-maacah (2 S 20:15ff.). In EV Joab is represented as, at the same time, ‘battering’ or, in RVm, ‘undermining’ the wall, but the text is here in some disorder. Battering-rams are first mentioned in Ezekiel, and are scarcely to be expected so early as the time of David. The Egyptians used a long pole, with a metal point shaped like a spear-head, which was not swung but worked by hand, and could only be effective, therefore, against walls of crude brick (see illustr. in Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, i. 242).
The battering-engines (Ezk 26:9 RV; AV ‘engines of war’) of the Assyrians were called ‘rams’ by the Hebrews (Ezk 4:2, 21:22), from their butting action, although they were without the familiar ram’s head of the Roman aries. The Assyrian battering-ram ended either in a large spear-head, as with the Egyptians, or in a flat head shod with metal, and was worked under the shelter of large wooden towers mounted on four or six wheels, of which there are many representations in the Assyrian wall sculptures (see illustr. in Toy’s’ Ezekiel,’ SBOT, 102). These towers were sometimes of several storeys, in which archers were stationed, and were moved forward against the walls on the mounds above described.
When Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, his troops are said to have ‘built forts against it round about’ (2 K 25:1, cf. Ezk 4:2), but the original term is obscure, and is rather, probably, to be understood in the sense of a siege-wall or circumvallatio—the ‘bank’ of Lk 19:43 RV—for the purpose of making the blockade effective. On the other hand, the bulwarks of Dt 20:20, also Ec 9:13 , which had to be made of wood other than ‘trees for meat,’ properly denote wooden forts or other siege works (Is 29:3 RV) built for the protection of the besiegers in their efforts to storm or undermine the walls.
7. The Assyrian sculptures give life-like pictures of the various operations of ancient siegecraft. Here we see the massive battering-rams detaching the stones or bricks from an angle of the wall, while the defenders, by means of a grapplingchain, are attempting to drag the ram from its covering tower. There the archers are pouring a heavy fire on the men upon the wall, from behind large rectangular shields or screens of wood or wickerwork, standing on the ground, with a small projecting cover. These are intended by the ‘shield’ of 2 K 19:32, the ‘buckler’ of Ezk 26:8, and the ‘mantelet’ of Nah 2:5, all named in connexion with siege works. In another place the miners are busy undermining the wall with picks, protected by a curved screen of wicker-work supported by a pole (illustr. of both screens in Toy, op. cit. 149; cf. Wilkinson, op. cit. i. 243).
The monuments also show that the Assyrians had machines for casting large stones long before the tormenta, or siege-artillery, are said to have been invented in Sicily in B.C. 399. By the ‘artillery’ of 1 S 20:40 AV is, of course, meant the ordinary bow and arrows; but Uzziah is credited by the Chronicler with having ‘made engines invented by cunning men to be on the towers and upon the battlements to shoot arrows and great stones withal’ (2 Ch 26:15). The Books of the Maccabees show that by the second century, at least, the Jews were not behind their neighbours in the use of the artillery (1 Mac 6:51f. AV) of the period, ‘engines of war and instruments for casting fire and stones, and pieces to cast darts and slings.’ (A detailed description, with illustrations, of these catapultæ and ballistæ, as the Romans termed them, will be found in the art. ‘Tormentum’ in Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antiq.) At the siege of Gezer (such is the best reading, 1 Mac 13:45) Simon is even said to have used effectively a piece of the most formidable siege-artillery then known, the helepolis (lit. ‘city-taker,’ RV ‘engine of siege’), which Titus also employed in the siege of Jerusalem ( for description see ‘Helepolis’ in Smith, op. cit.). In this siege the Jews had 300 pieces for discharging arrows or rather bolts (catapultœ), and 40 pieces for casting stones (ballistœ), according to Josephus, who gives a graphic account of the working of these formidable ‘engines of war’ in his story of the siege of Jotapata (BJ III. vii.
23.)
8. The aim of the besieged was by every artifice in their power to counteract the efforts of the besiegers to scale or to make a breach in the walls (Am 4:3), and in particular to destroy their siege works and artillery. The battering-rams were rendered ineffective by letting down bags of chaff and other fenders from the battlements, or were thrown out of action by grappling-chains, or by having the head broken off by huge stones hurled from above. The mounds supporting the besiegers’ towers were undermined, and the towers themselves and the other engines set on fire (1 Mac 6:15; cf. the ‘fiery darts’ or arrows of Eph 6:16).
In addition to the efforts of the bowmen, slingers, and javelin-throwers, who manned the walls, boiling oil was poured on those attempting to place the scalingladders, or to pass the boarding-bridges from the towers to the battlements. Of all these and many other expedients the Jewish War of Josephus is a familiar répertoire. There, too, will be found the fullest account of the dire distress to which a city might be reduced by a prolonged siege (cf. 2 K 6:25 ff. ).
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FORTUNATUS.—The name of an apparently young member of the household of Stephanas, and a Corinthian. With Stephanas and Achaicus he visited St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Co 16:17); he had probably been baptized by the Apostle himself (1:16). Lightfoot (Clement, i. 29, ii. 187) thinks that he may well have been alive forty years later, and that he may be the Fortunatus mentioned in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians (§ 65). The manner in which the name is there introduced suggests that it belongs to a Corinthian.
A. J. MACLEAN.
FORTUNE.—See GAD (tribe and god).
FOUNDATION.—Great importance was attached to the laying of the foundation. It was accompanied by human sacrifice, as may be seen in the Babylonian records; a possible trace occurs in the story of Hiel (1 K 16:34). Hence the stress on the size and splendour of the foundation, as in Solomon’s Temple (7:9). It is a natural metaphor for the ultimate basis on which a thing rests ( Job
4:19, Ezk 13:14, Lk 6:48). Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps 89:14, 97:2 RV). ‘The city that hath, the foundations’ is the type of the real and eternal (He 11:10). The Apostles themselves are the foundation of the New Jerusalem, formed of all manner of precious stones (Rev 21:14, 19). ‘The Apostolic Church is conditioned through the ages by the preaching and work of the Apostolate’ (Swete, ad loc.; cf. Is 28:16, Mt 16:18, Eph 2:20). In 1 Co 3:10 the metaphor is slightly different, the preaching of Jesus Christ being the one foundation (cf. Is 19:10 RVm, where the word is used of the chief men of the State). In the frequent phrase ‘from the foundation of the world,’ the word is active, meaning ‘founding.’ ‘Foundations’ occurs similarly in a passive sense, the earth being more or less literally conceived of as a huge building resting on pillars etc. (Ps 18:7, 15, 24:2, Is 24:18). In Ps 11:3, 75:3, 82:5, Ezk 30:4, the idea is applied metaphorically to the ‘fundamental’ principles of law and justice on which the moral order rests. In 2 Ch 3:3, Is 6:4, 16:7, Jer 50:15, RV should be followed. In 2 Ch 23:5 the ‘gate of the foundation’ is obscurs; possibly we should read ‘the horse-gate.’ See also HOUSE, § 3.
C. W. EMMET.
FOUNTAIN.—A word applied to living springs of water as contrasted with cisterns (Lv 11:35); specifically of Besr-lahai-roi (Gn 16:7), Elim (Nu 33:8, RV here ‘springs’), Nephtoah (Jos 15:9), and Jezreel (1 S 29:1). The porous chalky limestone of Palestine abounds in good springs of water, which, owing to their importance in a country rainless half the year, were eagerly coveted (Jg 1:15). In many springs the flow of water has been directed and increased by enlarging to tunnels the fissures through which the water trickled; many of these tunnels are of considerable length. Specimens exist at Urtas. Bittir, and other places near Jerusalem.
R. A. S. MACALISTER.
FOWL.—The word ‘fowl’ is used in AV for any kind of bird. The two words ‘bird’ and ‘fowl’ are employed simply for the sake of variety or perhaps to distinguish two different Heb. or Gr. words occurring near one another. Thus Gn 15:10 ‘the birds (Heb. tsippōr) divided he not,’ 15:11 ‘when the fowls (Heb. ‘ayit) came down upon the carcases’; Jer 12:8 ‘the birds round about’ (same Heb. as ‘fowls’ in Gn 15:11), Ps 8:8 ‘the fowl of the air’ (same Heb. as ‘birds’ in Gn 15:10). See BIRD.
FOWLER.—See SNARES.
FOX.—(1) shū·āl, see JACKAL. (2) alōpēx (Gr.), Mt 8:20, Lk 9:58, 13:32. In the NT there is no doubt that the common fox and not the jackal is intended. It is noted in Rabbinical literature and in Palestinian folklore for its cunning and treachery. It burrows in the ground (Lk 9:58). The small Egyptian fox (Vulpes nilotica) is common in S. Palestine, while the Tawny fox (V. flavescens). a larger animal of lighter colour, occurs farther north.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FRANKINCENSE (lebōnāh; Gr. libanos Mt 2:11, Rev 18:13).—Frankincense is in six passages (Is 43:23, 60:6, 66:3, Jer 6:20, 17:26, 41:5) mistranslated in AV ‘incense,’ but correctly in RV. It is a sweet-smelling gum, obtained as a milky exudation from various species of Boswellia, the frankincense tree, an ally of the terebinth. The gum was imported from S. Arabia (Is 60:6, Jer 6:20); it was a constituent of incense (Ex 30:34); it is often associated with myrrh (Ca 3:6, 4:6, Mt 2:11); it was offered with the shewbread (Lv 24:7).
E. W. G. MASTERMAN.
FRAY.—This obsolete Eng. verb is found in Zec 1:21 and 1 Mac 14:12 ( ‘every man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to fray them’); and ‘fray away’ occurs in Dt 28:26, Jer 7:33, Sir 22:20 (‘whoso casteth a stone at the birds frayeth them away’). It is a shortened form of ‘afray,’ of which the ptcp. ‘afraid’ is still in use.
FREE.—In the use of this adj. in the Eng. Bible notice 1 P 2:16 as free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God, that is, free from the Law, yet servants (slaves) to the higher law of love to God. Ps 88:5 ‘free among the dead,’ a difficult passage: the probable meaning of the Heb. is ‘separated from companionship’ or perhaps from Divine protection. Ac 22:28 ‘I was free born,’ that is, as a Roman citizen. 2 Th 3:1 ‘Pray for us that the word of the Lord may have free course’ (Gr. literally ‘May run,’ as AVm and RV): ‘free’ means ‘unhindered’ as in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost, V. ii. 738, ‘For mine own part, I breathe free breath.’ Ps 51:12 ‘uphold me with thy free spirit’ (RVm and Amer. RV ‘willing’): the word means generous, noble, and the reference is to the man’s own spirit (RV ‘with a free spirit’).
FREELY.—The use to observe is when ‘freely’ means ‘gratuitously.’ as Nu 11:5 ‘We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely’ (Vulg. gratis); Mt 10:5 ‘freely ye received, freely give’ (Gr. dōrean, Rhem. ‘gratis’).
FREEWILL.—See PREDESTINATION.
FRINGES.—In Nu 15:37ff. the Hebrews are commanded to ‘make them fringes (Heb. tsītsīth) in the borders [but RVm ‘tassels in the corners’] of their garments throughout their generations.’ The same ordinance, somewhat differently expressed, is found in the earlier legislation of Dt.: ‘Thou shalt make thee fringes (lit., as RVm, ‘twisted threads’) upon the four quarters (RV borders) of thy vesture wherewith thou coverest thyself’ (Dt 22:12). The ‘vesture’ here referred to is the plaid-like upper garment of the Hebrews, as is evident from Ex 22:27, where ‘vesture’ (RV ‘covering’) is defined as the simlah, the upper ‘garment’ (RV) in question, as described under DRESS, § 4 (a).
The ‘fringes’ to be made for this garment, however, are not a continuous fringe round the four sides, like the fringes which are a characteristic feature of Assyrian dress, but, as RVm, tassels of twisted or plaited threads, and are to be fastened to the four corners of the simlah. It was further required ‘that they put upon the fringe of each border a cord of blue’ (Nu 15:38 RV), the precise meaning of which is uncertain. It is usually taken to mean that each tassel was to be attached by means of this cord of blue, or rather of blue-purple, to a corner of the simlah.
That this ordinance was faithfully observed by the Jews of NT times is seen from the references to the tsītsīth or tassel of our Lord’s upper garment, disguised in EV under the ‘hem’ (AV) of Mt 9:20, 14:36, and ‘border’ of Mk 6:56, Lk 8:44. RV has ‘border’ throughout. These tassels are still worn by the Jews, attached to the tallith or prayer-shawl, and to the smaller tallith, in the shape of a chestprotector, now worn as an undergarment, but without the addition of the blue thread. (For the somewhat complicated method by which the tassels are made, the mode of attachment, and the mystical significance assigned to the threads and knots, see Hastings’ DB ii. 69a; for illustration see i. 627a.) In the passage in Nu, it is expressly said that the object of this ordinance was to furnish the Hebrews with a visible reminder of the obligation resting upon them, as J″’s chosen people, to walk in His law and to keep all His commandments. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the practice of wearing such tassels was unknown before the date of the Deuteronomic legislation. On the contrary, the representations of Asiatics on the walls of tombs and other Egyptian monuments show that tasselled garments are of early date in Western Asia (see plate ii b of Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyp. vol. i., where note that the tassels are of blue threads). Hence it is altogether probable that the object of the Hebrew legislation is ‘to make a deeply rooted custom serve a fitting religious purpose’ (G. B. Gray, ‘Numbers’ [ICC], 183f.).
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FROCK.—In the Greek text of Sir 40:4 the poor man’s dress is said to be of unbleached linen, paraphrased in AV as ‘a linen’ and in RV as ‘a hempen frock.’ The Hebrew original has, ‘he that wraps himself in a mantle of hair’ (Smend), for which see DRESS, § 4 (c).
A. R. S. KENNEDY.
FROG.—1. tsephardēa‘, Ex 8:2–14, Ps 78:45, 105:30—one of the plagues of Egypt. 2. batrachos (Gr.), Rev 16:13, 14, a type of uncleanness. The edible frog and the little green tree-frog are both common all over the Holy Land.
E. W. G. MASTERMAN. FRONTLETS.—See ORNAMENTS, 2; PHYLACTERIES.
FROWARD.—‘Froward’ is a dialectic form of ‘fromward’; it is the opposite of ‘toward,’ as we say ‘to and fro’ for ‘to and from.’ Thus its meaning is perverse. The word is used chiefly in Proverbs. In NT it occurs only once, 1 P 2:18, where the Gr. means literally tortuous like the course of a river, and then is applied to conduct that is not straightforward. Frowardly is found in Is 57:17 ‘and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart.’ The Heb. is lit. ‘be walked turning away,’ as AVm. Frowardness occurs only in Pr. (2:14, 6:14, 10:32). Barlowe says ‘Moyses the most faythfull seruaunte of God was partely by their frowardnes debarred fro the plesaunte lande of behest.’
FRUIT.—See FOOD, § 4.
FRYING-PAN—See HOUSE, § 9.
FUEL.—The principal ‘fuel [lit. ‘food’] of fire’ (Is 9:5, 19) in use among the Hebrews was undoubtedly wood, either in its natural state or, among the wealthier classes, as charcoal (see COAL). The trees which furnished the main supply (cf. Is 44:14ff.) probably differed little from those so employed in Syria at the present day, for which see PEFSt., 1891, 118 ff. Among other sources of supply were shrubs and undergrowth of all kinds, including the broom (Ps 120:4 RVm) and the buck-thorn (58:9); also chaff and other refuse of the threshing-floor (Mt 3:12); and withered herbage, the ‘grass’ of Mt 6:30. The use of dried animal dung as fuel, which is universal in the modern East, was apparently not unknown to the Hebrews (cf. Ezk 4:12–15). See further, HOUSE, § 7.
FULLER, FULLER’S FIELD.—See ARTS AND CRAFTS, § 6 and JERUSALEM, I. 4.
FULNESS.—See PLEROMA.
FURLONG.—See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
FURNACE.—EV tr. of kibshān (Gn 19:28, Ex 9:8 etc.), ’ălīl (Ps 12:6), kūr ( Dt 4:20, 1 K 8:51 etc.), ’attūn (Dn 3:8, 11 etc.), which stand for either a brick-kiln or a smelting furnace; and of tannūr, which is better rendered ‘oven’ (see BREAD).
FURNITURE.—In the AV ‘furniture’ is used in the general sense of furnishings, just as Bunyan speaks of ‘soldiers and their furniture’ (Holy War, p. 112). 1. For the details of house furniture, see HOUSE, § 8. In this sense we read also of ‘the furniture of the tabernacle’ (Ex 31:7, Nu 3:8 RV, for AV ‘instruments,’ and elsewhere). For the less appropriate ‘furniture’ of the table of shewbread and of ‘the candlestick’ (Ex 31:8), RV has ‘vessels.’
2. The ‘camel’s furniture’ of Gn 31:34 was a ‘camel-palankeen’ (Oxf. Heb. Lex.
p. 1124), ‘a crated frame, with cushions and carpets inside, and protected by an awning above, fastened to the camel’s saddle’ (Driver, Genesis, in loc.), still used by women travellers in the East.
A. R. S. KENNEDY.